People who grew up with high economic connectedness earn more
Growing up with wealthier or more economically diverse friends is linked to higher adult earnings, according to a cited study, but many commenters question whether the data shows causation or just reflects deeper factors like family background, intelligence, or personality. The exchange contrasts “who you know” and nepotism with hard work and merit, with some arguing that social networks and luck dominate outcomes while others insist effort, conscientiousness, and education still matter a great deal. Broader concerns emerge about fairness, social mobility, and the way elite schools, private education, and civic or professional networking can entrench or challenge hereditary class advantages.
Study validity and article framing
- Several commenters call the study “trash” or oversold, emphasizing that correlation ≠ causation and that “otherwise similar children” is doing heavy statistical lifting.
- Others accept the general direction of the findings but say the blog post is clickbait, exaggerated, and mainly a vehicle to sell a product or “system.”
- Some point out confusion around the “20% income” vs “$27k vs $47k” example; others clarify that these are two different comparisons used to give intuitive scale.
Networks, nepotism, and “who you know”
- Broad agreement that connections matter a lot: jobs via acquaintances, college cohorts, civic volunteering, and “weak ties” are repeatedly cited.
- Some frame this as nepotism/cronyism and see it as corrosive to institutions and meritocracy.
- Others argue it’s often just preferring known, trusted people, not literal relatives, and that creating opportunities for one’s children is a natural and desirable goal.
- There’s concern that these dynamics entrench hereditary classes; elite schools and private education are criticized as amplifiers.
Luck vs hard work / meritocracy
- Many stress that hard work alone is insufficient: success is modeled as “opportunities × success rate,” with connections boosting opportunities.
- Others counter with experiences where hard work, productivity, and being perceived as useful did drive promotions and higher income, at least in certain workplaces.
- Several anecdotes attribute a large share of success (sometimes 70–90%) to a single lucky relationship or chance event, with hard work necessary but not sufficient.
Causation, intelligence, and third variables
- Some argue richer networks may be an effect, not a cause, of traits like intelligence, conscientiousness, or family SES.
- There’s an extended debate over IQ/intelligence as a predictor of life outcomes, heritability, and the limits of existing studies. No consensus emerges; causality is labeled “super uncertain.”
Education, college, and opportunity
- Many see the main value of college as network-building rather than formal learning, with big differences between elite and non-elite schools.
- Others push back, arguing education and knowledge have intrinsic and economic value and that reducing college to networking or income is too narrow.
Fairness, policy, and social structure
- Some argue modern outcomes are heavily birth-linked and that capitalism plus private schooling worsen stratification.
- Others focus on equalizing opportunity (especially early in life) rather than outcomes, while noting that “giving opportunity” is complex and not a guaranteed path to success.