From Wikipedia
Harlon L. Dalton, Professor of Law at
Yale University, not only objects to the Horatio Alger myth, but also maintains that it is socially destructive. Dalton explains that the Horatio Alger myth conveys three basic messages, “(1) each of us is judged solely on her or his own merits; (2) we each have a fair opportunity to develop those merits; and (3) Each of them is, to be charitable, problematic. The first message is a variant on the rugged individualism ethos…In this form, the Horatio Alger myth suggests that success in life has nothing to do with pedigree, race, class background, gender, national origin, sexual orientation—in short, with anything beyond our individual control. Those variables may exist, but they play no appreciable role in how our actions are appraised."
[9]
Dalton also believes that the deep appeal of the Horatio Alger myth is that it allows and even pulls people in the direction they want to go. Psychologically, the Horatio Alger myth opens many doors. When the odds are stacked against you, one often has to convince himself that “there is a reason to get up in the morning.”
[9]
The erroneous concept of the Horatio Alger myth is apparent in the non-corporate realm as well, with specific contradiction seen in education.
Education is a means of maintaining class boundaries. Employers use education to determine who to hire, as education is used to select persons who have been socialized into the dominant status culture. Differential achievement in school occurs because of different expectations of administrators, teachers, and parents for students of different socio-economic backgrounds. Instead of mobility, childhood education merely reproduces the current social system. The wage gap between those with college degrees and others is growing. College tuition has increased dramatically and many can no longer afford college, and financial aid options have not kept up with increases in tuition.
Despite Sowell’s insistence that tax brackets tell the real story of income distribution and economic mobility, the increasing wealth disparities between upper-class and working-class Americans confirm that indeed, the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of the U.S. population.
The real median income on has increased steadily since 1947, from $22,000 to just over $50,000 in 2003. Since 1979 then incredibly divergent income patterns have developed between the rich and the poor. There has been an almost negligible growth for the median and 20th percentile, with explosive growth at the top 95th percentile. The increase in income inequality since the 1970s can be described as the middle class squeeze, with the greatest changes in the bottom third and the top third. In the bottom third, income is generally as it was almost 30 years ago. The top 1% of the population have seen their incomes more than double. Among the poorest people, income grew during 1995 and 2004 due to the increase in annual hours worked, but the increase was very small. The opposite is true for the elite. According to Gregory Mantsios, director of Working Education at
CUNY, “the wealthiest 20 percent of the American population holds 85 percent of the total household wealth in the country,” a statistic that does not offer much hope for the remaining percentage of the population.
[10]
The poor are becoming poorer and owing more money. In 1985, the average working-class citizen owed $500, compared to $8,000 today. For the top 5%, wealth (income and assets) has increased from about $500,000 to about $1,000,000. In 2005, the average family had a net worth of $80,000. The poverty level is also much too low for the Horatio Alger myth to be applied in modern society: “a total of 14 percent of the American population – that is, one of every seven – live below the government’s official poverty line (calculated in 1996 at $7,992 for an individual and $16,209 for a family of four)”.
[11]
However, when it comes to the direction of this country, I loose sleep!
