The family's achievements are 'having lots of generational wealth'.

If you are suggesting that having a lot of money growing up, whether or not you have direct access to it, isn't a Very Big Deal, then I will gladly present you an endless body of research that suggests otherwise.

Edit: Just to be totally clear, the biggest determinant in financial success for an individual is their parent's wealth. This isn't an opinion -- This is a well-studied fact. It is of critical importance to understand that the way my mind works is one that is based on evidence and study. I do not sacrifice my research rationale at the alter of bootstraps.

I think I understand now why this type of article hits such a nerve with people like you. The idea of personal responsibility and individual decisions leading to better outcomes is anathema to your politics. You dismiss the achievement of a 16 year old girl fixing up an old car from the scrap yard and put everything down to "generational wealth", apparently not drawing any connection between the family's ethos and parenting and said generational wealth. But you might want to ask yourself if you've gone too far when you attack an article like this which does nothing except offer some guidelines (backed by real experience) which at least millions of parents could consider.

If you think 'millions' of parents have that kind of wealth, you are sorely ill-informed of what the socio-economic state of the country is.

What irks me, like I said before, is that so much of this is attributed to 'individual decisions' and 'responsibility', and no doubt a non-zero amount of one's 'success' is determined by these things, but the political agenda I push is one of rationalism.

Consider this: Imagine a olympic athlete -- This person has been training since a very young age, has had private lessons and has competed all around the nation in top teams. Some would say this person is truly 1 in a million because of the talent they demonstrate, but I ask you, "how many people have the resources to even realize that kind of potential?"

The lessons, the travel, the time parents need to take to ship their kids to these things and competitions. The costs of coaching and training. These things are all very expensive in terms of raw money and time. To say that everyone has access to them, or even 'a lot' people have access to them is mistaken. The truth is, that only families with wealth have access to the kinds of resources that give a person the best chance at being a world class athlete.

This applies to nearly every aspect of life -- Whether it's a sport, or career, or an extracurricular in some other field, if your family has the resources to commit to your success (time, money, connections, 'i know a guy who...), then you are more likely to succeed there.

There is a comic here that explains the idea much better than I ever could:

http://www.upworthy.com/a-short-comic-gives-the-simplest-mos...

The median household income for white families in the US is $60k. What parts of the article do you think describes activities not possible for the millions of families above that threshold?

The type of success that the author celebrated was things like raising healthy children, having them earn good degrees and start a good career, be financially independent, finding a spouse they deserve etc. Things which millions of parents surely feel is within reach, or even expected (but not guaranteed). It's not about raising an Olympic medalist. Trying to draw that equivalence is just an excuse to dismiss good advice/ideas.

I agree that the Olympics is an elitist sham.

I honestly don't understand where you get the idea from that Tychos post is suggesting anything like this. I don't think the article is all that useful either, but you seem to argue against things that aren't there, using facts nobody has disagreed with (but which aren't the only relevant thing about the story, and don't invalidate it as a discussion topic).