Point 1 - sweeping generalisation - during a recent interview session of the three that actually bothered to turn up (sic!) - the job was given to the person considered to be the most suited - sex, colour or economic status were not on the list. As an employer the consideration is can the person do the job.....but nepotism and unfairness exists - so you are partially correct.
Point 2 - again a sweeping generalisation, however, not totally incorrect. There are plenty of individuals who have become rich because they have got up off their arses and worked for it. Not stolen it or who have sat back and expected it to be given to them on a plate.
There are also those who have inherited it from someone who has worked for it.....or, it could be thought, screwed someone else to get it.
It is also correct to assume that the poor are made poorer due to inflation/ no wage increases/tax increases - however, you do not also need a 50" TV, holidays in the sun, or to have more than someone else to have a happy life - there, that's another sweeping generalisation. It is human nature to want more.
Neither do you have to steal it - which all levels of society are, it seems, equally adept at.
The utopian state of all being equal has floundered due to some wanting to be more equal than others - it will not work.....as ideal as it may sound.
Human nature will confound all efforts to make it.
Go through life with a chip on your shoulder Jack and you may forever be one of the complaining minority.
Get over it - get your A levels and degrees then get out into the big world
Ok point 1, that may be what people say (i dont doubt the study) but not many employers are going to admit to these stereotypes are they??
I also believe its not just a problem with getting a job, its the jobs people feel they can go for. Richer and more advantaged kids naturally get set up in life to get the better jobs, so even if the employers are not being prejudice. I would still guess the majority of let say bankers and lawyers are white middle class and probably male, the employers might not be choosing that stero-type that but, if thats who turn up to the interview then thats what they'll have to chose.
What we are told at school (what area you live defines what school you will go to, and they will probably give you different expectations (and wealthy areas generally have better schools within there catchment area)) determines what we feel able to do, if you've always been told you best expectation is a plumber or mechanic, that probably the best you will do.
So i don't think our problems with inequality is that simple.
Point 2
Think what you wont and there are obviously exceptions to every rule, but i've seen statistics (and sure you'll have seen them as well) of the top %10 have become x richer while the bottom %10 have become x poorer
You can say thats a sweeping generalisation but when the data i can see shows that it does fit most circumstances, i think that a generalisation is an acceptable thing to use.
Im also not trying to say everybody should be equel, i think it has potential to work in
very small groups(i mean below 100 people) but just because something isn't ever going to be ideal doesn't mean you should sit back and let it get worse.
And what you said about me having a chip on my shoulder, i dont mind having it, with out it id feel id fall into the ever-growing group of ignorant people. Everybody has a chip on there shoulder about something, id prefer mine to matter and be about something important!
Dont you think a statement like 'get over it' is a little immature?? if id started of by saying 'there people too get over it', i don't think anybody would have really listened to me. And they'd have been right not to, stand up for what you believe in, if everybody just excepts what others do you will have no control over you're life.
Jack