Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 1
    Ether you're twisting too much what I've said. But I can't blame you. Everything I write seems to generate confusion. It's been over 15 years I've noticed that and I still haven't learn how to write properly in any language. Anyway, as for heritage, I'm saying in the sense that someone once made a fortune somehow, then the children of them are rich without doing anything while not allowing anyone else to come in and do it. And by being rich they've got more power and acceptance in society, naturally. Commented Mar 16, 2010 at 18:16
  • @Cawas: If I remember the studies correctly, the third generation of rich people generally ends up being poor, while the third generation of poor people generally ends up being either middle-class or rich. Yes, I know, [citation needed]. I wish I had time to look up references. Commented Mar 16, 2010 at 19:07
  • @mmyers I never agreed with "citation needed", even without google. I like better "do your own research". But directions are always welcomed. I'll look into it, thanks for the comment, it's very insightful. I wasn't thinking in just 1 or 3 generations, tho my reference and parallel was about 1 or 2 generations indeed. Commented Mar 16, 2010 at 19:26
  • But in Stack Overflow, who are the children? There is no inheritance of reputation (either numerical or in the traditional sense). Commented Mar 16, 2010 at 19:35
  • this is going really off-topic, but you're trying to make an analogy whether I wasn't doing one. There are no children, but the effect as a whole is that "first come first serve". In humanity, that'd be through heritage, in SO it isn't. Commented Mar 16, 2010 at 21:08