That is exactly my point. What you are talking about is an middle upper class problem not middle class. Perhaps VanSky members will relate better to your troubles.

^^You are confusing rich with elites. Vansky members are rich, but they're not elites.

Elites are well off, not necessarily rich. Elites get to where they are based on a meritocracy not nepotism. The common denominator is that elites are intelligent and well educated and earn their income primarily as a result of that. My SO and I got to where we are based on our own merits. We have nothing in common with VanSky members.

If you were truly elite, you wouldn't be making a yeoman's salary of $300K - you would be managing a Fortune 500 company and have an annual income of several million dollars after commissions, bonuses, and stock options. Besides, with your smarts, you should have been a venture capitalist or an entrepreneur.

I looked at your budget and I can understand some expenses, such as housing, food, and cars, but do you really need to put your kids through private school and American Ivy League post-secondary schools? There's nothing wrong with kids who come out of a school such as Lord Byng and undergrad degrees are worth nothing these days so it doesn't matter where you kids get them so long as they're from a respected North American institution. I work with a guy who went to St. George's and he makes a mere 15K more than me and he's got almost 10 years on me. Now, if you want your kids to become Freemasons, then I suppose you would need to get them into Ivy League schools...

I don't think you are casting your net wide enough. A heart surgeon is certainly an elite and they do not pull in millions of dollars. Many former farmers who are newly minted factory owners in China are entrepreneurs and make millions of dollars a year, but they are not elites.

To be a Fortune 500 CEO, you generally do have to be an elite these days.

I don't really agree with this. Have you heard of legacy admissions? Lots of kids go to the same schools where their parents are alumns.

Good schools open additional opportunities. What one does with those opportunities is up to the individual. Going to a good school is neither a necessary nor sufficient factor of success.

I would argue that your definition of someone who is elite is quite narrow and of course self-serving.

To me, an elite is someone who makes a 1% salary - full stop. It shouldn't matter what 'class' his profession is.

Where did you go to school? Aren't you a UBC product? If you are, then you're living proof of someone who beat the odds and made it big. Wouldn't you want to teach your kids the value of hard work and making it on their own?

And this is awesome at how relevant it is to the subject at hand.

[quote=Tapioca;8008839]I would argue that your definition of someone who is elite is quite narrow and of course self-serving.

To me, an elite is someone who makes a 1% salary - full stop. It shouldn't matter what 'class' his profession is.
[quote]

No, I completely disagree. We have to differentiate between those buffoons that happen upon their fortune and contribute little to humanity. I won't be lumped in with a snooki. Elites act, work and think in different ways. They are your bankers, lawyers, scientists and engineers.

It does take hard work to get accepted to a top 3 US school. Why wouldn't my kids fit the target demographic of those schools?

I do like how the thread derailed. For the sake of debate.

"An elite in political and sociological theory, is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power." For example, military elite, economic elite, and political elite - these are terms that I have seen used in the Globe & Mail and they are discussed frequently into the aforementioned disciplines.