so get this, i am a 24 year old from middle class suburb who went to a state school, got OK grades but nothing special, graduated with a BA, and about a year after school ended up with a decent start to a career (in a field unrelated to my major) making about 40k a year with a fair amount of growth potential if i play my cards right. compared to most of my peers from town id say im doing pretty well and out of those who went to college id say im somewhere in the middle in terms of immediate career success.
oddly enough, i was watching american psycho and it got me thinking of the "yuppie" culture. these guys were supposed to be mid to late twenties, not too far off from my age, and were insanely successful and wealthy executives. it got me thinking: how does one become so successful so young? i dont mean hypothetically, i mean in reality. my guess is that most of these "yuppies" were born somewhat wealthy or connected in the first place. i come to this conclusion because i dont really know anybody from my town, no matter how smart they were or what school they went to, who has become that successful so early in life. anyobdy ive encountered at this career level are always much older and seemed like they worked hard most of their lives to get there. so it seems as though these young executives are extremely rare and most likely were born into an upscale urban life in the first place. i know this may not always be the case and i do believe that talent, intelligence and hardwork can lead to upward mobility, but this just doesnt seem realistic to me. anybody have any insight into this?
i guess i am asking because it makes me feel like im getting older and thinking "should i be more successful at this point in my life?" or am i on par with most people from my generation (which, i know, seems to extend adolescence like none other before us – though i dont think it is completely our fault, but thats another discussion) ?
Both of your big observations are spot-on: hard work + connections. And having an outgoing personality along with good looks is a plus too (physical appearance matters, despite our social progress…being an attractive white male is statistically more beneficial than any other combination of features.)
Hard work is important. Connections only go so far until real talent has to start keeping up. Like, knowing a McDonalds corporate employee might help you become a location manager, but it won’t get you into regional or corporate positions without having the relevant experience or education as applicable. Business students who are the most driven, who participate in student government and major student organizations, who achieve high grades, who have accumulated experience, and who use their school and community involvement to meet various people, have the best shot at become a wealthy yuppy. Companies definitely do want to snatch up the most talented people.
The major companies that employ these yuppies are willing to pay a lot for the talent that they seek. So a 24 year old doesn’t have to be a top executive to earn a great salary. And it’s not necessarily just business careers that can pay great either. A friend of a friend of mine was earning about $800 a day at age 26 doing some sort of tech consulting for companies like HP.
In a nutshell:
Great talent in demanded fields pays well, and having connections is an easy way into great jobs as long as the person is actually capable of doing it.
For what it’s worth, I think you’re doing just fine. Business is the most popular degree; more students choose that major than any other. So you can imagine how many young recent graduates are out there vs. the number of wealthy 25 year olds. Wealthy yuppies are only one segment of the total yuppy population in any given city; not every young professional is making mad bank, and it’s definitely true that some of them are riding their wealthy parents’ coattails to at least some extent.
Add onto that the still-awful unemplyoment rate, and the fact that you have a promising career in front of you is doubly good compared to other people.
I am surprised that this hasn’t been asked yet on this board (or perhaps it has and I missed it?), but I have been reading with increasing dismay about many leading orchestras going to the wall or in serious trouble.
In the USA, the Honolulu, New Mexico and Syracuse orchestras are no more, the Philadelphia Orchestra has filed for bankruptcy protection, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra has been almost ruined by strikes and many other leading orchestras are in deep financial trouble. In the USA there is no state subsidy for the arts.
In Europe, many smaller German orchestras have disappeared or have merged and in the Netherlands, some of the most prestigious musical organisations are in danger of going bust without their traditional state subsidies (or huge cuts in them). In Europe, state subsidy is normal (to varying degrees) for orchestras.
It seems neither system is working right now, so what’s the answer? Of course, many orchestras would survive on playing the classical pops time after time with freelance players drafted in as necessary (some very major orchestras in the UK have always used freelance rather than contracted musicians), but what service does that give to music? How would living composers get their new works played? How would we get to hear fine music that didn’t draw-in the crowds? Not very ‘creative’, is it?
When times get tough, the arts are always the first target for cuts. Yet orchestras’ budgets are TINY in the great scheme of things. The annual bonus awarded to a top banking executive in the City of London would keep a chamber orchestra in the UK going for about 2 years. How can this be right (don’t think that the money-grabbing banker is going to part with any of his wad to support music – he won’t!)? So, in reality, these swingeing and crippling cuts make very little difference to the national debt whatsoever, yet politicians always focus on orchestras and opera companies first. Could it be that the cynical politicians are relying on the (erroneous) public perception that the arts are a huge drain on the economy? And don’t forget that orchestras put BACK a lot of money into the coffers through taxes and tourism.
So, good people, what’s the way forward?
In Germany, and by extension, to most of the other major continental european countries, this has a definite starting point: Arts and Culture policies after the Great War ( WWI). Music somehow held on during the brief respite until WWII, but afterwards the re-building of cities took precedence over art of any kind. My older colleagues ( now retired or dead) told stories of how the whole city of Aachen contributed to rebuilding the opera house after it too was damaged severely in bombing raids. visitors often paid in coal or foodstuffs.
With the re-establishment of a more-or-less normal standard of living in the late 50s and 60s, Government started neglecting the educational aspects of music and culture. Perhaps because they had grown up without? Perhaps it just didn’t seem relevant enough to the business world.
With the reunion in 1989 to East Germany,( which even most conservative economists say was chivvied along too quickly and unrealistically) many of the "New" german communities found their cultural establishments strapped for the subsidized funds no longer available, and were forced into mergers. From about 150 opera houses and orchestras throughout the country, we are down to about 100 to date, an our nation-wide orchestral union regularly sends out messages to rally around one or another opera theater/orchestra at the edge of existence.
the last couple of years’ economic disaster has taken its toll here as well. Wages are frozen, many perks have been cut, never to return ( dry cleaning for your tuxedo!, string money for the whole string section, fender-bender repairs for brass, reeds for the winds).
Our orchestra just last night taped a piece for the benefit for the colleagues in Holland ( within spitting distance for us)to help out their desperate situation.
More and more orchestras are fishing for sponsors and other private measures. That means more work, mind you, as these groups expect their very own set of concerts for no extra pay, of course.
I think, until music and arts are firmly re-established in a country’s/culture’s educational concept, the whole idea of participation and support will continue to languish. If one thing positive can be said about our global links through the net, it can be this: classical music is also being broadcast more than before. Granted, YouTube doesn’t include some of the treasures that many of you may have at home, but more than the Top 10 is available!
Don’t despair, friends, but continue to make music.