Success Happy

Are only-children more likely to have higher-paid jobs?

Through my work, I am in contact with a large number of entrepreneurs and have noticed that there seems to be a disproportionate number of them who are only-children. I was wondering if there have been any studies into only-children, specifically detailing their propensity to be entrepreneurial in business, to be successful in arts/music etc. Are they more determined/driven to succeed??

Public Comments

1. I think so, because I saw in a magazine somewhere
2. taht i disagree. most families with many children still do get paid quite high.
3. Well, they would certainly have higher paying jobs than their siblings, now wouldn't they M
4. Probably, because they have more attenion.
5. no but parents who have there kids 4 years apart seem to be smarter
6. not only lonly onlys but first borns are more likely to fail typicaly the third thru nex to last child are the driven type a persona's thats my personal statistical cross section i have observed
7. I think that surveys can be misleading
8. No, competition between siblings drives success. Experience has shown me that siblings will compete to earn attention, acceptance and praise, while only-children have not had to share the spotlight. Whether the pursuits are academic, sports, or otherwise, competitiveness creates "drive" which breeds success. Those friends who were an "only child" were more often doted on, and not as motivated to do things for themselves. The financial ease of having one child is unimportant, as most children will use loans, scholarships and bursaries to open the doors to university. Even well-to-do parents are advised to put money towards retirement rather than funding their child's advanced education. It is known that highly educated parents are having less children and your experience could be based on "coincidence". In that case, your only-children co-workers are not successful because they are only-children, but they are only-children because they are born of educated parents (who now commonly have few children). Being born in a rich environment as provided by educated parents would benefit a child with or without siblings.
9. I'm not sure it's determination/drive as much as opportunities. Throughout their childhood, education and when starting out in life, only children have access to more family money and parental time/attention than they would if they'd had siblings. There's only so much of each to go around. If I had only one child, I could afford to send it to private school and to University (debt-free and, hell, probably with a gap year as well) and then help to get it on the property ladder. But if I instead went on to have another three... well, out of those three things they could all still go to University but they'd have to do it with loans, which'd be a lot harder a decision for them than if it were free. So the same child gets a better start in life as an "only" than as the eldest of four. And you can bet there are studies about the career success of graduates vs non-graduates, private school kids vs state school kids etc. Also, isn't there a correlation between socio-economic status of a couple and the number of children they have?
10. does it matter. will these high-earning retards bother to give half their wages to the thirsty/starving children of africa/asia....Nope didnt think so.
11. I read a time article recently and yes they do. So do first children. They tend to be more successful in general. However, you must also take other things into account. Beginning social economic status, education of the parents, ect.
12. They tend to mature quicker I think and therefore get a better grip on life and how to survive. Many business people and famous people lacked to sibling life and strived to be noticed.
13. no, but oldest children are