Americans overestimate social mobility in their country • Hacker News Board

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#171

Post by BLKNSLVR » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 3:18 AM UTC

echelon wrote: post #8

America is being attacked by pervasive narratives like this. News rags the whole world over are shitting on us, meanwhile authoritarian regimes are rising to power. It's a narrative dismantling, and we're being played like fools. America is still the best country in the world to start a business and take risks. America still has more freedoms (speech especially) than most of the world. (Side note: The left wants to p…

>Globalism is something that should be reevaluated

The global logistical issues caused by COVID, alongside China's recent belligerence, are seeing to the reversal of a certain amount of globalisation.

>Our capital is being invested into the capabilities of rivals, and it doesn't pay dividends. Americans have been turned into buyers of cheap plastic goods, and we've lost the ability to make our own critical components and wares. Huge mistake, driven in part by these narratives.

This was driven by large US companies seeking profits by offshoring the labour force to where the costs are absolutely minimised. I've believed for a long time that the US willingly and obliviously handed China the keys to the kingdom.

Additionally, the US has managed to dismantle much of the soft-power facade that used to be so well maintained.

There are no "well behaved" countries. Comparison with others is a zero-sum game. Self-analysis is required in order to know how to be better. Denial leads to repeating mistakes.

>Europeans don't give us enough credit. And they're replete with their own crises to always be pointing the finger.

Isn't The Economist a US publication? Looking at the About FAQ, I'm guessing they're US-based since the answer to this question:

Where is your head office?

Contains no reference to a city or country, but a street and a building, thus assuming a fair bit of local knowledge. Such a US trait.

The modern, global version of The Economist was created in “the tower”, as journalists refer to the tallest of the three brutalist concrete buildings that make up the Smithson Plaza (formerly The Economist Plaza) in St James’s Street. Commissioned by The Economist and designed by Alison and Peter Smithson, the tower was our home from 1964 until the summer of 2017, when we moved into the Adelphi, a 1930s art-deco office block on the Embankment.

I'm guessing they're not in Bruges.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#172

Post by endisneigh » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 3:18 AM UTC

pmorici wrote: post #164

endisneigh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Americans overestimate social mobility in their country (economist.com) >> HOW likely is someone to move up the economic ladder? > It's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field. > https://personalfinancedata.com/income-percentile-calculator... >> An income of $100,000 for ages 40 to 100 ranks at the 89.82% good to see evidence the article is correct in…

Why are you citing individual income instead of house hold income? A household income of 100k puts you in the 66th percentile. https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

I cited individual income because that's what the comment I quoted was referring to?

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#173

Post by goodluckchuck » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 3:18 AM UTC

forgotmyoldname wrote: post #91

refurb wrote: post #58

Again, it's highly problematic defining mobility as "moving from bottom quintile to top quintile". - Moving from bottom quintile to 2nd highest is significant mobility and completely ignored in this analysis. - The analysis ignores the fact that the highest quintile in the US is higher in absolute terms than other countries. So moving from bottom to 4th may give more income than bottom to 5th in other countries. - Th…

I mean... that doesn't detract from the problem at all. That just says there's a massive wealth divide and that moving up to the mere top 20% (the group 1 out of 5 people belong to) should be considered a ridiculous proposition unless you're born into it. Why should 1 out of 5 people belong to a group so wealthy that saying mobility is difficult should be considered problematic?

I’m sorry, but grammatically I don’t understand what your second paragraph is saying.

I can infer that you mean to argue that America is economically unfair, but the words don’t seem to have any coherent meaning.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#174

Post by kbenson » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 3:19 AM UTC

Rexxar wrote: post #148

kbenson wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a few ways to look at the data. One is that it's harder to move to the top quintile in America than some other countries, and people perceive it's much easier than it in in America compared to those places. The other is that it's much easier to get out of the lower quintile in America than those same countries. There's a couple reasons that might be. One is that social mobility is actually higher in America,…

> The other is that it's much easier to get out of the lower quintile in America than those same countries. That's not what the first graph shows. What you say is true for "perceived" mobility, not for effective mobility. 33% of Americans stay in bottom quintile, much more than other countries.

Actually, yeah, that graph is for probability or "remaining" which I missed. Thanks for the heads up.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#175

Post by goodluckchuck » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 3:20 AM UTC

forgotmyoldname wrote: post #107

csallen wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should 1 out of 5 people belong to a group so wealthy that saying mobility is difficult should be considered problematic? Why is it a bad thing that so many people are so wealthy? The more people who belong to the so-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve group, the better.

I mean, wars were fought over that and revolutions had. People decidedly did not like royalty, large so-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve groups, being so far above them. For a while, people much preferred knowing they could work hard or smart and make progress from the bottom to the top 20%. We're talking about the top 20% here. Not the top 0.1%.

Doing hard things can be good. We shouldn’t try to stop people from doing things just because others find it difficult.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#176

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 3:20 AM UTC

postpawl wrote: post #30

rpmisms wrote: post #23

Social mobility is very different than economic mobility. It's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field. Heck, I did it without any college. Social mobility is a different story. I was raised in a rural area, which is essentially a social class of its own. Since becoming an adult, I've found myself gravitating towards working-class people. I like the blu…

Only 8% of people in the United States make more than $100k: https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/ Don't know if I'd call it easy if it's something only 8 out of 100 people do. It also depends on the area. $100k in SF is a lot different than $100k in the mid-west.

[deleted]

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#177

Post by theonemind » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 3:21 AM UTC

csallen wrote: post #100

forgotmyoldname wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... that doesn't detract from the problem at all. That just says there's a massive wealth divide and that moving up to the mere top 20% (the group 1 out of 5 people belong to) should be considered a ridiculous proposition unless you're born into it. Why should 1 out of 5 people belong to a group so wealthy that saying mobility is difficult should be considered problematic?

> Why should 1 out of 5 people belong to a group so wealthy that saying mobility is difficult should be considered problematic? Why is it a bad thing that so many people are so wealthy? The more people who belong to the so-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve group, the better.

An unreachable tier of society indicates a fundamental social injustice. They're in the top 20% of wealth...not intelligence, or in any other factor making them deserving of it. Some of them did work hard, and probably deserve it if you consider hard work deserving of it...but, some people worked harder and didn't make it, so it's not a 1-to-1 equation. So there's a huge element of luck, which is kind of like a slavery for the bottom 80%..just like, you're born with one skin color (luck), you're in the upper class, and own the unlucky people born with another skin color.

Generally, we try to equalize the brutal laws of nature and offer equality of opportunity and try to remove blind, dumb luck from human life...with health care, with insurance, with social equality...sometimes, we succeed, but this is a failure.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#178

Post by forrestthewoods » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 3:22 AM UTC

I hate quintile mobility as a metric and don't think it should be used. Quintile mobility is zero sum. It's impossible for anyone to move up without someone else moving down. I don't want people in the upper middle quintile to go down. But I also want people in the lower quintiles to move up. To upper middle if not top.

Neither wealth nor income is zero sum. Zero sum analyses are therefore not useful IMHO.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#179

Post by alex_young » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 3:22 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #58

Again, it's highly problematic defining mobility as "moving from bottom quintile to top quintile". - Moving from bottom quintile to 2nd highest is significant mobility and completely ignored in this analysis. - The analysis ignores the fact that the highest quintile in the US is higher in absolute terms than other countries. So moving from bottom to 4th may give more income than bottom to 5th in other countries. - Th…

The other side of the coin would be data about how overwhelmingly likely it is to retain one's membership in the top quintile by mere dint of being born into it.

It seems grotesque that many are born and stay very wealthy while so many others have little to no chance of ever experiencing even modest prosperity.

Another observation: No other quintile has actually grown its percentage of household wealth since the 1970s. The wealthy really have taken all of the gains. Perhaps it would be healthy for us to share some with the people who do all of the physical labor.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203247/shares-of-househo...

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#180

Post by BLKNSLVR » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 3:23 AM UTC

999900000999 wrote: post #135

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. Drama is a time and attention suck - away from not only productivity, but time spent where you could be doing things that make you actually happy, which in turn, generally, makes you a more productive person with a desire to 'do things' rather than sit and fucking mope. Gossip, drama, lifestyle comparison, it's a recipe for failure (which is what social media supposedly encourages). I'm not any kind of ben…

Lucky you for having a decent medical system, I consider myself to be exceptionally privileged. Which I can pay, at least to me a relatively small amount of money to treat. But if I was living paycheck to paycheck, I might not be able to afford my medication, and I can literally die due to not being able to afford my medication. Medical expenses are the single worse thing about American life, so many of us end up ski…

The best I can do is say good luck! Australia's medical system is pretty good, but private health doesn't feel cheap. If / When you're planning to move, check out both Australia and New Zealand as options.