Americans overestimate social mobility in their country • Hacker News Board

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#211

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 4:14 AM UTC

_dark_matter_ wrote: post #198

tdfx wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that's true for White and Asian folks. Race-based generalizations almost always end up leading you in the wrong direction. There's substantially more white people living below the poverty line compared to any other group [1] and those poor white communities are trapped by the same lack of awareness of opportunities as any of the minority groups you mentioned. Whites and Asians are over-represented in the af…

Your link clearly shows that poverty is significantly worse along black people than white (19% to 8.5%), and worse among American Indians than black people (25% to 19%). I don't understand why you would ever look at this in per Capita terms when clearly there are more white people overall.

If the goal is to minimize and dispel the effects of systemic issues, then you have to use the overall number.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#212

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 4:16 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #134

twobitshifter wrote: post #95

I think the first step is to admit we have a problem. People don’t like the United States being labeled as anything less than exceptional. If you look at the Amazon workers, Uber drivers, door dashers, etc in this country it’s amazing how hard people can work and not get ahead. 2nd and 3rd jobs can be necessary to just make ends meet. The story that hard work is all it takes in America does need to be questioned.

> it’s amazing how hard people can work and not get ahead It's not how hard one works, it's how smart one works. The second aspect is what does one do with the income one has, which has a crucial impact on the person's future.

For a lot of people, it's not about how hard or how smart one works.

It's about the support networks that kick in when you screw up or when bad luck befalls you. Lots of middle class kids (like mine) get multiple chances to try and fail. Their parents' wealth and social connections gets to work and cushions their landing, and like Silicon Valley folk, they get to try again.

The children of working class families do not have anything close to this level of support when things go wrong. They make a mistake, or just suffer some bad luck, and they are completely screwed. Yes, everyone can get up and try again, but the difficulty of doing this from zero with no support is routinely underestimated by people (like me and my kids) who've never had to do it.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#213

Post by Swizec » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 4:17 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #188

Swizec wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few lessons for social mobility I learned while joining the SF techie class, coming here from a relatively poor country in Europe. 1. If Americans can’t read your emotes they put you in a “Uh this feels weird, that person is an emotionless robot” camp. You have to practice 2. It is not okay to ask “What’s that?” when someone proudly mentions which college they went to (because as a European you only recognize 4 or…

> Talking about money with upper middle class people is impolite. They have never had money problems and do not understand why anyone would ever talk about money That isn't the reason at all. My parents struggled in the Depression, but they never ever talked about their money. The Depression taught them to be very, very frugal, a lifelong habit. (My family tended to keep cars for 30 years, for example.) I had no idea…

Money talk might be an american thing then, not a class thing? Where I’m from everyone is safely broke together so complaining about lack of money is almost used as small talk like weather.

But once you climb out of that, suddenly you stop talking about money. Figured US was the same

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#214

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 4:20 AM UTC

Talanes wrote: post #197

rpmisms wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is ~1 point below the national average in marriages and divorces. By comparison, Maine is 4 points over the marriage average and 3 points under the divorce average. I should have remembered my audience and not made a joke about California's differences from the rest of the country. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/12/united-states...

It's a trite joke not even grounded in reality. Vast swaths of California believe exactly the same shit as the people making those jokes. I mean, I grew up in the mountains, cutting through cow-pastures to get to school. I've yet to hear a California joke that rings true to my experience.

It's the most populous state in the nation, as well as one of the most climactically and geographically diverse states.

There's almost nothing anyone could say that will apply to the whole population or the whole geography, certainly not anything that wouldn't apply equally well (or badly) to all Americans.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#215

Post by missedthecue » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 4:21 AM UTC

syki wrote: post #87

Railsify wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. The article is using statistics to lie.

Read the actual study. The people who did the study are knowledgeable about the topic. If a non expert can think of a problem with the paper after a few moments of thinking about it then it is highly likely that person’s objections are not valid and are accounted for in the study. A person should not read the study or the article and think, “The reason this is nonsense is X.” Rather the thought should be, “I wonder h…

Plenty of knowledgeable people have very motivated reasoning

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#216

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 4:21 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…

I read about another study relatively recently (maybe it was HN? Not sure.) that talked about some of the fundamental flaws when looking at these types of economic mobility studies (i.e. change of moving from bottom quintile to top quintile, etc.) because they usually only look at income and ignore social class.

That is, suppose Bob is a rich banker. His kid Frank goes to private school and on to an Ivy League college, but seeing how distant and money-focused his dad was growing up, Frank decides to become a writer. Frank is certainly not poor, but he definitely lives on a very modest income and that is what his son John experiences growing up. John, not wanting to have to be in as modest circumstances as his Dad, decides to follow in his grandfather's footsteps and become a banker. His grandfather is even able to introduce him to some colleagues and get him some interviews at top investment banks.

Point being, if you just look at income, it will look like a dynamic economy with lots of economic mobility, with each generation moving from the top to the bottom of the economic latter, and vice versa. In reality, though, nothing really changed at all about their social class and the opportunities that were open to them. Unlike most people in the bottom half of the economic spectrum, Frank was basically there by choice.

Again, you may think this is an extreme example, but in my experience I have seen some version of that multiple times.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#217

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 4:22 AM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #99

redelbee wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the 2020 census data linked below the percentage increases to around 24% for individuals who worked full time all year. I don’t think there is any easy way to find the more specific groups you mentioned. That’s not a large enough increase to consider making six figures as easy as “prioritizing” it or whatever you’re proposing. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/pinc-01/... In any case wh…

I think you've just proved yourself that making 100k is extremely achievable in the US (1/4) for someone who even just bothers to turn up full-time.

When 3 out 4 people "fail" at something, I'm not sure that calling it "extremely achievable" is really a particularly suitable description.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#218

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 4:24 AM UTC

booleandilemma wrote: post #31

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…

Is six figures really that much any more? I’m talking about 1xx,xxx, which is what most people mean when they say six figures. If you’re living in a place like New York, California, or even say, Jersey, what does a low 6 figures really get you?

Given that median household income in NYC is around $70k, I'd say it buys you quite a bit.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#219

Post by VictorPath » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 4:25 AM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #162

VictorPath wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> redistribution Of course the real redistribution is the expropriation of the fruits of surplus labor time by those who work to heirs who do not. Redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value.

It seems odd to couch redistribution of income within capitalist systems in Marxist terms like “redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value”, as though the funds being redistributed will have been taken exclusively from the owners of the means of production. They’re not. The vast majority of net contributors to the system are workers. These policies just take money from s…

> Marxist terms like “redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value”

The notion that created wealth is made by workers is not one that Marx credits to himself, but to another revolutionary - Benjamin Franklin.

Re: Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

#220

Post by refurb » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 4:27 AM UTC

tlear wrote: post #207

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.

It is the normal propaganda of the class war. Identify Kulak, murder kulak.. profit (or mass famine). Usually they start with top 1% or a bit more, these guys jumped straight to 20%. But I am sure if you vote properly and donate to “causes” you Kulakness can be overlooked for now, proper public self flagellating is also necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Black_Categories