20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 11, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #439

benreesman wrote: post #223

Anyone who knows with any sophistication how economics works isn’t telling: they’re pocketing the difference working at RenTec or Jump or whatever. A child knows that privatizing profits and socializing losses is only good for rich people, but a Nobel laureate can’t prove it. So what we get is a bunch of “those who can’t, teach” social science economics. Greenspan in front of Congress talking about “flaws in conceptu…

HN might be such a place even if most people here agree with you. My snarky comment critical of trickle-down[1] has been flagged and hidden when it reaches a score of 66; and the admins have threatened me with a ban. I don't mind this strict adherence to the "be kind, don't be snarky" rule, but I haven't seen it so vigilantly enforced on fumigation from fiscal conservatives, which I routinely see here. I feel like it…

Post by jtbayly » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:53 AM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #376

sokoloff wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as of 2016, 7.5% of kids born in the bottom quintile make it to the top quintile, so it is indeed possible, though quite rare. [1] Is 7.5% “quite rare”? That’s around (and between) the portion of the population who is left handed and the portion of the US population that has naturally blond hair, neither of which would I describe as “quite rare”.

The parent described the "top 10%" (chosen arbitrarily, I'm sure), and the only stats I could find described quintiles. 7.5% of the bottom 20% make it to the top 20%. In a perfectly fair and equitable society, you'd expect it to be 20%. I wouldn't call this "quite rare," though I would call this uncommon. But what percentage of the bottom 10% do you think make it to the top 10%? It's probably even fewer. And to go st…