America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago
#2If you've read past your limit and want to read this article anyway, delete your cookies.
Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago
#3If you've read past your limit and want to read this article anyway, delete your cookies.
Or open it in porn mode.
Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago
#4Paper this article is based on:
Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago
#5"Most likely...The correlation between vast wealth accruing to a tiny elite and the ability of people to move between the rest of the rungs of the income ladder may be small—at least for now."
And there's the crux of the matter. Even if that correlation remains small, the top rung of that ladder is so far out of reach of everyone else, -and- incorporates an insanely disproportionate amount of money, power, and influence, that it will likely remain forever out of reach, while allowing for policies that markedly worsen the lives of those on lower rungs.
Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago
#6One thing to be aware of is that the range of incomes in many countries is much more compact than the US. If you define social mobility by the ability to move from the bottom segment to the top, it requires a much smaller change in income in most industrialized countries than in the US.
For example, for the average person in Denmark to go from the bottom 10% to the top 10% of income requires earning a mere $40k more income. In the US, you would have to earn $90k more income. Consequently, it takes considerably more effort in the US to increase one's income in the US to the point where it would count as "social mobility" than in many countries even though you would be much better off in the lesser quintiles in absolute terms.
In short, there are many countries where moving from $20k to $40k is considered "socially mobile" but also others where moving from $20k to $60k income is not because the top bracket is $80k. Most people would probably prefer to live in the latter country. It may be a little harder to reach the $80k than $40k to meet the definition of "socially mobile", but in absolute terms they are far better off with $60k of income regardless of the definition of social mobility.
Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago
#7Big takeaway: the USA is about as socially mobile as it was a generation ago. But that's only because the USA has never been as socially mobile as it imagines itself: some or most European countries have exceeded it in mobility for a long period of time.
Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago
#8"Most likely...The correlation between vast wealth accruing to a tiny elite and the ability of people to move between the rest of the rungs of the income ladder may be small—at least for now." And there's the crux of the matter. Even if that correlation remains small, the top rung of that ladder is so far out of reach of everyone else, -and- incorporates an insanely disproportionate amount of money, power, and influe…
What proportion of the richest 1% (or 0.1%, or the top 1000 richest people) do you think came from families that were already in the top 1%?
How do you define "out of reach"?
Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago
#9One thing to be aware of is that the range of incomes in many countries is much more compact than the US. If you define social mobility by the ability to move from the bottom segment to the top, it requires a much smaller change in income in most industrialized countries than in the US. For example, for the average person in Denmark to go from the bottom 10% to the top 10% of income requires earning a mere $40k more…
> in absolute terms they are far better off with $60k of income regardless of the definition of social mobility.
I'm not sure this is true, if the cost of living (or luxuries) is different between the two countries.
Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago
#10"Most likely...The correlation between vast wealth accruing to a tiny elite and the ability of people to move between the rest of the rungs of the income ladder may be small—at least for now." And there's the crux of the matter. Even if that correlation remains small, the top rung of that ladder is so far out of reach of everyone else, -and- incorporates an insanely disproportionate amount of money, power, and influe…
What proportion of the richest 1% (or 0.1%, or the top 1000 richest people) do you think came from families that were already in the top 1%? How do you define "out of reach"?
Well, I got curious and found an answer:
"In 1982, 60 percent of the people on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans came from wealthy families, compared with 32 percent in 2011."
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/joshua-rauh-what-f...