Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

sfreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#21

Post by nazgulnarsil »

guelo wrote: post #18
eru wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While our situation is quite good (and in absolute term probably the best ever), I doubt that we (=US 2010?) have "insane mobility" --- measured in actual turnover between quantiles of wealth from one generation to the next. Does anybody have some sources? (I'd guess it would be interesting to look at societies in great turmoil (e.g. England after 1066, French Revolution, Communist revolution in China) or societies w…

You are right, mobility in the US is not what conservatives think it is. Sources: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html "By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland…

who mentioned national lines? I don't regard imaginary lines with much respect. we're talking worldwide here.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#22

Post by coliveira »

chipsy wrote: post #11

"Basic income" has been pilot-studied in Africa to great success. The reasoning is very simple: If you are living hand-to-mouth with unreliable income - so unreliable that you can essentially expect "the end of the world" to come at any time - then you cannot make any future plans around earning and saving; consuming as much as possible immediately holds more value. But if you have a government-guaranteed income, you…

The big decrease in poverty in Brazil in the last few years is due to a similar policy. The government in handling a salary to people living under the poverty level. It really has been the best investment that the government ever made.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#23

Post by gjm11 »

isleyaardvark wrote: post #6

The article makes some interesting points but there seems to be a flawed use of statistics. Particularly the part about "the percentage likelihood that a bottom 10 percenter will ever make it to the top 10 percent. For 99 out of 100 people, rags never lead to riches." Well, what would you expect? There's going to be a pure mathematical limit to that sort of movement, nevermind issues of income mobility. To take an ab…

I think your comment on the $250k proposal is wrong.

The US has a population of, let's say, 300M. In any year, let's say 1/60 of that many -- 5M -- are just turning 18, which is when Bowles proposes handing out the money. (He's not proposing to give that much to everyone all at once.) So the annual cost is $250k times 5M, or about $1T. There's no $56T up-front cost.

Now, $1T/year is an awful lot: it's about 1/4 of what the US government currently spends in a typical year. It's about what the US government currently spends on "defense". It's hard to see where the money could come from. On the other hand, it would completely obliterate poverty in the US. On the other other hand, it's very convenient for a lot of people that there is poverty in the US; without poverty, no one would work for very low salaries, which means a lot of things that are currently cheap would become more expensive. (You can generally recognize countries with less income inequality because low-end goods and services cost more.) On the other other other hand, it does seem like it would make entrepreneurship much more widely accessible.

Bowles is a very smart guy. The idea may be crazy, but it's unlikely to be stupid.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#24

Post by mynameishere »

ibsulon wrote: post #12
apsec112 wrote: post #8

Where is his proof ? He has this whole elaborate theory of economics and inequality worked out, and not once does he present any proof .

I'd start at http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/ and his actual papers, not what a reporter writes. :)

You know damn well that's not useful. "Here, read through every single thing this guy wrote. The proof's gotta be there somewhere, I figure."

No, of course, there's no proof for anything in any soft science, so there's the answer. The only good experiment would have to be on a grand scale: give everyone 15K a year for free and see what happens. My guess: An increase in the velocity of money, since the whole thing is basically a devaluation.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#25

Post by gjm11 »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #21
guelo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, mobility in the US is not what conservatives think it is. Sources: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html "By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland…

who mentioned national lines? I don't regard imaginary lines with much respect. we're talking worldwide here.

Who mentioned national lines? (1) The original article, which was talking about, e.g., the chances of moving out of the top or bottom 10% by wealth of US society. (2) The person you were replying to (you can tell he was talking about the US by, e.g., comparing his figures for the $250k proposal to the US population, though I think he misunderstood the proposal). (3) The two people who replied to you.

Or, in other words, apparently everyone else in this thread apart from you. How is one supposed to tell that "we have insane mobility compared to any other society at any time in human history" was meant to mean everyone, worldwide?

Indeed, how can that possibly be true (what do you think is the mobility rate out of the poorest 10% of the world population?), or make sense (given that it requires that you regard, say, the US, China, Afghanistan and Burundi as parts of a single "society")?

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#26

Post by timwiseman »

gjm11 wrote: post #23
isleyaardvark wrote: post #6

The article makes some interesting points but there seems to be a flawed use of statistics. Particularly the part about "the percentage likelihood that a bottom 10 percenter will ever make it to the top 10 percent. For 99 out of 100 people, rags never lead to riches." Well, what would you expect? There's going to be a pure mathematical limit to that sort of movement, nevermind issues of income mobility. To take an ab…

I think your comment on the $250k proposal is wrong. The US has a population of, let's say, 300M. In any year, let's say 1/60 of that many -- 5M -- are just turning 18, which is when Bowles proposes handing out the money. (He's not proposing to give that much to everyone all at once.) So the annual cost is $250k times 5M, or about $1T. There's no $56T up-front cost. Now, $1T/year is an awful lot: it's about 1/4 of wh…

No, the idea is not stupid, but I think you are making some unfounded assumptions.

it would completely obliterate poverty in the US.

Not really, it would do little to help people in poverty already past 18 (unless they had children who were both just about to turn 18 and those children were generous...). Even for those that benefitted from this, to assume they would not go back to poverty you have to assume they will use it wisely (and possibly have some luck too.) If they go to college or start a business with that money, then they probably will move up and sustain themselves at least in the middle class. Probably. On the other hand, I bet a large percentage would spend it quickly and have relatively little to show for it at the end.

Even those who start a business/go to college are not gaurunteed to stay in the middle class, they just have a good shot. Many businesses fail, and then those founders would be left with little but that experience. Many people with degrees are unemployed right now.

I am not saying it is a bad idea necessarily, and I am certainly not about to dismiss it as stupid, but I do not think it will come close to wiping out poverty.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#28

Post by yummyfajitas »

isleyaardvark wrote: post #6

The article makes some interesting points but there seems to be a flawed use of statistics. Particularly the part about "the percentage likelihood that a bottom 10 percenter will ever make it to the top 10 percent. For 99 out of 100 people, rags never lead to riches." Well, what would you expect? There's going to be a pure mathematical limit to that sort of movement, nevermind issues of income mobility. To take an ab…

Additionally, he is making the implicit assumption that low parental income causes low adult income, and therefore hard work doesn't matter. But that's nonsense.

It's also equally possible that some heritable (not necessarily genetic) trait causes both low parental and low child income.

One plausible alternative explanation: lazy parents tend to have lazy children and lazy people tend to be poor. This causes a correlation between parent and child income, in spite of the fact that hard work is the way out of poverty.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#29

Post by nazgulnarsil »

gjm11 wrote: post #25
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who mentioned national lines? I don't regard imaginary lines with much respect. we're talking worldwide here.

Who mentioned national lines? (1) The original article, which was talking about, e.g., the chances of moving out of the top or bottom 10% by wealth of US society . (2) The person you were replying to (you can tell he was talking about the US by, e.g., comparing his figures for the $250k proposal to the US population, though I think he misunderstood the proposal). (3) The two people who replied to you. Or, in other wo…

I stand by my statement. the world, on net, has more income mobility now than at any time in the past. everyday is pretty much the best day the world has ever seen from a net welfare standpoint.

Re: Born Poor? Santa Fe economist Samuel Bowles says you better get used to it

#30

Post by tphyahoo »

viggity wrote: post #13

I love how he tells his staffer to buy the printed book and not the version on the kindle. The author goes on to say that the printed book is marx, the kindle book is rand. History makes it pretty clear how your economy will wind up using marx's theories. Capitalism is the worst kind of economic structure out there, until you look at all the alternatives.

timtoady.
Post reply on HN