Live data from Hacker News

America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

economist.com

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

#41
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Looking at net immigration rates is, I think, the best way to determine where people prefer to live. I don't think it is. I would prefer to live in the U.S. because my family lives here, but it has been tremendously difficult for me to get here, and has taken many years. Similarly, it's quite hard to just move to Germany or Sweden if you have no connection to those countries.

Considering that it's generally harder (legally speaking) to migrate to a rich country than to a poor country only strengthens my point.

No it doesn't. And it's quite laughable that you seem to be calling Germany and Sweden poor countries.

Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

#42
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, perhaps, it's easier for someone of means to emigrate to a country where they can earn more money than it is for someone with few means to emigrate to a country where they would be better off.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Indeed.

Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

#43
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that it's generally harder (legally speaking) to migrate to a rich country than to a poor country only strengthens my point.

No it doesn't. And it's quite laughable that you seem to be calling Germany and Sweden poor countries.

I wasn't calling Sweden or Germany poor. That would quite obviously be a silly thing to say.

The US, Sweden & Germany are all pretty rich and they all fairly restrictive in terms of how difficult it is to legally migrate to them. I thought that was what you means when you said "it has been tremendously difficult for me to get here" and "it's quite hard to just move to Germany or Sweden if you have no connection to those countries."

Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

#44
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Indeed.

No really. All I'm saying is that if you could perhaps clarify the point you were trying to make it would make it easier for me to respond intelligently. Your wording was just a bit confusing?

Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

#45
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yes, I'm nearly certain, more people move from Western Europe to the US than vice versa. Perhaps all of those measures of human development aren't all they're cracked up to be in comparison to other things? Actions reveal preferences.

Or, perhaps, it's easier for someone of means to emigrate to a country where they can earn more money than it is for someone with few means to emigrate to a country where they would be better off.

Aren't you making his point for him, then?

Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

#46
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, perhaps, it's easier for someone of means to emigrate to a country where they can earn more money than it is for someone with few means to emigrate to a country where they would be better off.

Aren't you making his point for him, then?

I don't think so.

When I say better off, I'm talking about quality of life, not money. Surely many of the American poor would want to live in Sweden if they knew how high the quality of life is for low-income earners in comparison to theirs -- but because they are poor they have very little chance of ever getting emigrating to Europe.

Conversely, someone who's fairly successful in Sweden might realize that they could be earning much more money in the United States--because of the income inequality--and thus might want to emigrate to the U.S. Chances are they'd have a much better chance of getting there, too.

I live in the U.S., but grew up in Europe. If I didn't have skills that were highly sought after, I wouldn't want to live here. (FWIW, the bigger reason I do live here is that I have immediate family in the states.) I'll bet you that's the case for most people emigrating here from Western Europe.

Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

#47
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed.

No really. All I'm saying is that if you could perhaps clarify the point you were trying to make it would make it easier for me to respond intelligently. Your wording was just a bit confusing?

See my reply to tptacek: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7164350

Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

#48
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you making his point for him, then?

I don't think so. When I say better off, I'm talking about quality of life, not money. Surely many of the American poor would want to live in Sweden if they knew how high the quality of life is for low-income earners in comparison to theirs -- but because they are poor they have very little chance of ever getting emigrating to Europe. Conversely, someone who's fairly successful in Sweden might realize that they could…

So you're saying that the net positive migration from countries like Sweden to countries like the US is due to the fact that generally only relatively successful people have the ability to immigrate? And that if all classes of society were able to move freely that the net migration would be in the other direction?

I'm willing to admit that this is possible, but at this point that sounds like a hypothesis than anything approaching a definitive statement about how reality actually works.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

#49
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. When I say better off, I'm talking about quality of life, not money. Surely many of the American poor would want to live in Sweden if they knew how high the quality of life is for low-income earners in comparison to theirs -- but because they are poor they have very little chance of ever getting emigrating to Europe. Conversely, someone who's fairly successful in Sweden might realize that they could…

So you're saying that the net positive migration from countries like Sweden to countries like the US is due to the fact that generally only relatively successful people have the ability to immigrate? And that if all classes of society were able to move freely that the net migration would be in the other direction? I'm willing to admit that this is possible, but at this point that sounds like a hypothesis than anythin…

> So you're saying that the net positive migration from countries like Sweden to countries like the US is due to the fact that generally only relatively successful people have the ability to immigrate? And that if all classes of society were able to move freely that the net migration would be in the other direction?

Yes.

> Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

I don't. Just a lot of anecdotal evidence from a life spent living in different European countries and U.S. states, talking to people and learning about their lives.

I do think that logic follows that a society with both a high standard of living and high equality would be a more attractive target for a low-income earner than one with a high standard of living but high inequality, but I am unsure if this means that, for example, Americans would actually want to emigrate to Sweden if they didn't know much about it. There are still a lot of misconceptions about what "socialism" means in Europe, how much freedom the U.S. has and Europe doesn't, and so on.

(I think that this is part of the reason that, if true, the U.S. sees more traffic from Europe: The entire Western world grows up with American movies, TV, songs, etc., but many Americans don't know very much about Europe other than that they used to be the HQ of nazis and other socialists. But yes, it's just speculation.)

Re: America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago

#50
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most rich people seem to want it that way.

Most people aren't rich. "America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, “It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.” It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely w…

I didn't claim most people are rich. Rich people have a lot more influence over our "democratic" system, and they seem to be the ones that want to preserve the status quo of massive inequality.
Post reply on HN