[untitled]
7 comments
This article says a bit more about it without a paywall: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190624161147.h...
TL;DR things are substantially less bad than HN thinks they are, in part because things are actually less bad than everyone thinks they are, in part because the kind of people that make up a lot of HN are particularly pessimistic about economic mobility.
This is flamebait, but way too subtle to be flagged.
And posted as flamebait; it's not even a paper, but an abstract that requires a subscription to view the full paper. The question is whether the person who posted read the paper, or just agreed with the sentiment of the title.
How is that any different than most political HN submissions?
With large-scale, population-representative data, we show that Americans are aware of, and in fact quite pessimistic about, the remarkably unequal distribution of economic outcomes by family background.