Americans overestimate social mobility in their country(economist.com)
economist.com
Americans overestimate social mobility in their country
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country
389 comments
I read about another study relatively recently (maybe it was HN? Not sure.) that talked about some of the fundamental flaws when looking at these types of economic mobility studies (i.e. change of moving from bottom quintile to top quintile, etc.) because they usually only look at income and ignore social class.
That is, suppose Bob is a rich banker. His kid Frank goes to private school and on to an Ivy League college, but seeing how distant and money-focused his dad was growing up, Frank decides to become a writer. Frank is certainly not poor, but he definitely lives on a very modest income and that is what his son John experiences growing up. John, not wanting to have to be in as modest circumstances as his Dad, decides to follow in his grandfather's footsteps and become a banker. His grandfather is even able to introduce him to some colleagues and get him some interviews at top investment banks.
Point being, if you just look at income, it will look like a dynamic economy with lots of economic mobility, with each generation moving from the top to the bottom of the economic latter, and vice versa. In reality, though, nothing really changed at all about their social class and the opportunities that were open to them. Unlike most people in the bottom half of the economic spectrum, Frank was basically there by choice.
Again, you may think this is an extreme example, but in my experience I have seen some version of that multiple times.
That is, suppose Bob is a rich banker. His kid Frank goes to private school and on to an Ivy League college, but seeing how distant and money-focused his dad was growing up, Frank decides to become a writer. Frank is certainly not poor, but he definitely lives on a very modest income and that is what his son John experiences growing up. John, not wanting to have to be in as modest circumstances as his Dad, decides to follow in his grandfather's footsteps and become a banker. His grandfather is even able to introduce him to some colleagues and get him some interviews at top investment banks.
Point being, if you just look at income, it will look like a dynamic economy with lots of economic mobility, with each generation moving from the top to the bottom of the economic latter, and vice versa. In reality, though, nothing really changed at all about their social class and the opportunities that were open to them. Unlike most people in the bottom half of the economic spectrum, Frank was basically there by choice.
Again, you may think this is an extreme example, but in my experience I have seen some version of that multiple times.
It’s easy to choose the artist life if your parents can bail you out when shit happens.
A little harder if you’re expected to be the bail out for your parents.
A little harder if you’re expected to be the bail out for your parents.
Very true. I've literally seen this play out with some friends and cousins in extended family in the last 10-15 years. At a critical period, some had to find work to support the family especially as the health of parents started failing, the ones who could rely on family wealth were able to focus full time or almost full time on their art and are now climbing the echelons as established artists.
This is no different than historical standards of artwork. Indeed, it is from those who can afford to sustain an independent spirit, where genuine artistry extends itself into the human pursuit of perfection. When money is not an object this eternal motivation can progress itself unhindered.
Lots of poor people live with their parents, you see that all over the world. Also lots of rich people disown their kids. That has more to do with the mentality of your parents than anything else.
I’m putting this quote on Twitter. :). What handle should I use to credit you?
I don't think the amount of "rich" people (and their descendants) are a significant enough proportion of the population to render the results completely inert.
[deleted]
I mean... that doesn't detract from the problem at all. That just says there's a massive wealth divide and that moving up to the mere top 20% (the group 1 out of 5 people belong to) should be considered a ridiculous proposition unless you're born into it.
Why should 1 out of 5 people belong to a group so wealthy that saying mobility is difficult should be considered problematic?
Why should 1 out of 5 people belong to a group so wealthy that saying mobility is difficult should be considered problematic?
56% of Americans spend at least one year in the top 10%, and 73% spend one year in the top 20% [1].
[1] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/evidence-shows-significant-in...
American mobility isn't bad because people can't make it to the top - you can, more so than almost anywhere in the world.
It's bad because a significant portion of people at the bottom stay stuck at the bottom their whole life. Compared to countries in Europe, this is a lot worse.
[1] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/evidence-shows-significant-in...
American mobility isn't bad because people can't make it to the top - you can, more so than almost anywhere in the world.
It's bad because a significant portion of people at the bottom stay stuck at the bottom their whole life. Compared to countries in Europe, this is a lot worse.
That's laughably twisted. Just because someone makes a ton of money in a year (i.e. from inheritance, life insurance, or something else) means absolutely nothing about their wealth.
Inheritance NOR life insurance payouts are considered income by the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/faqs/interest-dividends-other-types-of-i....
Uhh, inheritance definitely counts as income, but I'm not sure what income taxes have to do with what we were discussing. The supposed numbers you pointed to don't come from the IRS.
Can you elaborate or share any studies that show Europe has better mobility opportunities than the US? Also what part of Europe are we talking, Germany? Romania? Portugal or maybe Poland?
That is what the article being commented on, is about, it goes into the results of a study that investigates social mobility per country. More generally, there is also a report by the world economic forum which indexes countries on social mobility, European countries top that list.
Isn't that selling your house to immediately move into another house for the same price?
> Why should 1 out of 5 people belong to a group so wealthy that saying mobility is difficult should be considered problematic?
Why is it a bad thing that so many people are so wealthy? The more people who belong to the so-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve group, the better.
Why is it a bad thing that so many people are so wealthy? The more people who belong to the so-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve group, the better.
I mean, wars were fought over that and revolutions had. People decidedly did not like royalty, large so-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve groups, being so far above them. For a while, people much preferred knowing they could work hard or smart and make progress from the bottom to the top 20%.
We're talking about the top 20% here. Not the top 0.1%.
We're talking about the top 20% here. Not the top 0.1%.
This is one of my big take-aways from the article. My great-(great?-)-grandparents from Eastern Europe armed with nothing but excellent numeracy, some English, and the clothes on their backs. They could reliably expect to enter move out of post-immigration poverty based on skills cultivated for the purpose of success in the US. My great-x-grandfather ended up a bank manager. And they passed money and knowledge along to their children, insuring as best they could that their progress wouldn't be lost, and it wasn't. You've heard this story a thousand times, and I'd bet it happened tens of thousands of times.
But that sort of outcome seems almost impossible in America today due to more factors than I could probably name especially at this hour. But it seems clear to me that America has changed in the last 120-100 years in a way that locks people into their social classes/'earnings quintiles' while perpetuating, I assume to the advantage of the very wealthy, the myth that that old America of extreme social mobility still exists. This is a myth that needs to die if we're to adequately address our problems as a nation. I suspect the solution begins in the education industry.
But that sort of outcome seems almost impossible in America today due to more factors than I could probably name especially at this hour. But it seems clear to me that America has changed in the last 120-100 years in a way that locks people into their social classes/'earnings quintiles' while perpetuating, I assume to the advantage of the very wealthy, the myth that that old America of extreme social mobility still exists. This is a myth that needs to die if we're to adequately address our problems as a nation. I suspect the solution begins in the education industry.
As far as earnings, median household income is very achievable (~$68,000). Associates degrees in medical fields lead to $50,000+ salaries. How far those earnings go relative to other periods is debatable.
Catching up in terms of wealth is probably a lot harder (because we continue to get richer).
Catching up in terms of wealth is probably a lot harder (because we continue to get richer).
Median of all things is always achievable to half of all people everywhere.
> But that sort of outcome seems almost impossible in America today due to more factors than I could probably name especially at this hour.
Replace numeracy with programming and it happens right and left. We came from Eastern Europe with barely enough money to rent for a few months. Now we are in top percentile of earners in US. And have lot's of friends with a similar story.
Replace numeracy with programming and it happens right and left. We came from Eastern Europe with barely enough money to rent for a few months. Now we are in top percentile of earners in US. And have lot's of friends with a similar story.
>But that sort of outcome seems almost impossible in America today
Then you don't know enough about how well, for example, African and central Asian refugees or immigrants do in a single generation. Same for Hispanic immigrants within a generation or two.
Then you don't know enough about how well, for example, African and central Asian refugees or immigrants do in a single generation. Same for Hispanic immigrants within a generation or two.
> Then you don't know enough about how well, for example, African and central Asian refugees or immigrants do in a single generation.
In a generation? I moved here from Europe and within ~6 years accumulated as much wealth as my parents did in a lifetime.
The American dream is still alive and kicking for many if not most immigrants.
But my american friends have a fun joke they like to say: "Wow look at that immigrant work ethic! Wish I could work that hard" ... you could
In a generation? I moved here from Europe and within ~6 years accumulated as much wealth as my parents did in a lifetime.
The American dream is still alive and kicking for many if not most immigrants.
But my american friends have a fun joke they like to say: "Wow look at that immigrant work ethic! Wish I could work that hard" ... you could
I'm so happy to hear of your success! Unfortunately not enough people will give you the credit you deserve because you didn't come from a "bad" place.
I mean … does it count if there was a (short) civil war when I was 4? Or that my country went from communist dictatorship to EU member in the first 17 years of my life?
“Bad” is extremely relative. Some of my good friends were actively getting bombed by USA just 600km south of my city when I was in high school. That’s like living in SF with an active warzone in LA, if they were in different countries ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
“Bad” is extremely relative. Some of my good friends were actively getting bombed by USA just 600km south of my city when I was in high school. That’s like living in SF with an active warzone in LA, if they were in different countries ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To me, absolutely. To people of a different political persuasion, it's dependent on the color of your skin and how many political points can be scored on the basis of your relative suffering compared to those that are not coming from predominantly "white, European" countries (regardless of how white they may actually be), not the facts of your circumstance.
The plight of a progressive Nigerian immigrant whose family was extremely wealthy prior to immigration is worth more than your story in today's climate.
The plight of a progressive Nigerian immigrant whose family was extremely wealthy prior to immigration is worth more than your story in today's climate.
[deleted]
Doing hard things can be good. We shouldn’t try to stop people from doing things just because others find it difficult.
We shouldn't. But low social mobility and further stratified wealth divisions is a sign that the effort is pointless for a growing number of people.
> Why is it a bad thing that so many people are so wealthy?
To be pedantic, exactly 20% are that wealthy.
> The more people who belong to the so-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve group, the better.
So-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve can only be defined compared to people who can't achieve it. Medieval kings were in that category but lived worse that we do.
To be pedantic, exactly 20% are that wealthy.
> The more people who belong to the so-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve group, the better.
So-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve can only be defined compared to people who can't achieve it. Medieval kings were in that category but lived worse that we do.
Medieval kings definitely lived better than you do.
Did they have good heating or air conditioning or medical care? Running water or plumbing or lighting? Travel was also much much harder.
Instead of the conveniences of modern technology, they had servants. They lived a life of full service, comparable to the most expensive modern hotels.
They had "running water" -- as in servants would run and fetch the water. There was nothing inconvenient about the king's access to water. It would be served to him. How do you get your water?
They had "running water" -- as in servants would run and fetch the water. There was nothing inconvenient about the king's access to water. It would be served to him. How do you get your water?
Was the water cold? Filtered well?
Yes, food and drink was probably better for them, because technology related to those can be replaced by manpower. For air conditioning, healthcare, lighting, or travel they had problems.
> How do you get your water?
I takes me a few seconds to get cold, pure water from my fridge.
The bigger benefit of running water I think is hygiene. I doubt they would have a hot shower. A hot bath would be possible for the king, but not other people. A lot of the servants would probably stink, and the toilets were holes in the side of the castle that went into the street. I think it smelled quite bad.
Yes, food and drink was probably better for them, because technology related to those can be replaced by manpower. For air conditioning, healthcare, lighting, or travel they had problems.
> How do you get your water?
I takes me a few seconds to get cold, pure water from my fridge.
The bigger benefit of running water I think is hygiene. I doubt they would have a hot shower. A hot bath would be possible for the king, but not other people. A lot of the servants would probably stink, and the toilets were holes in the side of the castle that went into the street. I think it smelled quite bad.
Hot baths without running water were available to ordinary people. They would boil water on a stove and put it into the bathtub.
The big problem with your argument here is that it's special pleading. You just focus on some technologies that weren't available then. You don't even make an attempt to show that these very few specific things somehow dominate "lifestyle."
I think having full service everything, and no labor obligations, including architects who can build buildings (and know how to make them be cool in summer!) is very much more important to characterizing lifestyle than any specific technology.
The big problem with your argument here is that it's special pleading. You just focus on some technologies that weren't available then. You don't even make an attempt to show that these very few specific things somehow dominate "lifestyle."
I think having full service everything, and no labor obligations, including architects who can build buildings (and know how to make them be cool in summer!) is very much more important to characterizing lifestyle than any specific technology.
>Hot baths without running water were available to ordinary people.
Everyone once in a while, yes, but not for everyday people.[1]
>"lifestyle."
You're right, it does depend on the definition of lifestyle. Some people consider travel to be central to a fancy lifestyle, and that would be hard in the past.
>no labor obligations
Most people on HN likely have no physical labor obligations from employment. We have cushy programming jobs, and many can afford to eat out/order delivery every day and hire a cleaning and laundry service. I can get anywhere nearby in a fast and comfy car, not having to deal with a slow, bumpy, drafty, horse-smelling carriage. I don't even have to walk up stairs, I can take an elevator.
The king has the responsibility of running a kingdom. That sounds pretty stressful to me, much more so that my programming job.
[1] https://www.quora.com/How-often-did-people-in-the-Middle-Age...
Everyone once in a while, yes, but not for everyday people.[1]
>"lifestyle."
You're right, it does depend on the definition of lifestyle. Some people consider travel to be central to a fancy lifestyle, and that would be hard in the past.
>no labor obligations
Most people on HN likely have no physical labor obligations from employment. We have cushy programming jobs, and many can afford to eat out/order delivery every day and hire a cleaning and laundry service. I can get anywhere nearby in a fast and comfy car, not having to deal with a slow, bumpy, drafty, horse-smelling carriage. I don't even have to walk up stairs, I can take an elevator.
The king has the responsibility of running a kingdom. That sounds pretty stressful to me, much more so that my programming job.
[1] https://www.quora.com/How-often-did-people-in-the-Middle-Age...
The grapes are sour.
Fat lot of good that does when you die from a simple infection that penicillin can fix or keel over from a heart attack that is survivable in the modern age.
Look, I'm not saying that everything was better in the medieval ages. But people who think that their own modern lifestyle is comparable to a medieval king are lying to themselves. They heard a dumbass meme and never thought about it critically.
Modern working class people in the wealthy nations do have better _medical care_ than medieval kings did. That doesn't justify broad statements about "lifestyle."
Modern working class people in the wealthy nations do have better _medical care_ than medieval kings did. That doesn't justify broad statements about "lifestyle."
> But people who think that their own modern lifestyle is comparable to a medieval king are lying to themselves.
Medieval kings still ate poor food, you can see it on their teeth, they often had gravel etc in the bread wearing down the teeths etc. The houses, food and clothing, sanitation etc the kings had back then would be illegal to even offer to poor people toady.
Medieval kings still ate poor food, you can see it on their teeth, they often had gravel etc in the bread wearing down the teeths etc. The houses, food and clothing, sanitation etc the kings had back then would be illegal to even offer to poor people toady.
According to historian André Castelo, on one particular occasion, [Napoleon's] cuisiniers roasted no fewer than 23 chickens in close succession (Napoleon couldn’t possibly dine on reheated food) until the emperor finally deigned to put his quill down and spare a few minutes for his meal.
Having lots of raw resources doesn't mean you had high quality end products. Also Napoleon wasn't a medieval king, the medieval ages ended 500 years ago, things were much better 200 years ago when Napoleon lived.
When I lived on the minimum my government allows I could still buy higher quality raw ingredients than kings had access to 500 years ago and cook my own meals that are higher quality than was possible back then. It wont be as fancy, no, but it is better in every other regard, and I got access to the different wares year round while they had to account for seasons, spices basically non existent etc.
When I lived on the minimum my government allows I could still buy higher quality raw ingredients than kings had access to 500 years ago and cook my own meals that are higher quality than was possible back then. It wont be as fancy, no, but it is better in every other regard, and I got access to the different wares year round while they had to account for seasons, spices basically non existent etc.
> The more people who belong to the so-wealthy-it's-hard-to-achieve group, the better.
Aren’t you just literally saying that social mobility is bad?
Aren’t you just literally saying that social mobility is bad?
No, I'm saying that there's always going to be some level of wealth that's difficult to achieve. We can all pull a number out of thin air that's just super high, that's tough to imagine people in the bottom 20% commonly getting to in their lifetime.
For argument's sake, let's say that number is a net worth of $500K. (Because that just so happens to be the minimum net worth to be in the top 20% of Americans[0].)
What would you prefer: a world where more or fewer people were able to amass that much wealth? To me, the obvious answer is more.
It does nobody any good for fewer people to be wealthy. Sure, you could look at the numbers and conclude that there's more class mobility, but that's just because more people are poorer, not because more people are making it to $500K.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/net-worth-t...
For argument's sake, let's say that number is a net worth of $500K. (Because that just so happens to be the minimum net worth to be in the top 20% of Americans[0].)
What would you prefer: a world where more or fewer people were able to amass that much wealth? To me, the obvious answer is more.
It does nobody any good for fewer people to be wealthy. Sure, you could look at the numbers and conclude that there's more class mobility, but that's just because more people are poorer, not because more people are making it to $500K.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/net-worth-t...
You're totally conflating relative and absolute wealth.
Society is probably better off when the median absolute wealth increases, which will be achieved by more people achieving higher wealth levels.
But as is becoming increasing clear (again), society is worse off when relative wealth distinctions grow (at least, if they grow too large).
If more people make it to $500k, the 5th quintile threshold will move up. That means that the gap between the bottom quintile and the top quintile will increase. We could choose to be happy that more people have made it to $500k, or we could choose to be upset that the gap between the lower 4 quintiles and the upper one has grown.
Society is probably better off when the median absolute wealth increases, which will be achieved by more people achieving higher wealth levels.
But as is becoming increasing clear (again), society is worse off when relative wealth distinctions grow (at least, if they grow too large).
If more people make it to $500k, the 5th quintile threshold will move up. That means that the gap between the bottom quintile and the top quintile will increase. We could choose to be happy that more people have made it to $500k, or we could choose to be upset that the gap between the lower 4 quintiles and the upper one has grown.
> But as is becoming increasing clear (again), society is worse off when relative wealth distinctions grow (at least, if they grow too large).
Why is it clear?
Why is it clear?
Eventually, if the wealth divide becomes too great and ossified, the logical thing for the poor to do is have a violent revolution (since there is no other way to advance their station in life).
This sucks for basically everyone, rich or poor. I think we all have a selfish interest in making sure it doesn't come to that.
This sucks for basically everyone, rich or poor. I think we all have a selfish interest in making sure it doesn't come to that.
Sure, but a big wealth divide does not imply ossification, it just means it's a longer path to get to the top. You can have a big divide and still have mobility.
You could have that, but the US just has a big divide and not much mobility, despite the folk tales that say we do.
This sounds like a very dishonest and bad faith argument. Would you defend a policy against immigration because it may lead to terrorism by nationalists, or would you rather try to solve the real problem?
It seems that you don’t think that society is worse off as relative wealth inequality grows. Society is worse off when people who are mad for whatever reasons start to kill other people. And in any case we should note that it is not actual differences that rustle jimmies, but perceived differences.
It seems that you don’t think that society is worse off as relative wealth inequality grows. Society is worse off when people who are mad for whatever reasons start to kill other people. And in any case we should note that it is not actual differences that rustle jimmies, but perceived differences.
> there's always going to be some level of wealth that's difficult to achieve
Sure, but if that number is such that a significant proportion of society is born with it and pass it along to their children while everyone else can't hope to get there, that's a very different society and social structure than one where a few extremely lucky people happen to achieve it each generation without a self-reinforcing class structure.
> It does nobody any good for fewer people to be wealthy
It could. If we actively redistributed wealth from the top quintile to the bottom quintile, it would do a lot of people a lot of good.
Sure, but if that number is such that a significant proportion of society is born with it and pass it along to their children while everyone else can't hope to get there, that's a very different society and social structure than one where a few extremely lucky people happen to achieve it each generation without a self-reinforcing class structure.
> It does nobody any good for fewer people to be wealthy
It could. If we actively redistributed wealth from the top quintile to the bottom quintile, it would do a lot of people a lot of good.
> What would you prefer: a world where more or fewer people were able to amass that much wealth? To me, the obvious answer is more.
Fewer. That wealth represents the obligation of other people to labor on behalf of the owner or their heirs. A world with lots of rich people is a world where the poor are born into indentured servitude. Equality allows the newborn to enter life debt free.
Fewer. That wealth represents the obligation of other people to labor on behalf of the owner or their heirs. A world with lots of rich people is a world where the poor are born into indentured servitude. Equality allows the newborn to enter life debt free.
I think you have some flawed assumptions.
1. Wealth doesn't require a lot of labor to prop it up, especially not in an increasingly technological world where digital products enable infinite copies at no marginal cost, where code can "labor" in the background without manpower, and where the internet provides infinite distribution to all corners of the globe.
2. Labor today looks significantly different than it did in the past. It's increasingly fulfilling and service-like. In fact, many of the richest people spend exorbitant amounts of time "laboring," e.g. via writing or other creative pursuits.
3. A smaller wealth gap doesn't imply mobility of freedom from debt, any more than a shorter track implies faster sprinters. You can have a more equal society with a narrower distribution of wealth but also greater absolute poverty and misery.
1. Wealth doesn't require a lot of labor to prop it up, especially not in an increasingly technological world where digital products enable infinite copies at no marginal cost, where code can "labor" in the background without manpower, and where the internet provides infinite distribution to all corners of the globe.
2. Labor today looks significantly different than it did in the past. It's increasingly fulfilling and service-like. In fact, many of the richest people spend exorbitant amounts of time "laboring," e.g. via writing or other creative pursuits.
3. A smaller wealth gap doesn't imply mobility of freedom from debt, any more than a shorter track implies faster sprinters. You can have a more equal society with a narrower distribution of wealth but also greater absolute poverty and misery.
What flawed assumption do you think I'm making?
Wealth represents owed labor, because ordinary people have an obligation to pay rent, and otherwise buy resources from the previous generation of humans, who allocated nature before they were born; so they have an obligation to work for owners; and wealth takes the form of ownership of a share of the work done by them.
Wealth represents owed labor, because ordinary people have an obligation to pay rent, and otherwise buy resources from the previous generation of humans, who allocated nature before they were born; so they have an obligation to work for owners; and wealth takes the form of ownership of a share of the work done by them.
> Wealth represents owed labor
That's the flawed assumption you're making. Wealth does not just come from labor. It largely comes from technology. Technology provides leverage. It's not uncommon that a single person today can do something that generates 10,000x the entertainment/utility/productivity/wealth any single person could have in the past.
The average person today is far wealthier than the average person hundreds of years ago, and we have fewer indentured servants, not more. That's because we can generate wealth much more easily today, thanks to technology. As a result, we should (and do) have far more wealthy people.
Also, just mathematically speaking, more wealthy people can't mean more servants. To use an extreme example, a society with 99% wealthy people could only have 1% servants, max.
That's the flawed assumption you're making. Wealth does not just come from labor. It largely comes from technology. Technology provides leverage. It's not uncommon that a single person today can do something that generates 10,000x the entertainment/utility/productivity/wealth any single person could have in the past.
The average person today is far wealthier than the average person hundreds of years ago, and we have fewer indentured servants, not more. That's because we can generate wealth much more easily today, thanks to technology. As a result, we should (and do) have far more wealthy people.
Also, just mathematically speaking, more wealthy people can't mean more servants. To use an extreme example, a society with 99% wealthy people could only have 1% servants, max.
OK. That's not an assumption though. I explained the reasoning behind that claim. You didn't address it.
> we can generate wealth much more easily today, thanks to technology
This is a different kind of "wealth." I certainly didn't mean to say anything against higher productivity etc.
I was saying that if someone has more wealth measured in dollars than everyone else in society, that person then has an effective power to prey upon or parasitize those others and their children. So that kind of wealth isn't a positive thing. But technology is different.
> we can generate wealth much more easily today, thanks to technology
This is a different kind of "wealth." I certainly didn't mean to say anything against higher productivity etc.
I was saying that if someone has more wealth measured in dollars than everyone else in society, that person then has an effective power to prey upon or parasitize those others and their children. So that kind of wealth isn't a positive thing. But technology is different.
You're right, let me address your reasoning.
> ordinary people have an obligation to pay rent, and otherwise buy resources from the previous generation of humans, who allocated nature before they were born; so they have an obligation to work for owners; and wealth takes the form of ownership of a share of the work done by them.
Yes this is true. We're all part of a vast, interconnected, capitalistic network ("the market") of who people who own/make useful things and then sell/rent/loan them to others in the network.
But here's what's important: (1) Even if you're rich, you have to spend money on things created by others in the market. (2) Anyone has the ability to become a seller of things in the market.
In other words, it's not about owners vs workers. Rather, it's about consumers and creators. The "and" is important, because everyone is a consumer, plus everyone has the ability to simultaneously be a creator. Being a consumer isn't a bad thing, and doesn't make you subject to rich parasites in any way that I can see. Additionally, the internet and technology are only making it easier to become a creator.
> ordinary people have an obligation to pay rent, and otherwise buy resources from the previous generation of humans, who allocated nature before they were born; so they have an obligation to work for owners; and wealth takes the form of ownership of a share of the work done by them.
Yes this is true. We're all part of a vast, interconnected, capitalistic network ("the market") of who people who own/make useful things and then sell/rent/loan them to others in the network.
But here's what's important: (1) Even if you're rich, you have to spend money on things created by others in the market. (2) Anyone has the ability to become a seller of things in the market.
In other words, it's not about owners vs workers. Rather, it's about consumers and creators. The "and" is important, because everyone is a consumer, plus everyone has the ability to simultaneously be a creator. Being a consumer isn't a bad thing, and doesn't make you subject to rich parasites in any way that I can see. Additionally, the internet and technology are only making it easier to become a creator.
> No, I'm saying that there's always going to be some level of wealth that's difficult to achieve.
Social mobility isn’t really about the “difficulty” of achieving any particular level of wealth. It’s about how many people who start at some lower level of wealth achieve some higher level of wealth. Income inequality is also not really about the “difficulty” of something. It’s not exactly “difficult” to inherit the wealth of the wealthiest person in the world, either, but it obviously can only happen to a very small number of people in the world.
Social mobility isn’t really about the “difficulty” of achieving any particular level of wealth. It’s about how many people who start at some lower level of wealth achieve some higher level of wealth. Income inequality is also not really about the “difficulty” of something. It’s not exactly “difficult” to inherit the wealth of the wealthiest person in the world, either, but it obviously can only happen to a very small number of people in the world.
An unreachable tier of society indicates a fundamental social injustice. They're in the top 20% of wealth...not intelligence, or in any other factor making them deserving of it. Some of them did work hard, and probably deserve it if you consider hard work deserving of it...but, some people worked harder and didn't make it, so it's not a 1-to-1 equation. So there's a huge element of luck, which is kind of like a slavery for the bottom 80%..just like, you're born with one skin color (luck), you're in the upper class, and own the unlucky people born with another skin color.
Generally, we try to equalize the brutal laws of nature and offer equality of opportunity and try to remove blind, dumb luck from human life...with health care, with insurance, with social equality...sometimes, we succeed, but this is a failure.
Generally, we try to equalize the brutal laws of nature and offer equality of opportunity and try to remove blind, dumb luck from human life...with health care, with insurance, with social equality...sometimes, we succeed, but this is a failure.
"if you consider hard work deserving of it"
Do you mean to say people who do nothing deserve wealth?
Do you mean to say people who do nothing deserve wealth?
It seems in context that they're saying that you may or may not consider the fact that you worked hard and then were heartily rewarded to mean that you deserved the result. Especially in the context of many many other people working just as hard and not getting the same result.
That makes more sense, it was more suggesting effort and result aren’t always directly causally connected even if people feel their hard work was what produced the result. Yeah that checks out in my experience.
LOL where are these "people who do nothing"
There are multiple people I’ve known who do the bare minimum to continue their existence and from the ones I’ve known I’m sure they’d contribute nothing if they were able to. I don’t consider it a particularly valid way to live. There are a lot more who do try to make their lives better though.
Who determines who deserves what?
One reason is because it's almost impossible to prevent extremely wealthy people from having undue influence on politics. Another reason would be that most rich people don't allocate capital in a way that's good for society. Some do, most don't. We tend to hear about the ones that do.
> it's almost impossible to prevent extremely wealthy people from having undue influence on politics.
Money is basically an abstract representation of power, so that's almost a tautology.
> Another reason would be that most rich people don't allocate capital in a way that's good for society
This is an interesting claim? What is good for society, and relative to whom?
I suppose the obvious comparison would be relative to "poor" people, but poor people don't really intentionally allocate capital at all by virtue of barely having enough for their immediate needs. Even the selfish rich people tend to invest their capital, usually into lucrative projects that make money by fulfilling some need of society. I guess i wonder if that's so bad, or at least if its worse than the other social classes would do.
Money is basically an abstract representation of power, so that's almost a tautology.
> Another reason would be that most rich people don't allocate capital in a way that's good for society
This is an interesting claim? What is good for society, and relative to whom?
I suppose the obvious comparison would be relative to "poor" people, but poor people don't really intentionally allocate capital at all by virtue of barely having enough for their immediate needs. Even the selfish rich people tend to invest their capital, usually into lucrative projects that make money by fulfilling some need of society. I guess i wonder if that's so bad, or at least if its worse than the other social classes would do.
>Even the selfish rich people tend to invest their capital, usually into lucrative projects that make money by fulfilling some need of society
That's not how money is made. You need some kind of parasitic mechanism to enable massive accumulations.
That's not how money is made. You need some kind of parasitic mechanism to enable massive accumulations.
"Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776
> What is good for society
Decarbonization, novel drug research, preventative medicine, high speed rural broadband, public transport, nutrient rich foods, exercise, education.
Decarbonization, novel drug research, preventative medicine, high speed rural broadband, public transport, nutrient rich foods, exercise, education.
Sure those are all good things (although not the only definition of "good"). The question remains: would a different capital allocation achieve them any better
> Why is it a bad thing that so many people are that wealthy?
In the USA's case: for every one person who is that wealthy there are dozens of people struggling to put food on the table.
In the USA's case: for every one person who is that wealthy there are dozens of people struggling to put food on the table.
12% of Americans struggle from food insecurity. By definition, 20% of Americans are in the top quintile. I'm with you, I want that first number to be as close to 0% as possible. But it's mathematically untrue that there are dozens of Americans starving for every American in the top 20%. In fact, there are barely half as many.
I count myself to be lucky in the top 20% of earners in America and have friends who also fit in the range. I've met a lot of people who struggle to put food on the table whose income is in the middle 50%. A lot of them have the same complaint: they don't qualify for help because they make too much. But they also struggle to pay their bills because they don't make enough.
I don't know where you think 12% of Americans "struggle from food insecurity". But I don't trust your numbers because my anecdata says different.
I don't know where you think 12% of Americans "struggle from food insecurity". But I don't trust your numbers because my anecdata says different.
It may be that the definition of "food insecurity" is broader than your intuition.
Per Federal Reserve studies, ~10-15% of US households have no discretionary income after all essential expenses, which includes food. For people in this financial state, any unplanned expense will cut into their already limited budget for food. Even though they have food, and won't starve, this risk is likely sufficient to be deemed "food insecure". However, in practice this is often offset by the myriad USDA and other food subsidy programs.
We received a lot of free food from the US government when I was a child, and I doubt the programs are less generous today. I definitely would have met the definition of "food insecure" at the time even though we always had food.
Per Federal Reserve studies, ~10-15% of US households have no discretionary income after all essential expenses, which includes food. For people in this financial state, any unplanned expense will cut into their already limited budget for food. Even though they have food, and won't starve, this risk is likely sufficient to be deemed "food insecure". However, in practice this is often offset by the myriad USDA and other food subsidy programs.
We received a lot of free food from the US government when I was a child, and I doubt the programs are less generous today. I definitely would have met the definition of "food insecure" at the time even though we always had food.
I'm not saying any of the people you've described fall into this category, but: there are plenty of people who struggle to pay the bills but not through lack of income. They struggle to pay the bills while always having the latest iPhone, designer clothes, drinking $7 lattes every day, etc.
On the other hand, I know people who spend less than $7 per day on their entire food budget. They receive just barely enough money per month to cover rent and food (and a little left over to pay for wifi and a small savings for computer upgrades) but they don't struggle from food insecurity. I live in Canada, though, so I don't know about the welfare situation in the US.
On the other hand, I know people who spend less than $7 per day on their entire food budget. They receive just barely enough money per month to cover rent and food (and a little left over to pay for wifi and a small savings for computer upgrades) but they don't struggle from food insecurity. I live in Canada, though, so I don't know about the welfare situation in the US.
The 12% is close to the USDA ERS survey finding that 10.5% U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2020.
That might be a place to begin investigating the difference between your lived experience and more systematic data collection efforts.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...
That might be a place to begin investigating the difference between your lived experience and more systematic data collection efforts.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...
I mean just think for a second. There is a maximum for 4 people for every person in the top 20%. It literally cannot be “dozens” even if the entire bottom 80% was struggling for food.
Yes, in the same way that the average energy density in the universe is zero, sure. But there's parts of the country where the local averages are much more skewed relative to the rest of the country.
[deleted]
This is a snapshot of now.
Where are we going with the money thing?
If the goal is everyone have money to access stuff (get to 0%)… why money?
Just provide stuff?
Socially make the story “this is how acquisition of stuff works and what stuff is available.”
Like we do now. Just minus the money.
Everyone lives under a quota for stuff given how much money they have.
What’s with the arbitrary data structure (dollar) and old man algorithms for dividing it up?
Where are we going with the money thing?
If the goal is everyone have money to access stuff (get to 0%)… why money?
Just provide stuff?
Socially make the story “this is how acquisition of stuff works and what stuff is available.”
Like we do now. Just minus the money.
Everyone lives under a quota for stuff given how much money they have.
What’s with the arbitrary data structure (dollar) and old man algorithms for dividing it up?
That does not answer the question you are responding to in any way.
Because wealth is used to capture political power, which in turn is used to help the wealthy hoard even more wealth and retain that wealth.
Furthermore, this often is done at the expense of everyone else. Wealth may not be zero-sum, but that is only true in the abstract sense; I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that most people who are at the topmost quintile acquired their wealth by sucking value out of the system (e.g. rent-seekers, parasitic middlemen, etc.), rather than via value generation.
Furthermore, this often is done at the expense of everyone else. Wealth may not be zero-sum, but that is only true in the abstract sense; I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that most people who are at the topmost quintile acquired their wealth by sucking value out of the system (e.g. rent-seekers, parasitic middlemen, etc.), rather than via value generation.
The way you get to the top is to be a lackey of the extractive mega-elites. I.e., you help enable the parasites, and they give you a cut.
Because when people feel like there is no hope to make it to the top, they become resentful and society starts to break down.
I agree, but if we don’t account for wealth inequality, then we can fail to get there because our government tends to optimize for the already-wealthy at the expense of everyone else. This happens due to special interest lobbyists who make sure that every law tips the scales a bit in favor of their wealthy patrons (it’s like playing hungry hungry hippos on a table that tilts downwards toward the rich). The more inequality we have, the more greater the extent to which the government serves the interests of the wealthy class, which in turn exacerbates inequality. So we should make sure we are actually making more wealthy people and not just helping the already-wealthy grease the pole for others.
Historically in the United States rich people have had a disproportionate influence on politics, distorting the effectiveness of our democracy.
There is no problem that people are wealthy, the problem is that the wealthy people do not share (accountability, wealth, etc.)
* wealthy here is used in a relative sense, not in an absolute one. Obviously it's good that people in general are wealthy absolutely.
There is no problem that people are wealthy, the problem is that the wealthy people do not share (accountability, wealth, etc.)
* wealthy here is used in a relative sense, not in an absolute one. Obviously it's good that people in general are wealthy absolutely.
> Why is it a bad thing that so many people are that wealthy?
Much more than they’re willing to admit this controversy is about envy on that side. They cloak that envy in a veneer of concern for the poor and concern about the undue influence that money allows; both valid concerns. However, they then target policies that exacerbate poverty and make worse the absolute plight of the poor.
The other side is not willing to admit that for them it’s more than a bit about avarice. They hide that avarice in myths of the self made founder and myths about ethically conscious capitalism; both things you can find laudable examples of. However, many hide their privileged starting points and sell out immediately when profit conflicts with their morals.
Much more than they’re willing to admit this controversy is about envy on that side. They cloak that envy in a veneer of concern for the poor and concern about the undue influence that money allows; both valid concerns. However, they then target policies that exacerbate poverty and make worse the absolute plight of the poor.
The other side is not willing to admit that for them it’s more than a bit about avarice. They hide that avarice in myths of the self made founder and myths about ethically conscious capitalism; both things you can find laudable examples of. However, many hide their privileged starting points and sell out immediately when profit conflicts with their morals.
tlear(3)
> Why should 1 out of 5 people belong to a group so wealthy that saying mobility is difficult should be considered problematic?
Why should some people be able to run much faster than I can?
It's not fair there are many men handsomer than myself. They should be required to wear a mask.
Why should some people be able to run much faster than I can?
It's not fair there are many men handsomer than myself. They should be required to wear a mask.
imagine equating wealth to attraction, lol. I understand your point, but what an inane example.
Why is it inane? Handsomeness is something you're born with, and most people assert that wealth is, too.
My handsomeness cannot, in any meaningful way, be taken away to help you be more handsome, no matter how handsome I am or how ugly you are.
Your wealth can absolutely be taken away to help me afford food, shelter, and healthcare.
Furthermore, my handsomeness does not in any way directly gain me the aforementioned things needed to survive and thrive. Your wealth absolutely does.
Your wealth can absolutely be taken away to help me afford food, shelter, and healthcare.
Furthermore, my handsomeness does not in any way directly gain me the aforementioned things needed to survive and thrive. Your wealth absolutely does.
Handsome people statistically make significantly more money than others. Statistically, people in jail are much less handsome than the general population. Salaries are statistically higher for taller people as well, by the inch.
Forcing Hollywood to hire fewer attractive actors and more unattractive actors will meaningfully transfer lucrative roles to less attractive people.
Forcing Hollywood to hire fewer attractive actors and more unattractive actors will meaningfully transfer lucrative roles to less attractive people.
[deleted]
The other side of the coin would be data about how overwhelmingly likely it is to retain one's membership in the top quintile by mere dint of being born into it.
It seems grotesque that many are born and stay very wealthy while so many others have little to no chance of ever experiencing even modest prosperity.
Another observation: No other quintile has actually grown its percentage of household wealth since the 1970s. The wealthy really have taken all of the gains. Perhaps it would be healthy for us to share some with the people who do all of the physical labor.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203247/shares-of-househo...
It seems grotesque that many are born and stay very wealthy while so many others have little to no chance of ever experiencing even modest prosperity.
Another observation: No other quintile has actually grown its percentage of household wealth since the 1970s. The wealthy really have taken all of the gains. Perhaps it would be healthy for us to share some with the people who do all of the physical labor.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203247/shares-of-househo...
You should probably read the actual analysis (free, 40+ page paper), they accounted for all sorts of things. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015
The story is not so much about the US's (low) social mobility, but about how Americans perceive it. The effect of "Americans are much more optimistic about social mobility" seems to be the same if you look at other measures, like "Probability of remaining in the bottom quintile".
(Except Q2 -> Q1 mobility, which Americans seem more pessimistic about for some reason.)
There was a survey[1] a while ago where 19% of Americans said they were in the top 1%, and 20% more believed they would later become the 1%. That adds up to 39% of Americans who are either irrationally optimistic or who failed statistics. It's kind of like how everyone thinks they are an above-average driver and are a top performer at work.
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-ho...
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-ho...
The economist has been pushing a certain political agenda for a while now, I cancelled my subscription a while ago because of this reason
You didn't consider that this quite old publication, renowned for its conservative market-friendly op-eds and neutral-as-can-be reporting, may have realized that wealth inequality and lack of social mobility is a bit more important than they used to think?
I think you're possibly thinking about this the wrong way. The story here isn't "noted communist magazine the Economist is trailblazing by writing about social mobility problems", it's "social mobility has become such a problem that even _the Economist_ is now covering it". This isn't a new concern, by any means, and at this point I would think that _most_ serious media has covered it; the Economist is just grudgingly catching up.
Note that they couldn't resist trying to find a bright side (the numbers are still quite _bad_, just not as bad as people think they are):
> But in Europe, climbing the ladder is easier than most people believe
Note that they couldn't resist trying to find a bright side (the numbers are still quite _bad_, just not as bad as people think they are):
> But in Europe, climbing the ladder is easier than most people believe
Thank you. The article is using statistics to lie.
Read the actual study. The people who did the study are knowledgeable about the topic. If a non expert can think of a problem with the paper after a few moments of thinking about it then it is highly likely that person’s objections are not valid and are accounted for in the study.
A person should not read the study or the article and think, “The reason this is nonsense is X.” Rather the thought should be, “I wonder how the study accounts for X.”
A person should not read the study or the article and think, “The reason this is nonsense is X.” Rather the thought should be, “I wonder how the study accounts for X.”
This is possible, but it's also possible that they are just lying too
Some studies use household income over years to """prove""" that incomes have either fallen or stagnated. They just outright ignore that the size of the household went from 6+ to about 4. In this scenario a constant household income meant about 50% increase in per Capita income
Some studies use household income over years to """prove""" that incomes have either fallen or stagnated. They just outright ignore that the size of the household went from 6+ to about 4. In this scenario a constant household income meant about 50% increase in per Capita income
Plenty of knowledgeable people have very motivated reasoning
Yes. Also, people who know a lot in one area have a tendency to think their 5 minutes of thought on a study in a area they know virtually nothing about is on par with those performing said study. This is especially so on this site. So many people chime in thinking they’ve spotted a fatal flaw without contemplating that those who did the study have almost certainly thought if all the easy potential objections.
> This analysis also ignores government transfers.
AFAIU, by dollar amount government transfers in the U.S. are roughly comparable to those in most European countries. However, a disproportionate amount of those transfers are spent on medical care, a consequence of the high cost of medical care in the U.S. Moreover, a disproportionate amount of government medical spending goes toward the elderly and small, high risk groups. IOW, even at comparable dollar amounts, government transfers in the U.S. simply don't provide the same sort of secure economic footing that people can use to get ahead in some other countries.
AFAIU, by dollar amount government transfers in the U.S. are roughly comparable to those in most European countries. However, a disproportionate amount of those transfers are spent on medical care, a consequence of the high cost of medical care in the U.S. Moreover, a disproportionate amount of government medical spending goes toward the elderly and small, high risk groups. IOW, even at comparable dollar amounts, government transfers in the U.S. simply don't provide the same sort of secure economic footing that people can use to get ahead in some other countries.
Disagree. The biggest transfer is cash through the EITC. If you're eligible for EITC, you're likely eligible for Medicaid which has near-zero out of pocket costs for medical care.
I keep hearing how the US has a "non-existant safety net" yet can help but notice safety net programs are more than half the federal budget.
I keep hearing how the US has a "non-existant safety net" yet can help but notice safety net programs are more than half the federal budget.
> The biggest transfer is cash through the EITC.
Per Wikipedia, "At a cost of $56 billion in 2013, the EITC is the third-largest social welfare program in the United States after Medicaid ($275 billion federal and $127 billion state expenditures) and food stamps ($78 billion)".[1] That looks to me like Medicaid spending is nearly 8x that of EITC.
And that's just Medicaid. Medicare spending is greater still, though I don't know the breakdown of Medicare spending by revenue source--FICA vs straight government subsidy. The subsidized component may be less than Medicaid, or may already be accounted for by Medicaid.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit Wikipedia's source is http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spe...
Per Wikipedia, "At a cost of $56 billion in 2013, the EITC is the third-largest social welfare program in the United States after Medicaid ($275 billion federal and $127 billion state expenditures) and food stamps ($78 billion)".[1] That looks to me like Medicaid spending is nearly 8x that of EITC.
And that's just Medicaid. Medicare spending is greater still, though I don't know the breakdown of Medicare spending by revenue source--FICA vs straight government subsidy. The subsidized component may be less than Medicaid, or may already be accounted for by Medicaid.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit Wikipedia's source is http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spe...
How is it problematic and not just an arbitrary metric?
You also presuppose that everything should be relative to absolute terms. What evidence do you have that social mobility should be relative to absolute terms rather than relative to the quintiles defined by the society a given person lives in?
Why would we expect mobility in absolute terms for a society that ranges from 1-100 in wealth, compared to a society than ranges from 40-50? We should expect mobility to be with respect to the society’s wealth range.
You also presuppose that everything should be relative to absolute terms. What evidence do you have that social mobility should be relative to absolute terms rather than relative to the quintiles defined by the society a given person lives in?
Why would we expect mobility in absolute terms for a society that ranges from 1-100 in wealth, compared to a society than ranges from 40-50? We should expect mobility to be with respect to the society’s wealth range.
I don't think moving to the top 20% is such a strange metric to look at. Isn't that the 'american dream'? This is especially so if you use it as a comparative metric. The study isn't solely looking at this metric to determine whether social mobility in the US is a thing, it is using it as a metric to compare social mobility with other countries, in that sense I think it is valuable.
Is it a fact that the highest quintile is higher in the states? I imagine that Putin and MBS are extraordinarily wealthy
What evidence shows that to be a fact? Do these Americans have proven wealth, or is it all on paper?
What evidence shows that to be a fact? Do these Americans have proven wealth, or is it all on paper?
jeffbee(1)
I think the first step is to admit we have a problem. People don’t like the United States being labeled as anything less than exceptional. If you look at the Amazon workers, Uber drivers, door dashers, etc in this country it’s amazing how hard people can work and not get ahead. 2nd and 3rd jobs can be necessary to just make ends meet. The story that hard work is all it takes in America does need to be questioned.
Talk with any patriotic person and you'll quickly notice that American exceptionalism relies on comparing the United States to the worst countries in the world and ignoring the existence of other developed nations. Eventually followed by "well at least we can talk about it, unlike <authoritative country where people disappear>" and so therefore all indiscretions must be absolved and ignorable since we have the "unique" ability to criticize the government at all, which isn't unique or exceptional or a well implemented vehicle of change.
...or, worse, when a comparison with another developed country is brought up, its successes are simply rejected as the result of eeeeevil socialism, which destroys freedom, don't you know.
or a generic assumption of high taxes in a completely different tax system, while not understanding their own tax system
VWWHFSfQ(2)
There's a few ways to look at the data. One is that it's harder to move to the top quintile in America than some other countries, and people perceive it's much easier than it in in America compared to those places.
The other is that it's much easier to get out of the lower quintile in America than those same countries.
There's a couple reasons that might be. One is that social mobility is actually higher in America, but there's a ceiling over which it's hard to overcome unless you're born there. Whether that ceiling is immediately under the top quintile or somewhere lower is an interesting question.
Edit: as pointed out, I actually misread the first graph, which is probability of remaining in lowest quintile. So, yeah, data looks like all bad news to me (unless you count those people knowing fairly accurately how fucked they are as a good thing).
The other is that it's much easier to get out of the lower quintile in America than those same countries.
There's a couple reasons that might be. One is that social mobility is actually higher in America, but there's a ceiling over which it's hard to overcome unless you're born there. Whether that ceiling is immediately under the top quintile or somewhere lower is an interesting question.
Edit: as pointed out, I actually misread the first graph, which is probability of remaining in lowest quintile. So, yeah, data looks like all bad news to me (unless you count those people knowing fairly accurately how fucked they are as a good thing).
> The other is that it's much easier to get out of the lower quintile in America than those same countries.
That's not what the first graph shows. What you say is true for "perceived" mobility, not for effective mobility. 33% of Americans stay in bottom quintile, much more than other countries.
That's not what the first graph shows. What you say is true for "perceived" mobility, not for effective mobility. 33% of Americans stay in bottom quintile, much more than other countries.
Actually, yeah, that graph is for probability or "remaining" which I missed. Thanks for the heads up.
Even beyond that, interpreting financial mobility is a tricky thing. For example, countries that have had high levels of meritocracy in the past may exhibit less financial mobility because people are already sorted into their merited economic brackets.
How can "merited economic brackets" span generations?
Genes. Of course people like you don't believe in genes, but it explains most things we see here. It is really hard to make poor people successful even if you give them resources, a top 10% childhood is extremely cheap compared to how much society derives from those, if it was that easy then Governments would already mass produce those.
70 years ago college was only for the elite. Today close to half of young adults go to college. Yet that didn't fix anything.
70 years ago college was only for the elite. Today close to half of young adults go to college. Yet that didn't fix anything.
What's a "person like me" ? What do I believe? Or not believe?
I guess this is because we do not have blue blood:(
The answer to your comment is obviously genes, so the only reason anyone would write in such a comment is that they reject that explanation. Blank slate people are always everywhere in threads like this.
Wrong.
Just below is my response to someone else, and the point there is just as relevant as here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29537081
Just below is my response to someone else, and the point there is just as relevant as here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29537081
Culture / upbringing tend to be passed on to some extent from one generation to the next, unless every child is raised in state boarding schools. And on the innate side, whether one hits the genetic lottery is correlated with whether one's parents and grandparents hit the genetic lottery.
For all of its problems, the core concept of a meritocracy is that you don't get positions in life simply based on ancestry.
If the children of an astronomer really do turn out to be the best astronomers, then a meritocracy should theoretically allow them to become the best astronomers in the next generation.
But they do not get to be the astronomers JUST because they had a parent who was good at that. Every generation gets a reset; if genetics really do predict merit, then sure, the arrangement will look a bit like ancestry.
If the children of an astronomer really do turn out to be the best astronomers, then a meritocracy should theoretically allow them to become the best astronomers in the next generation.
But they do not get to be the astronomers JUST because they had a parent who was good at that. Every generation gets a reset; if genetics really do predict merit, then sure, the arrangement will look a bit like ancestry.
> it’s amazing how hard people can work and not get ahead
It's not how hard one works, it's how smart one works.
The second aspect is what does one do with the income one has, which has a crucial impact on the person's future.
It's not how hard one works, it's how smart one works.
The second aspect is what does one do with the income one has, which has a crucial impact on the person's future.
For a lot of people, it's not about how hard or how smart one works.
It's about the support networks that kick in when you screw up or when bad luck befalls you. Lots of middle class kids (like mine) get multiple chances to try and fail. Their parents' wealth and social connections gets to work and cushions their landing, and like Silicon Valley folk, they get to try again.
The children of working class families do not have anything close to this level of support when things go wrong. They make a mistake, or just suffer some bad luck, and they are completely screwed. Yes, everyone can get up and try again, but the difficulty of doing this from zero with no support is routinely underestimated by people (like me and my kids) who've never had to do it.
It's about the support networks that kick in when you screw up or when bad luck befalls you. Lots of middle class kids (like mine) get multiple chances to try and fail. Their parents' wealth and social connections gets to work and cushions their landing, and like Silicon Valley folk, they get to try again.
The children of working class families do not have anything close to this level of support when things go wrong. They make a mistake, or just suffer some bad luck, and they are completely screwed. Yes, everyone can get up and try again, but the difficulty of doing this from zero with no support is routinely underestimated by people (like me and my kids) who've never had to do it.
All those immigrants streaming over the border with nothing manage to do it. Nobody said it was easy, but it is possible.
You've got data on how many southern-border-crossing immigrants make it into the US middle class? I couldn't find any.
Most immigrants in the US do not "stream over the border", more are arriving from Asian countries than Latin American countries. Those that arrive by air from another country typically have more than "nothing" on arrival.
Most immigrants in the US do not "stream over the border", more are arriving from Asian countries than Latin American countries. Those that arrive by air from another country typically have more than "nothing" on arrival.
So, for example, all those news stories about DACA immigrants are fake news?
"With the granting of work authorization and the imminent threat of deportation removed, DACA recipients have experienced pronounced upward mobility in their socioeconomic status."
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/deferred...
"With the granting of work authorization and the imminent threat of deportation removed, DACA recipients have experienced pronounced upward mobility in their socioeconomic status."
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/deferred...
I think most people recognize that a life growing up in the USA followed by the legal right to work and live here is a fairly huge step up in socioeconomic status from where most DACA-covered folk would have been had they not come to the USA.
But TFA was about socioeonomic mobility within the USA, not comparisons with Mexico, Peru or Bolivia. The success of a specific subgroup [0] of undocumented immigrants at moving upwards doesn't refute the general mobility findings cited in TFA, nor does it prove or disprove that their success is about smart work vs hard work vs adversity support. And I didn't mean to imply that neither hard nor smart work play a role in any upward social mobility, but rather that many people forget the role played by adversity support (and it's not a small role).
[0] According the article you cite, DACA covers 832,881 people, which is about 11% of the total undocumented immigrant population in the US at present (and if tales about an uncontrolled wave were correct, even less).
But TFA was about socioeonomic mobility within the USA, not comparisons with Mexico, Peru or Bolivia. The success of a specific subgroup [0] of undocumented immigrants at moving upwards doesn't refute the general mobility findings cited in TFA, nor does it prove or disprove that their success is about smart work vs hard work vs adversity support. And I didn't mean to imply that neither hard nor smart work play a role in any upward social mobility, but rather that many people forget the role played by adversity support (and it's not a small role).
[0] According the article you cite, DACA covers 832,881 people, which is about 11% of the total undocumented immigrant population in the US at present (and if tales about an uncontrolled wave were correct, even less).
I'm not refuting the TFA. I am refuting the notion that people in American cannot move upwards. There is no group more disadvantaged than immigrants, who arrive with nothing, have no support structure, are discriminated against, and often don't even know the language. Yet they can and do succeed, as the DACA cohort shows.
Nothing in the TFA or anyone's comments (dangerously broad, I know) said that people could NOT move upwards.
It said that upward mobility is significantly lower in the USA than many other western industrial democracies, and also significantly lower than most Americans think it is.
It said that upward mobility is significantly lower in the USA than many other western industrial democracies, and also significantly lower than most Americans think it is.
With so much income inequality, differences in savings rates cannot possibly be that important.
What you do with the savings makes all the difference. For example, you could invest it to upgrade your job skills, making for a much higher income level. Investing it at the current negative 4% or so is not much better than setting it on fire.
Investing in yourself is only worth it if you are better than average. People who aren't just waste time and money trying. But if you are better than average then investing in yourself is huge. That is essentially the only reason investing in a start-up would be better than just investing in someone else's start-up, you have to bet that you are better than the other people. And then if you keep reinvesting in yourself and you are consistently better than the CEO's of big companies then you become a billionaire, but of course most people don't generate those returns when you invest in them.
> Investing in yourself is only worth it if you are better than average.
Investing in yourself is how you become better than average.
I'm saddened by the persistent negativity I see here. Buck up, dude!
Investing in yourself is how you become better than average.
I'm saddened by the persistent negativity I see here. Buck up, dude!
That's really not how.
But I would just say the same thing. The differences in income inequality are going to completely swamp any such effect from differences in spending.
Maybe paying for college is an exception to the rule -- only because of all the grants, scholarships, loans, and income-based tuition.
Maybe paying for college is an exception to the rule -- only because of all the grants, scholarships, loans, and income-based tuition.
Plumbing, welding, etc., are very well paying trades one can train for. College is hardly the only path to leveraging oneself into a more lucrative career.
I wasn't saying college was the only path. I was saying it's the only place where the amount of money you SPEND on "leveraging yourself" isn't broadly determined by your income.
> It's not how hard one works, it's how smart one works.
With a single signature you can enter into debt and ruin your life, or enter into a bad marriage and do the same. Taking the right life decisions is essential.
With a single signature you can enter into debt and ruin your life, or enter into a bad marriage and do the same. Taking the right life decisions is essential.
> People don’t like the United States being labeled as anything less than exceptional.
I mean, it _is_ exceptional. Americans, per the article, are exceptionally overly optimistic about social mobility.
I mean, it _is_ exceptional. Americans, per the article, are exceptionally overly optimistic about social mobility.
This is the fundamental barrier toward progress in this country: The idea that America is somehow already perfect.
This kind of complaint is usually made by people who haven't lived in other, more socialist first world countries, for example in Europe. If you would have the chance to do so, you would realize how bad it is in Europe when you're stocking shelves or driving a taxi.
Social mobility is very different than economic mobility. It's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field. Heck, I did it without any college.
Social mobility is a different story. I was raised in a rural area, which is essentially a social class of its own. Since becoming an adult, I've found myself gravitating towards working-class people. I like the bluntness, the awareness of real issues, and the family values. I make more money than many of the yuppies who live a mile away, but socially, I'm several rungs "below" them.
I could get a nice haircut, mow my lawn properly, get divorced, and fit right in, if I chose to, but I don't want to. I think you'll find many lower-class Americans wouldn't, even if they knew how to.
Edit: by "Working class", I mean blue-collar and not wealthy. The salary cap is a little higher than the traditional definition, but I think it's a more accurate representation of middle America.
Social mobility is a different story. I was raised in a rural area, which is essentially a social class of its own. Since becoming an adult, I've found myself gravitating towards working-class people. I like the bluntness, the awareness of real issues, and the family values. I make more money than many of the yuppies who live a mile away, but socially, I'm several rungs "below" them.
I could get a nice haircut, mow my lawn properly, get divorced, and fit right in, if I chose to, but I don't want to. I think you'll find many lower-class Americans wouldn't, even if they knew how to.
Edit: by "Working class", I mean blue-collar and not wealthy. The salary cap is a little higher than the traditional definition, but I think it's a more accurate representation of middle America.
This is not your main point, but in the spirit of Americans overestimating social mobility, you may be overestimating "family values" among the working class. According to the 2015 US census, the share of people who have been divorced at least once is 46% (poor), 41% (working class) and 30% (middle and upper class). Similarly, people who report they are "very happy" in marriage are 54% (poor), 56% (working class) and 65% (middle and upper class). (https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-marriage-divide-how-and-why-w...).
I wasn't able to turn up any stats on lawn care though.
I wasn't able to turn up any stats on lawn care though.
I think his definition of working class is perhaps different to the definition in your study.
It's one of those terms that are loosely defined (at least in certain societies) and mean very different things to different people.
Is an electrician earning US$80k/year middle class because he's well compensated for his work, or working class because he's doing manual labour?
It's one of those terms that are loosely defined (at least in certain societies) and mean very different things to different people.
Is an electrician earning US$80k/year middle class because he's well compensated for his work, or working class because he's doing manual labour?
The phrase "Family Values" is pretty vague, too. I'm sure if you asked almost everyone who is in a family whether they felt they had family values they'd say yes. I'm not really sure what someone means when they say an area has "family values". I don't think it means lack of divorce.
In the 90s, I remember "family values" having been used by politicians as a polite euphemism for the very narrow "straight, Christian, atomic" view of what a family should be.
In the 90s, I remember "family values" having been used by politicians as a polite euphemism for the very narrow "straight, Christian, atomic" view of what a family should be.
>I don't think it means lack of divorce.
I'd definitely view a lack of divorce as a pretty big part of it.
But as you said, it's entirely personal and subjective. :)
I'd definitely view a lack of divorce as a pretty big part of it.
But as you said, it's entirely personal and subjective. :)
However you cut it, divorce rates are substantially higher among the working class. If you look at educational attainment:
% divorced among those married, by age 46:
Did not graduate from high school: 58.8
High school graduate, no college: 49.1
Some college or associate degree: 48.5
Bachelor's degree or higher: 29.8
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/pdf/marriage-and-d...
% divorced among those married, by age 46:
Did not graduate from high school: 58.8
High school graduate, no college: 49.1
Some college or associate degree: 48.5
Bachelor's degree or higher: 29.8
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/pdf/marriage-and-d...
Poor, middle, and upper class are economic distinctions in America. Not social ones. I think OP misstated his alignment to the "working class". He refers to Yuppies in the subsequent sentence which gives a hint that this is a rural/urban divide argument.
But that's just my reading of it.
But that's just my reading of it.
I'm telling an anecdotal story, and in my area the working class is very Catholic, black, or both. YMMV, not valid in California.
California has one of the lowest divorce rates in the entire country
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with...
California is ~1 point below the national average in marriages and divorces. By comparison, Maine is 4 points over the marriage average and 3 points under the divorce average.
I should have remembered my audience and not made a joke about California's differences from the rest of the country.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/12/united-states...
I should have remembered my audience and not made a joke about California's differences from the rest of the country.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/12/united-states...
Now why would you mention Maine? I guess then I would say Arkansas has the worst divorce rate (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with... 2020). I assume that's the whole thing we're doing here?, blue state, red state?
I responded to your original comment because you said "and in my area the working class is very Catholic, black, or both. YMMV, not valid in California." which you say is a joke. What's the joke? Now I don't want to accuse you of contributing to this because I have no way of knowing where your beliefs about CA came from by (I'm going to go off on a tangent here) but what I've seen when it comes to California is that people now use it as a negative example for almost every comparison, often without evidence. It's done so much that there's now there's a negative connotation to the state itself that certainly isn't valid in all cases. It's so insidious how a belief / stereotype can just appear out of no where if it's just causally spread out.
I responded to your original comment because you said "and in my area the working class is very Catholic, black, or both. YMMV, not valid in California." which you say is a joke. What's the joke? Now I don't want to accuse you of contributing to this because I have no way of knowing where your beliefs about CA came from by (I'm going to go off on a tangent here) but what I've seen when it comes to California is that people now use it as a negative example for almost every comparison, often without evidence. It's done so much that there's now there's a negative connotation to the state itself that certainly isn't valid in all cases. It's so insidious how a belief / stereotype can just appear out of no where if it's just causally spread out.
Maine isn't hard red, they do lean red but tend to elect very moderate people. I looked at the map of states by divorce and marriage vs the average and noticed Maine is nuptually superior.
California is an exception to all sorts of rules, due in part to its diversity and insane wealth. I could have said "Marriage is known to the State of California to cause cancer" and have been making the same joke.
Please note that I'm northeastern, and Cali/NYC are the butt of almost every joke, because both places have such a massive disconnect from the reality of middle America. I bet people from rural California know exactly the feeling I'm describing.
California is an exception to all sorts of rules, due in part to its diversity and insane wealth. I could have said "Marriage is known to the State of California to cause cancer" and have been making the same joke.
Please note that I'm northeastern, and Cali/NYC are the butt of almost every joke, because both places have such a massive disconnect from the reality of middle America. I bet people from rural California know exactly the feeling I'm describing.
It's a trite joke not even grounded in reality. Vast swaths of California believe exactly the same shit as the people making those jokes. I mean, I grew up in the mountains, cutting through cow-pastures to get to school. I've yet to hear a California joke that rings true to my experience.
It's the most populous state in the nation, as well as one of the most climactically and geographically diverse states.
There's almost nothing anyone could say that will apply to the whole population or the whole geography, certainly not anything that wouldn't apply equally well (or badly) to all Americans.
There's almost nothing anyone could say that will apply to the whole population or the whole geography, certainly not anything that wouldn't apply equally well (or badly) to all Americans.
This may be influenced by the fact that CA also has one of the lowest marriage rates in the country: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/ma...
> Americans overestimate social mobility in their country (economist.com)
>> HOW likely is someone to move up the economic ladder?
> It's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field.
> https://personalfinancedata.com/income-percentile-calculator...
>> An income of $100,000 for ages 40 to 100 ranks at the 89.82%
good to see evidence the article is correct in the wild.
>> HOW likely is someone to move up the economic ladder?
> It's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field.
> https://personalfinancedata.com/income-percentile-calculator...
>> An income of $100,000 for ages 40 to 100 ranks at the 89.82%
good to see evidence the article is correct in the wild.
Why are you citing individual income instead of house hold income? A household income of 100k puts you in the 66th percentile.
https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/
https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/
I cited individual income because that's what the comment I quoted was referring to?
I don't think they did.
Only 8% of people in the United States make more than $100k: https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/
Don't know if I'd call it easy if it's something only 8 out of 100 people do. It also depends on the area. $100k in SF is a lot different than $100k in the mid-west.
Don't know if I'd call it easy if it's something only 8 out of 100 people do. It also depends on the area. $100k in SF is a lot different than $100k in the mid-west.
I definitely have survivorship bias, but I also know many people who've done similar things in different fields. I think knowing other people who make plenty of money helps, but often only by way of example. Knowing it's possible means you'll work harder.
“What I’ve seen contradicts measured statistics across the country” is not a convincing argument. Most users of HN probably live in a bubble; important to look at hard data from reliable sources rather than personal experiences.
> “What I’ve seen contradicts measured statistics across the country” is not a convincing argument.
You are not understanding the other possibilities here.
The other possibility is that yes, it is true that it is not that hard to make it to this level of success, but the stats are still true, and it is simply that people don't do this, for other reasons.
There are a multitude of reasons, as for why someone might not join lucrative fields, even if it isn't that hard to do so.
For example, maybe they simply aren't aware of it, or they incorrectly think it would be difficult. Or maybe there a social reasons why people don't do it.
Or maybe, in order to achieve that level of success they would have to move, and I know that lots of people don't want to do move.
You are not understanding the other possibilities here.
The other possibility is that yes, it is true that it is not that hard to make it to this level of success, but the stats are still true, and it is simply that people don't do this, for other reasons.
There are a multitude of reasons, as for why someone might not join lucrative fields, even if it isn't that hard to do so.
For example, maybe they simply aren't aware of it, or they incorrectly think it would be difficult. Or maybe there a social reasons why people don't do it.
Or maybe, in order to achieve that level of success they would have to move, and I know that lots of people don't want to do move.
A lot of people simply don't want to be HTPL maintenance, for example. It pays very well, but it's hard. That's not acceptable to a lot of folks right now.
My sister-in-law's fiancé is doing it as a journeyman, and he's making very close to what I do as a mid-level SWE.
My sister-in-law's fiancé is doing it as a journeyman, and he's making very close to what I do as a mid-level SWE.
> My sister-in-law's fiancé is doing it as a journeyman, and he's making very close to what I do as a mid-level SWE
This is not a very useful statement without a ballpark figure. Mid level SWE salaries range from <100k to >300k depending on the company.
This is not a very useful statement without a ballpark figure. Mid level SWE salaries range from <100k to >300k depending on the company.
[deleted]
> Only 8% of people in the United States make more than $100k
How does the percentage change when you look at people with full-time jobs? With full-time professional jobs? Who are actively trying to optimise their income instead of for example prioritising family? I'd guess it becomes much larger very quickly.
How does the percentage change when you look at people with full-time jobs? With full-time professional jobs? Who are actively trying to optimise their income instead of for example prioritising family? I'd guess it becomes much larger very quickly.
According to the 2020 census data linked below the percentage increases to around 24% for individuals who worked full time all year. I don’t think there is any easy way to find the more specific groups you mentioned. That’s not a large enough increase to consider making six figures as easy as “prioritizing” it or whatever you’re proposing.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/pinc-01/...
In any case what you’re proposing is selection bias. No one should be surprised that people who work full time are more likely to make six figures than those who don’t. And yes, if you cherry pick a group of “professionals” who receive larger salaries of course the percentage will increase. And it’s back to survivorship bias for the “prioritization” examples you mentioned. Unless you happen to have a random sample of people who don’t make six figures but would prefer to.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/pinc-01/...
In any case what you’re proposing is selection bias. No one should be surprised that people who work full time are more likely to make six figures than those who don’t. And yes, if you cherry pick a group of “professionals” who receive larger salaries of course the percentage will increase. And it’s back to survivorship bias for the “prioritization” examples you mentioned. Unless you happen to have a random sample of people who don’t make six figures but would prefer to.
I think you've just proved yourself that making 100k is extremely achievable in the US (1/4) for someone who even just bothers to turn up full-time.
Keep in mind the "underemployment rate" -- the people who want to be working more but can't find a job that will let them -- is something like 12%.
Being willing to show up full time is necessary but not sufficient.
Being willing to show up full time is necessary but not sufficient.
When 3 out 4 people "fail" at something, I'm not sure that calling it "extremely achievable" is really a particularly suitable description.
Ahem, your statement assumes people even try - most do not. Especially given the "follow your passion" advice Americans are following nowadays.
The GP was using a quote from the GGP:
> According to the 2020 census data linked below the percentage increases to around 24% for individuals who worked full time all year.
It said and implied nothing about people trying or not. GP attempted to cast this as "1/4 of people succeed, so it's easily achieveable"
> According to the 2020 census data linked below the percentage increases to around 24% for individuals who worked full time all year.
It said and implied nothing about people trying or not. GP attempted to cast this as "1/4 of people succeed, so it's easily achieveable"
It said and implied nothing about failing either.
Also, if I look at the people around myself and see that 1 / 4 are able to do something, it would probably be easy. So it’s the GPs own self awareness combined with the stat.
Also, if I look at the people around myself and see that 1 / 4 are able to do something, it would probably be easy. So it’s the GPs own self awareness combined with the stat.
[deleted]
This calculator is from 2016. I’m curious what results this would give after adjusting for inflation and current salary jumps.
A few lessons for social mobility I learned while joining the SF techie class, coming here from a relatively poor country in Europe.
1. If Americans can’t read your emotes they put you in a “Uh this feels weird, that person is an emotionless robot” camp. You have to practice
2. It is not okay to ask “What’s that?” when someone proudly mentions which college they went to (because as a European you only recognize 4 or 5)
3. Talking about money with upper middle class people is impolite. They have never had money problems and do not understand why anyone would ever talk about money
4. You should instead talk about your investments
5. Saying “Charity? That’s what taxes is for” is considered trolling
6. Rent and real estate are the only times it’s socially acceptable to say “Damn, life is expensive”
7. You have to talk about helping the less fortunate
8. It is not okay to directly help the less fortunate on your street, wouldn’t want to make them feel like it’s okay to be there
9. You can only say positive things about your boss (because you aim to become them)
10. It is okay to say negative things about your boss’s boss’s boss
11. Every acquaintance is “a friend”
12. Real friends are “best/close friend”
13. Everyone hires cleaners and similar help, this is not considered a luxury
14. Everything is always awesome
15. You don’t fail, you are given an opportunity to grow
1. If Americans can’t read your emotes they put you in a “Uh this feels weird, that person is an emotionless robot” camp. You have to practice
2. It is not okay to ask “What’s that?” when someone proudly mentions which college they went to (because as a European you only recognize 4 or 5)
3. Talking about money with upper middle class people is impolite. They have never had money problems and do not understand why anyone would ever talk about money
4. You should instead talk about your investments
5. Saying “Charity? That’s what taxes is for” is considered trolling
6. Rent and real estate are the only times it’s socially acceptable to say “Damn, life is expensive”
7. You have to talk about helping the less fortunate
8. It is not okay to directly help the less fortunate on your street, wouldn’t want to make them feel like it’s okay to be there
9. You can only say positive things about your boss (because you aim to become them)
10. It is okay to say negative things about your boss’s boss’s boss
11. Every acquaintance is “a friend”
12. Real friends are “best/close friend”
13. Everyone hires cleaners and similar help, this is not considered a luxury
14. Everything is always awesome
15. You don’t fail, you are given an opportunity to grow
> Talking about money with upper middle class people is impolite. They have never had money problems and do not understand why anyone would ever talk about money
That isn't the reason at all. My parents struggled in the Depression, but they never ever talked about their money. The Depression taught them to be very, very frugal, a lifelong habit. (My family tended to keep cars for 30 years, for example.) I had no idea what my Dad had until after he passed away.
> You don’t fail, you are given an opportunity to grow
This is an attitude common to successful people at all levels. There's a reason it correlates with success.
That isn't the reason at all. My parents struggled in the Depression, but they never ever talked about their money. The Depression taught them to be very, very frugal, a lifelong habit. (My family tended to keep cars for 30 years, for example.) I had no idea what my Dad had until after he passed away.
> You don’t fail, you are given an opportunity to grow
This is an attitude common to successful people at all levels. There's a reason it correlates with success.
Money talk might be an american thing then, not a class thing? Where I’m from everyone is safely broke together so complaining about lack of money is almost used as small talk like weather.
But once you climb out of that, suddenly you stop talking about money. Figured US was the same
But once you climb out of that, suddenly you stop talking about money. Figured US was the same
Talking about money just makes you a target for every charity, scam, people wanting loans, people wanting you to invest in their startup, groupies, and on and on.
I bet it would be really, really hard to become an actual friend of Bill Gates, for an extreme example. I once was at a conference, where he was a speaker, and sat at the lunch table he sat at, along with 7 other people. It was sickening how they fawned all over him. He pretended not to notice, but can you imagine going through life with that happening all the time?
I bet it would be really, really hard to become an actual friend of Bill Gates, for an extreme example. I once was at a conference, where he was a speaker, and sat at the lunch table he sat at, along with 7 other people. It was sickening how they fawned all over him. He pretended not to notice, but can you imagine going through life with that happening all the time?
To be fair, #5 is kind of trolling. Taxes are not 'charity'.
Also, the 'money talk' thing - that's Anglo, not American, and it's nothing to do with not understanding low income, it's basically avoidance of blunt status bragging, it's considered a bit crude. Which is why you'd have to talk about your investments in order to humble brag.
Also, the 'money talk' thing - that's Anglo, not American, and it's nothing to do with not understanding low income, it's basically avoidance of blunt status bragging, it's considered a bit crude. Which is why you'd have to talk about your investments in order to humble brag.
> To be fair, #5 is kind of trolling. Taxes are not 'charity'.
The point of #5 is that in a number of other countries, people believe that taxes should pay for the social services required by the unfortunate, the sick, the indigent, and so forth. Charity plays a minor role, because it is the job of the state to take care of its citizens.
The point of #5 is that in a number of other countries, people believe that taxes should pay for the social services required by the unfortunate, the sick, the indigent, and so forth. Charity plays a minor role, because it is the job of the state to take care of its citizens.
There are always needs that go far beyond what the government will and should pay for.
Social justice, animal shelters, basic needs for foreign citizens etc..
Social justice, animal shelters, basic needs for foreign citizens etc..
Governments do all of those though. USA doesn't send a lot, true, but other governments send as up to 1% of their GDP as foreign aid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr...
Sure, and that's all that charity covers in countries that believe that taxation should cover the rest.
[deleted]
Are you ... familiar with the "regional gothic" genre?
> It's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field.
If you want to call what the article measures "economic mobility", OK. Regardless of terminology, the point is that Americans think it's easier than it actually is to go from the bottom quintile of income to the top. If "it's not hugely difficult" translates to "more than a 7.8% chance of going from bottom quintile to top", then you'd be among them.
If you want to call what the article measures "economic mobility", OK. Regardless of terminology, the point is that Americans think it's easier than it actually is to go from the bottom quintile of income to the top. If "it's not hugely difficult" translates to "more than a 7.8% chance of going from bottom quintile to top", then you'd be among them.
> It's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field.
That's if you also had a healthy learning environment at school and home, can afford college, and have a healthy early development to be able to grow up into an sufficiently smart child. A lot of people in the bottom 20% don't have those initial conditions.
That's if you also had a healthy learning environment at school and home, can afford college, and have a healthy early development to be able to grow up into an sufficiently smart child. A lot of people in the bottom 20% don't have those initial conditions.
Sure, but that situation is not unique to America. Go to any country in the world and if you have a bad upbringing, how far you go is likely stunted.
or go into one of the many trades that pay north of $100k with no college education and just provided on the job training.
trades right now that are struggling to find applicants.
trades right now that are struggling to find applicants.
The trades are oversold in the US. Many of them are physically demanding if not dangerous. Many of them are dominated by smaller businesses that are practically exempt from labor law enforcement. Many are strongly dependent on the housing cycle. Since many of those businesses are also family-owned, a person without the right connections can face an uphill battle getting a decent job.
I believe that the opioid epidemic started out as a pain epidemic, with a population of people suffering chronic pain that they acquired from their jobs. I've hired people to work at my house, and the ones who are my age tend to be hobbling and broken.
I'd be more enthusiastic about the trades if I lived in a country with better unions, labor laws, health care, and safety net.
Now, some of the better trades are medicine and nursing related. Those tend to be indoors, in a better regulated workplace. Or computer programming.
I believe that the opioid epidemic started out as a pain epidemic, with a population of people suffering chronic pain that they acquired from their jobs. I've hired people to work at my house, and the ones who are my age tend to be hobbling and broken.
I'd be more enthusiastic about the trades if I lived in a country with better unions, labor laws, health care, and safety net.
Now, some of the better trades are medicine and nursing related. Those tend to be indoors, in a better regulated workplace. Or computer programming.
you are moving the goalpost here. good luck finding a job paying well that's not a trade or a technical job requiring a college degree.
grew up blue collar, still spend plenty of time with blue collar folks. just like there are fat unhealthy desk workers, there are beaten up tradesmen who didn't take care of their bodies. there are also healthy examples of both.
finally, these are required jobs that make our society function. hard to say they are oversold while most of the people on this forum make the proverbial fourteenth attempt at Uber for dogwalking. myself included.
grew up blue collar, still spend plenty of time with blue collar folks. just like there are fat unhealthy desk workers, there are beaten up tradesmen who didn't take care of their bodies. there are also healthy examples of both.
finally, these are required jobs that make our society function. hard to say they are oversold while most of the people on this forum make the proverbial fourteenth attempt at Uber for dogwalking. myself included.
Out of curiosity, would you consider programming a trade? I'm a degreeless developer, and I definitely treat my work like trade work.
Ultimately, "trade" is defined by social custom. Another term is "profession." It probably makes more sense to look at how different occupations are trained. Some training is defined by licensure requirements, possibly union standards, and so forth. The duration of training varies by occupation, e.g., medicine takes longer than truck driving. Some training occurs in a college setting, such as medicine and nursing. Some is provided by local or regional trade schools, or by the military.
An interesting thing about programming is that we still haven't reached a consensus on what kind of training is needed. So we can say it's a trade, profession, or whatever, but that doesn't tell us anything useful about it.
An interesting thing about programming is that we still haven't reached a consensus on what kind of training is needed. So we can say it's a trade, profession, or whatever, but that doesn't tell us anything useful about it.
by the colloquial definition, no. "the trades" usually mean plumber, electrician, sheet metal worker, welder, home construction, etc. skilled labor with an apprenticeship program, often union backed.
I would consider any person engaged in skilled work that requires learning or training to be a tradesman, so yes a programmer fits in my opinion.
I would consider any person engaged in skilled work that requires learning or training to be a tradesman, so yes a programmer fits in my opinion.
Unschooled, no college, committed parents. All I needed.
The last part is priceless.
From a great article I read recently:
“A solid, two-parent home is critical for a child’s future. There is simply no shortcut."
“ Poverty, even extreme poverty, is surmountable. What is nearly impossible to overcome is the instability—the psychological havoc—created by broken homes. Especially for boys.”
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1456287662243991560
From a great article I read recently:
“A solid, two-parent home is critical for a child’s future. There is simply no shortcut."
“ Poverty, even extreme poverty, is surmountable. What is nearly impossible to overcome is the instability—the psychological havoc—created by broken homes. Especially for boys.”
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1456287662243991560
I agree with this strongly, but saying this publicly is taboo. Implying that children need a nuclear family is widely considered ignorant at best, bigoted at worst.
> Social mobility is very different than economic mobility. It's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field. Heck, I did it without any college.
And yet, many people assert that it is indeed hard for them.
The easiest way to compare this between countries is to look at actual economic/social mobility, in the form of poor people becoming affluent, affluent people becoming poor, etc. Rather than theorycrafting or going off anecdotes, see what’s actually happening.
And the data says that the US doesn’t do so well here, IIRC.
And yet, many people assert that it is indeed hard for them.
The easiest way to compare this between countries is to look at actual economic/social mobility, in the form of poor people becoming affluent, affluent people becoming poor, etc. Rather than theorycrafting or going off anecdotes, see what’s actually happening.
And the data says that the US doesn’t do so well here, IIRC.
Ah, survivor bias
See my other replies, I'm aware of this, baby.
Not even that. Just sheltered fool bias.
I was running around my nearest city at age 14, looking for work. I got in fights at bus stops, got mugged once*, slept on benches when I missed a ride a couple of times.
Sheltered, yes, ignorant, no. I know what being hungry is like, I remember how weird it was to wear brand-new clothes.
I'm not complaining, it was all perfectly normal to me at the time, but I'm not talking down at the poors, I'm talking about who I am.
*Mugged once and then learned how not to get mugged. People tried after that, didn't go well.
Sheltered, yes, ignorant, no. I know what being hungry is like, I remember how weird it was to wear brand-new clothes.
I'm not complaining, it was all perfectly normal to me at the time, but I'm not talking down at the poors, I'm talking about who I am.
*Mugged once and then learned how not to get mugged. People tried after that, didn't go well.
[deleted]
Is six figures really that much any more? I’m talking about 1xx,xxx, which is what most people mean when they say six figures. If you’re living in a place like New York, California, or even say, Jersey, what does a low 6 figures really get you?
>what does a low 6 figures really get you?
A house 50min (but not in a nice neighborhood, thank fucking god, I don't want to live among "nice people") from Boston and not generally having to worry about money (i.e. I'm not house poor in the slightest).
Though I did buy a couple years before 'rona and the inflation so I probably would be renting today.
A house 50min (but not in a nice neighborhood, thank fucking god, I don't want to live among "nice people") from Boston and not generally having to worry about money (i.e. I'm not house poor in the slightest).
Though I did buy a couple years before 'rona and the inflation so I probably would be renting today.
Given that median household income in NYC is around $70k, I'd say it buys you quite a bit.
"t's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field."
I think that's true for White and Asian folks.
But the thing about America is that it has two, giant categories of people in a 'different lane' - notably those in poor Black urban neighbourhoods, and new Latino migrants particularly in Texas/Cali where they are highly segregated from the rest of society.
'Technically' you might argue they have that opportunity, but it's not really the case if they live in a situation wherein that reality has never dawned upon them, and their entire life context is skewed towards something else.
My distant cousin married a Latino man, their daughter was 17 and was making 'big money' helping her mother at the cleaning service. And by 'big money' I mean 'some money' for a kind of poor family, a 17 year old with any cash at all was living large. She had absolutely zero concept or aspiration of going to college, nobody she knew did that and was really keen on working, because it made her money and wasn't even keen on finishing high school.
The 'cultural gaps' between these communities are gigantic, it's like being in a different country.
America probably is 'technically the most open' but pragmatically, it's not the case.
I think that's true for White and Asian folks.
But the thing about America is that it has two, giant categories of people in a 'different lane' - notably those in poor Black urban neighbourhoods, and new Latino migrants particularly in Texas/Cali where they are highly segregated from the rest of society.
'Technically' you might argue they have that opportunity, but it's not really the case if they live in a situation wherein that reality has never dawned upon them, and their entire life context is skewed towards something else.
My distant cousin married a Latino man, their daughter was 17 and was making 'big money' helping her mother at the cleaning service. And by 'big money' I mean 'some money' for a kind of poor family, a 17 year old with any cash at all was living large. She had absolutely zero concept or aspiration of going to college, nobody she knew did that and was really keen on working, because it made her money and wasn't even keen on finishing high school.
The 'cultural gaps' between these communities are gigantic, it's like being in a different country.
America probably is 'technically the most open' but pragmatically, it's not the case.
I would argue that the people in those ecosystems have much of the opportunity afforded to me, they just don't know about how possible it really is.
I personally work at a Floridian company, and have a bunch of coworkers who come from the exact backgrounds you talk about. It's totally possible, it just has to be a known opportunity, not a pie-in-the-sky dream.
I personally work at a Floridian company, and have a bunch of coworkers who come from the exact backgrounds you talk about. It's totally possible, it just has to be a known opportunity, not a pie-in-the-sky dream.
Yes, it's definitely possible. But your personal experience more or less indicates that it can be done, not that it commonly is.
"it just has to be a known opportunity" - and this is the rub.
I think that this is far, far more than simply 'informing them they can go to college'. It's an entire life outlook, set of conscientious behaviours, that's almost impossible to contemplate if you're completely outside of positive conditions.
It is true that almost anyone can go to almost any public school, get into a hald-decent Uni and study STEM, and 'have a decent job'. But getting people into that modality is much more easier said than done, it's probably the 'hard part' actually.
"it just has to be a known opportunity" - and this is the rub.
I think that this is far, far more than simply 'informing them they can go to college'. It's an entire life outlook, set of conscientious behaviours, that's almost impossible to contemplate if you're completely outside of positive conditions.
It is true that almost anyone can go to almost any public school, get into a hald-decent Uni and study STEM, and 'have a decent job'. But getting people into that modality is much more easier said than done, it's probably the 'hard part' actually.
Again, I did not go to college. That's not a necessary step for working in tech.
Again, your personal anecdote is not important, because it's not representative of the normal story in the US. Your story is exceptional.
The number of people who 'don't go to college and end up in in highly paid tech jobs' in the US is very, very small.
The number of people who 'don't go to college and end up in in highly paid tech jobs' in the US is very, very small.
> I think that's true for White and Asian folks.
Race-based generalizations almost always end up leading you in the wrong direction. There's substantially more white people living below the poverty line compared to any other group [1] and those poor white communities are trapped by the same lack of awareness of opportunities as any of the minority groups you mentioned. Whites and Asians are over-represented in the affluent groups, which leads many people to look at things through a racial lens, but on a per capita basis, whites dominate the impoverished population.
[1] https://talkpoverty.org/basics/
Race-based generalizations almost always end up leading you in the wrong direction. There's substantially more white people living below the poverty line compared to any other group [1] and those poor white communities are trapped by the same lack of awareness of opportunities as any of the minority groups you mentioned. Whites and Asians are over-represented in the affluent groups, which leads many people to look at things through a racial lens, but on a per capita basis, whites dominate the impoverished population.
[1] https://talkpoverty.org/basics/
Your link clearly shows that poverty is significantly worse along black people than white (19% to 8.5%), and worse among American Indians than black people (25% to 19%). I don't understand why you would ever look at this in per Capita terms when clearly there are more white people overall.
If the goal is to minimize and dispel the effects of systemic issues, then you have to use the overall number.
The goal is to use numbers to inform yourself instead of emotional attachments to political narratives. The numbers show that anyone can be poor and deprived of opportunity.
Then go back and read what I replied to instead of what you wanted to think I was saying. The original poster stated "white and asian people don't have this problem" but the numbers show this clearly is not true.
hmm, I did, a few times. I don't see that quote in the parent. They do say that white and Asian people have more opportunity which these numbers clearly confirm.
>> "it's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field."
> I think that's true for White and Asian folks.
So the 15 million impoverished white people are just lazy but the 8 million impoverished black people are systematically deprived of opportunity? It's so strange to me that SJWs feel the need to minimize the struggles of groups that are facing the same obstacles as the groups they are advocating for just because they have a common skin color with the majority of the affluent group.
So the 15 million impoverished white people are just lazy but the 8 million impoverished black people are systematically deprived of opportunity? It's so strange to me that SJWs feel the need to minimize the struggles of groups that are facing the same obstacles as the groups they are advocating for just because they have a common skin color with the majority of the affluent group.
Hmm, I don't see anything about white people being lazy in the parent either. I see that you're not interested in debate based on facts but are driven by your ideology. I wish you luck in reading different viewpoints and making your own decisions based on facts rather than what you've been told to believe.
> I see that you're not interested in debate based on facts but are driven by your ideology
That's an awful lot of projecting. Your use of logical fallacies is dizzying.
That's an awful lot of projecting. Your use of logical fallacies is dizzying.
>>>I think that's true for White and Asian folks.
I think it's true for people from households that stress STEM, the utility of higher education, and asset management. My mother grew up in North Philadelphia, graduated from an HBCU with a Math degree at age 20, and was making six figures in the early 2000s as a Software Architect/Project Manager, after a brief stint running a small consulting firm. My father grew up in a poor area of Virginia, worked as an engineer (BS Math, MS Space Engineering) and then went to medical school at the age of 35 to became a radiologist. Both grew up during the Civil Rights Movement.
In comparison, my Japanese wife, from a blue-collar family of school teachers, is completely baffled at the idea of entrepreneurship, financial independence, real estate income, etc... She looks at my ~$95k salary and thinks "You make as much as a Japanese school principal, you're at the top." I look at it and think I'm behind the power curve for a 39yo with a STEM Masters degree, and behind the power curve in accumulated assets based on my assessment of long-term freedom, risk mitigation, and how I want to spend my time.
I think it's true for people from households that stress STEM, the utility of higher education, and asset management. My mother grew up in North Philadelphia, graduated from an HBCU with a Math degree at age 20, and was making six figures in the early 2000s as a Software Architect/Project Manager, after a brief stint running a small consulting firm. My father grew up in a poor area of Virginia, worked as an engineer (BS Math, MS Space Engineering) and then went to medical school at the age of 35 to became a radiologist. Both grew up during the Civil Rights Movement.
In comparison, my Japanese wife, from a blue-collar family of school teachers, is completely baffled at the idea of entrepreneurship, financial independence, real estate income, etc... She looks at my ~$95k salary and thinks "You make as much as a Japanese school principal, you're at the top." I look at it and think I'm behind the power curve for a 39yo with a STEM Masters degree, and behind the power curve in accumulated assets based on my assessment of long-term freedom, risk mitigation, and how I want to spend my time.
> I like the bluntness, the awareness of real issues, and the family values
I'm sure that working class people are more aware of issues that affect them. I'm also sure the same applies to poor, middle class, and wealthy people.
They're all real issues.
I'm sure that working class people are more aware of issues that affect them. I'm also sure the same applies to poor, middle class, and wealthy people.
They're all real issues.
>Social mobility is very different than economic mobility
Truly. And unfortunately while the headline says "social mobility" the article looks at economic mobility, specifically income quintiles (as opposed to wealth accumulation).
Truly. And unfortunately while the headline says "social mobility" the article looks at economic mobility, specifically income quintiles (as opposed to wealth accumulation).
Economic mobility is considered a type of social mobility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility
I guess that’s what makes Trump “the peoples billionaire” but I don’t think it’s a class.
It’s more of a function of how much you embrace the norms of formal education and institutions. This defines who do you trust, what do you care about and how do you think.
I’m inclined to think that this is a personality trait. Surely, personality is shaped by the environment too.
It’s more of a function of how much you embrace the norms of formal education and institutions. This defines who do you trust, what do you care about and how do you think.
I’m inclined to think that this is a personality trait. Surely, personality is shaped by the environment too.
The article measures mobility based on one's percentile movement across the income distribution. There are more rungs to climb in the US because there's a wider income range, whereas in Europe income differences are compressed. The same income increase in absolute terms gets you more social mobility in Europe than in the US.
I'm initially skeptical of studies that imply large-scale misunderstanding among the public about their own lives; here that Americans are too optimistic and Europeans are too pessimistic. I'm sure there's some truth to it, but it's not the whole story. The conclusion of the article is in part a reflection of the methodology.
I'm initially skeptical of studies that imply large-scale misunderstanding among the public about their own lives; here that Americans are too optimistic and Europeans are too pessimistic. I'm sure there's some truth to it, but it's not the whole story. The conclusion of the article is in part a reflection of the methodology.
> there's a wider income range
...and that's why such comparisons should be done using percentiles instead of absolute values. Which they did.
> The conclusion of the article is in part a reflection of the methodology.
The biggest methodological flaw points in quite a different direction than you seem to be suggesting. Change in percentile across the income distribution is less informative than change in percentile across the wealth distribution, and that should be the age adjusted wealth distribution as well. Comparing my retirement income to somebody who's still working is practically useless. Comparing it to what my age peers have in the bank compared to when we were all much younger tells something close to the true story.
...and that's why such comparisons should be done using percentiles instead of absolute values. Which they did.
> The conclusion of the article is in part a reflection of the methodology.
The biggest methodological flaw points in quite a different direction than you seem to be suggesting. Change in percentile across the income distribution is less informative than change in percentile across the wealth distribution, and that should be the age adjusted wealth distribution as well. Comparing my retirement income to somebody who's still working is practically useless. Comparing it to what my age peers have in the bank compared to when we were all much younger tells something close to the true story.
Absolute is what matters. If 80% of your society is earning between $60k and $90k, a quintile jump around the middle is small compared to a similar shift in a $40k to $180k society. Relative mobility doesn’t buy you a vacation home.
> Absolute is what matters.
Only from a purely acquisitive standpoint, but not with respect to social mobility which is the subject here. Also, study after study has shown that life satisfaction is more highly correlated with relative income or wealth than absolute. If we want to use science instead of personal preference to determine what matters, you're flatly wrong.
> If 80% of your society is earning between $60k and $90K
Why choose such an unrealistic example when a real one is right there? Seems suspect TBH. The real distribution is nowhere near as tightly clustered around the median, and is quite asymmetric with a much longer tail at the high end. Also, why only consider changes in the middle? A small percentile difference at either end can have a much larger effect on quality of life.
> Relative mobility doesn’t buy you a vacation home.
The difference between second and fourth quintile actually does mean something like that, and does so regardless of prices or inflation. Absolute values are the ones that become meaningless without the context of prices in a particular time and place. The house I'm sitting in right now as I write this (vs. the dumps I grew up in) is a pretty good testament to the difference between first and fifth quintile, but the price of the house doesn't matter a damn bit.
Only from a purely acquisitive standpoint, but not with respect to social mobility which is the subject here. Also, study after study has shown that life satisfaction is more highly correlated with relative income or wealth than absolute. If we want to use science instead of personal preference to determine what matters, you're flatly wrong.
> If 80% of your society is earning between $60k and $90K
Why choose such an unrealistic example when a real one is right there? Seems suspect TBH. The real distribution is nowhere near as tightly clustered around the median, and is quite asymmetric with a much longer tail at the high end. Also, why only consider changes in the middle? A small percentile difference at either end can have a much larger effect on quality of life.
> Relative mobility doesn’t buy you a vacation home.
The difference between second and fourth quintile actually does mean something like that, and does so regardless of prices or inflation. Absolute values are the ones that become meaningless without the context of prices in a particular time and place. The house I'm sitting in right now as I write this (vs. the dumps I grew up in) is a pretty good testament to the difference between first and fifth quintile, but the price of the house doesn't matter a damn bit.
This comment is 100% correct but somehow got shuffled to the bottom and greyed.
It doesn’t make sense to measure income mobility in anything but absolute terms: Would you rather move one quintile in a wide income distribution or two within a much narrower one?
It doesn’t make sense to measure income mobility in anything but absolute terms: Would you rather move one quintile in a wide income distribution or two within a much narrower one?
That's a totally disingenuous comparison because it ignores both prices and the actual shape of the distribution. Don't perseverate over big numbers. If everyone's income doubled overnight we'd have a wider range ... but it would be utterly meaningless if prices also doubled. Likewise, if a trillionaire magically appeared the total range would increase but that would have zero effect on what a quintile difference meant to anyone else. Absolute numbers are useless. Percentiles matter because they're intrinsically tied to the other things that give differences any meaning.
I agree, the GP comment makes no sense. Prices of important things like homes are set relative to income, so it's relative income that is important, not absolute income. Most people judge their affluence in terms of evaluations like: "I make enough money to buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood".
Depends on what politicians the trillionaire is spending his money on.
How different is the top quintile of earnings between countries? For example (made up numbers), if the top quintile in the UK earn $100k and the top quintile in the US earn $400k, it's not really the same comparison to move from the bottom to the top. Going from earning $20k to $100k is going to be different than going from $20k to $400k. I suspect the top is higher in the US.
Social mobility is a very tricky thing. I think every person can succeed as long as they have the courage to cut off people who are counterproductive to that. For example, when I look at my own parents, they're simply self-destructive people who never took responsibility for any of their actions. Whenever I've needed to depend on anyone in my family. I've ultimately been let down, but when it comes to my own efforts. You know I got my own apartment when I was 19, and I've made six figures, despite a family member screwing me out of finishing college, by the time I was 25. It's very hard to cut off your own family though, but whatever situation your parents are in, that's the situation they're in. I did make the mistake of trying to save my family members, and it was a very costly mistake.
They were perfectly fine with ruining the life I built for myself, up until I blocked most of them and just moved to a different city. Work hard and cut off lazy people. Don't get involved of anyone who doesn't want to work, outside of laziness being disgusting upon itself, these people tend to cause unlimited drama. A person who's finishing up their PhD, while working full time doesn't have time to cause problems. Someone who's 28 or 29 and still doesn't work has plenty of problem causing time.
Once you understand this, and just to add, make sure if you're having trouble finding the right type of people where you live, you consider moving. I'm from LA, I've had so many strange situations created by people who I've alluded to above. The moment I left LA, I had a fantastic partner, and I've never had someone try to put me in a volatile situation since.
All of this sad, I've been very lucky. Medical conditions I'd be screwed. All it takes is a single severe medical condition to financially ruin you, and then you can't afford treatment, in this country says good luck try a go fund me
They were perfectly fine with ruining the life I built for myself, up until I blocked most of them and just moved to a different city. Work hard and cut off lazy people. Don't get involved of anyone who doesn't want to work, outside of laziness being disgusting upon itself, these people tend to cause unlimited drama. A person who's finishing up their PhD, while working full time doesn't have time to cause problems. Someone who's 28 or 29 and still doesn't work has plenty of problem causing time.
Once you understand this, and just to add, make sure if you're having trouble finding the right type of people where you live, you consider moving. I'm from LA, I've had so many strange situations created by people who I've alluded to above. The moment I left LA, I had a fantastic partner, and I've never had someone try to put me in a volatile situation since.
All of this sad, I've been very lucky. Medical conditions I'd be screwed. All it takes is a single severe medical condition to financially ruin you, and then you can't afford treatment, in this country says good luck try a go fund me
Well said. Drama is a time and attention suck - away from not only productivity, but time spent where you could be doing things that make you actually happy, which in turn, generally, makes you a more productive person with a desire to 'do things' rather than sit and fucking mope.
Gossip, drama, lifestyle comparison, it's a recipe for failure (which is what social media supposedly encourages). I'm not any kind of benchmark for career-ambitious productivity, but there are things I like to do and personal goals I have in mind that allow me to surf on top of the "everywhere, all the time" human emotional whirlpool that would be very easy to get sucked into, thus saying goodbye to the 'who' and the 'where' I'm aiming at. Happy to listen to people who come to me for a sympathetic ear, but I'm not taking on your shit, mainly because I'd never ask you to take on mine.
Not sure if this captures it properly, but: The more you macro, the less you micro.
(I've had one semi-significant medical issue, but Australian private healthcare saved me from any severe recalculation of life priorities. I'm very thankful that I'm a generally healthy person).
Gossip, drama, lifestyle comparison, it's a recipe for failure (which is what social media supposedly encourages). I'm not any kind of benchmark for career-ambitious productivity, but there are things I like to do and personal goals I have in mind that allow me to surf on top of the "everywhere, all the time" human emotional whirlpool that would be very easy to get sucked into, thus saying goodbye to the 'who' and the 'where' I'm aiming at. Happy to listen to people who come to me for a sympathetic ear, but I'm not taking on your shit, mainly because I'd never ask you to take on mine.
Not sure if this captures it properly, but: The more you macro, the less you micro.
(I've had one semi-significant medical issue, but Australian private healthcare saved me from any severe recalculation of life priorities. I'm very thankful that I'm a generally healthy person).
Lucky you for having a decent medical system, I consider myself to be exceptionally privileged. Which I can pay, at least to me a relatively small amount of money to treat. But if I was living paycheck to paycheck, I might not be able to afford my medication, and I can literally die due to not being able to afford my medication.
Medical expenses are the single worse thing about American life, so many of us end up skipping medicines that we need. And these medicines are relatively inexpensive, maybe three or $400 a month. But when you can't afford it you can't afford it, and then say you have a heart attack and you end up in the hospital. Then you're in debt for 30 or $40,000, and you'll never escape.
I'm looking to potentially immigrate to Europe in the near future, I'm very tired of this American Life of struggle.
Medical expenses are the single worse thing about American life, so many of us end up skipping medicines that we need. And these medicines are relatively inexpensive, maybe three or $400 a month. But when you can't afford it you can't afford it, and then say you have a heart attack and you end up in the hospital. Then you're in debt for 30 or $40,000, and you'll never escape.
I'm looking to potentially immigrate to Europe in the near future, I'm very tired of this American Life of struggle.
The best I can do is say good luck! Australia's medical system is pretty good, but private health doesn't feel cheap. If / When you're planning to move, check out both Australia and New Zealand as options.
How hard is it getting a work visa. I had a recruiter out of Ireland reach out to me recently. I have many stories about the American health Care system which I simply don't share, but I don't think a dystopian novelist from the 1950s could imagine what the hell we have today.
What's the best way to get a CS job in Australian or New Zealand
What's the best way to get a CS job in Australian or New Zealand
> All of this sad, I've been very lucky. Medical conditions I'd be screwed. All it takes is a single severe medical condition to financially ruin you, and then you can't afford treatment, in this country says good luck try a go fund me
Then not every person.
The American system greatly adds roadblocks. There are many reasons besides personal medical conditions that your work hard mentality would have been irrelevant or completely out of reach.
Then not every person.
The American system greatly adds roadblocks. There are many reasons besides personal medical conditions that your work hard mentality would have been irrelevant or completely out of reach.
No matter how hard you work, a serious medical condition can ruin it all. This happens to many people
It's also not possible for everyone to succeed since it's a zero sum game. Therefore, you should be thanking the people who's life circumstances prevent them from learning to succeed and doubly you should thank your parents for raising you in a way that you were able to surpass them.
> it's a zero sum game
I’m not an economist, but I don’t think it’s a zero sum game considering the total productivity / economic output of a society can go up (or down). Your success doesn’t need to be at the expense of someone else’s success.
> you should be thanking the people who's life circumstances prevent them from learning to succeed
What?
I’m not an economist, but I don’t think it’s a zero sum game considering the total productivity / economic output of a society can go up (or down). Your success doesn’t need to be at the expense of someone else’s success.
> you should be thanking the people who's life circumstances prevent them from learning to succeed
What?
Half of the population earn less than the median income. How can we make more than half earn above median?
> What?
What?
What?
My childhood was a living hell because my parents don't want to work or do anything. I went through multiple evictions by the time I was 19, I consider myself exceptionally lucky that I was able to afford my first apartment at 19 years old because otherwise I don't think I'd still be here.
At the same time, I've met tons of adults who were in their '30s whose parents never just said no. Their parents never said you need to figure it out, get the hell out of my house. I got kicked out for the first time when I was 15, and then I went through an eviction about a year and a half later when I was 17, so I'm very well aware that every single day I need to work hard. I need to work so hard so I'll never go through an affection again.
At the same time, I've met tons of adults who were in their '30s whose parents never just said no. Their parents never said you need to figure it out, get the hell out of my house. I got kicked out for the first time when I was 15, and then I went through an eviction about a year and a half later when I was 17, so I'm very well aware that every single day I need to work hard. I need to work so hard so I'll never go through an affection again.
No one should have to go through that, my condolences to you for your lost childhood. I am glad to hear that you have succeeded inspite of your hardship.
From Taleb's book Skin in the Game:
Consider that about ten percent of Americans will spend at least a year in the top one percent and more than half of all Americans will spent a year in the top ten percent. This is visibly not the same for the more static –but nominally more equal –Europe. For instance, only ten percent of the wealthiest five hundred American people or dynasties were so thirty years ago; more than sixty percent of those on the French list were heirs and a third of the richest Europeans were the richest centuries ago. In Florence, it was just revealed that things are really even worse: the same handful of families have kept the wealth for five centuries.
Consider that about ten percent of Americans will spend at least a year in the top one percent and more than half of all Americans will spent a year in the top ten percent. This is visibly not the same for the more static –but nominally more equal –Europe. For instance, only ten percent of the wealthiest five hundred American people or dynasties were so thirty years ago; more than sixty percent of those on the French list were heirs and a third of the richest Europeans were the richest centuries ago. In Florence, it was just revealed that things are really even worse: the same handful of families have kept the wealth for five centuries.
Regardless of how much money I make, none of my friends went to Stanford, I grew up in a boring town in a boring part of the world, and I made my money in an “unglamorous” industry.
I could make $10B. I still wouldn’t reach the top level of class. Maybe my kids kids will.
Here’s an attempt to say something positive about this: you guys should try to seek out those unglamorous industries, usually in unglamorous parts of the country, with people who have unglamorous ideas about the world.
Many of them unglamorously PRINT money using 1980s technology and will happily pay you whatever you ask them if you can help them do that more efficiently. There’s a good chance you can, because nobody else is really even trying.
I could make $10B. I still wouldn’t reach the top level of class. Maybe my kids kids will.
Here’s an attempt to say something positive about this: you guys should try to seek out those unglamorous industries, usually in unglamorous parts of the country, with people who have unglamorous ideas about the world.
Many of them unglamorously PRINT money using 1980s technology and will happily pay you whatever you ask them if you can help them do that more efficiently. There’s a good chance you can, because nobody else is really even trying.
>> I could make $10B. I still wouldn’t reach the top level of class. Maybe my kids kids will.
Is there really anyone wrong with this? If you and your family are happy, and your needs are met, and clearly you have options -- does anyone else's definition of class really matter?
Is there really anyone wrong with this? If you and your family are happy, and your needs are met, and clearly you have options -- does anyone else's definition of class really matter?
When our elected leaders and law enforces listen to the upper class(s) instead of everyone equally then yes, it matters.
So you're saying that the defining aspect of being upper class is how much you bribe politicians?
I honestly do not know how a charitable reading of what I wrote lead you to believe that.
Agree 100%. I knew a couple people that did that. One started a business that manages washing machine rentals for apartment buildings. The other did a plumbing supply business. Both walked away with enough to retire after 10 years of working on the business.
Do you have an example of this? I’m intrigued
What are the "unglamorous" things that print money?
Are you talking about like oil/natural gas? Or what else
Are you talking about like oil/natural gas? Or what else
Cool, like where?
Social mobility is really hard to measure, but all else equal, I think America is the best place in the world for a poor person to become filthy rich (top 0.1%) but not the best place in the world for a poor person to simply transition to middle/upper class.
I think it would be easier to become "filthy rich" for a poor person when they start in a nation with free healthcare and education. Because both of those things have a big chance of impacting your poor person's career lastingly if they don't have luck.
Most of the 0.1% inherited their wealth or at least came from an well educated background.
Most of the 0.1% inherited their wealth or at least came from an well educated background.
> I think it would be easier to become "filthy rich" for a poor person when they start in a nation with free healthcare and education.
Poor people in USA have both free healthcare and education. If they're willing to fill-out some forms.
Edit:
Yes, contrary to the popular belief, poor people in USA do, in fact, get free health care and education.
Poor people in USA have both free healthcare and education. If they're willing to fill-out some forms.
Edit:
Yes, contrary to the popular belief, poor people in USA do, in fact, get free health care and education.
I almost accepted this and went on my way, but it only tells like 7% of the story. The first thing is that your eligibility stops as soon as you start making more money (i.e. single earner > $17,000). But that increase in money does not cover the new costs for healthcare.
Aha! But at such a low income you get the ACA subsidy! But the insurance plans you can get have really high deductibles. If you're making $20,000 a year and have a $17,000 deductible... that's life ruining if you actually get sick. That's not to mention all the other oddities that go with having these higher-deductible lower premium plans like having to work around non-formulary medications, getting referrals to covered providers (you will be really lucky to have a PCP that does the homework to make sure you are referred in-network), and general insurance fuckery.
I think it's just a little bit more complex than filling out a few forms.
Aha! But at such a low income you get the ACA subsidy! But the insurance plans you can get have really high deductibles. If you're making $20,000 a year and have a $17,000 deductible... that's life ruining if you actually get sick. That's not to mention all the other oddities that go with having these higher-deductible lower premium plans like having to work around non-formulary medications, getting referrals to covered providers (you will be really lucky to have a PCP that does the homework to make sure you are referred in-network), and general insurance fuckery.
I think it's just a little bit more complex than filling out a few forms.
> you will be really lucky to have a PCP that does the home work to make sure you are referred in-network
They have whole databases on their computers that do this for them. Maybe they refer you to someone across town, or the next town over. But they're going to try hard to keep you in-network. This is also why Canadians are constantly paying out-of-pocket to come to USA to get their knee surgeries and back surgeries.
They have whole databases on their computers that do this for them. Maybe they refer you to someone across town, or the next town over. But they're going to try hard to keep you in-network. This is also why Canadians are constantly paying out-of-pocket to come to USA to get their knee surgeries and back surgeries.
The accuracy of those databases is questionable as evidenced by $InsuranceCompany calling around to providers asking if they accept $InsuranceCompany. Of course, the better the insurance you have, the easier this problem is to solve because more providers are in-network.
> If they're willing to fill-out some forms.
How does that part work in practise? Are these forms something someone from a poor uneducated background can actually realistically fill out?
The way I see it many Americans I had the chance to talk with either take a gamble on their health or they spend not unsignificant time and energy to find their ways through the system. The first choice can turn out just fine, or (in many cases) completely catastrophic. The second choice takes away time and resources that could have been spent somewhere else.
How does that part work in practise? Are these forms something someone from a poor uneducated background can actually realistically fill out?
The way I see it many Americans I had the chance to talk with either take a gamble on their health or they spend not unsignificant time and energy to find their ways through the system. The first choice can turn out just fine, or (in many cases) completely catastrophic. The second choice takes away time and resources that could have been spent somewhere else.
Any poor person can walk into an urgent care or go to some place like ZocDoc and get help signing-up for Medicaid or Obamacare.
Likewise, any poor person can go to the local community college and tell the person at the desk that they want to enroll in some classes and they will be directed to the financial aide office where they will receive help to sign up for FAFSA [0] and Pell Grants [1].
All of these forms are printed in about 5 languages. There are people in the offices there to literally help the poor people write their own names on the forms.
[0] https://studentaid.gov/h/apply-for-aid/fafsa
[1] https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/grants/pell
Likewise, any poor person can go to the local community college and tell the person at the desk that they want to enroll in some classes and they will be directed to the financial aide office where they will receive help to sign up for FAFSA [0] and Pell Grants [1].
All of these forms are printed in about 5 languages. There are people in the offices there to literally help the poor people write their own names on the forms.
[0] https://studentaid.gov/h/apply-for-aid/fafsa
[1] https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/grants/pell
It works pretty well. 23% of Americans use Medicaid. (which means it surprisingly covers more people than UK's NHS) About half of all births in the US are paid for by Medicaid.
The Americans you hear about on the news that don't have healthcare are people who have incomes above the eligibility threshold to qualify for Medicaid, or are too young to qualify for Medicare. It's the people in the middle who fall through the cracks in the US.
The Americans you hear about on the news that don't have healthcare are people who have incomes above the eligibility threshold to qualify for Medicaid, or are too young to qualify for Medicare. It's the people in the middle who fall through the cracks in the US.
> It's the people in the middle who fall through the cracks in the US.
You mean the people who potentially start out with their own business to get "filthy rich"?
You mean the people who potentially start out with their own business to get "filthy rich"?
I don’t understand your comment. I’m referring to people who have incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but do not have a high enough income to afford good health insurance.
>How does that part work in practice? Are these forms something someone from a poor uneducated background can actually realistically fill out?
Yes, at least in the 3 states where I know anything about how the systems work. It's all the same information you fill out to get your driver's license, kid's school lunch which, contrary to the prevailing trope around here, being poor does not make you too stupid to do. It's way less arcane than reporting loan interest on your taxes or trying to register a used car last registered by a dead guy.
Yes, at least in the 3 states where I know anything about how the systems work. It's all the same information you fill out to get your driver's license, kid's school lunch which, contrary to the prevailing trope around here, being poor does not make you too stupid to do. It's way less arcane than reporting loan interest on your taxes or trying to register a used car last registered by a dead guy.
The larger problem is not simply getting access to medicaid, it's also that the US defines poverty essentially based on access to medicaid... Where a non-trivial portion of the population does not qualify for medicaid, but are also far from being financially secure.
Oddly enough, what you just described, is a pretty good model of a country with a powerball lottery.
Oops, this is the second post to say basically the same thing.
Oops, this is the second post to say basically the same thing.
It could definitely be better, but I think there are more opportunities than most people realize. Joining the military is a big one; you get paid to learn a marketable skill, usually have your college tuition paid for, and you get to move out of your hometown. I knew a few people who joined because it was a quick way to get out of their shitty hometown where the options were sell drugs, or be poor.
Knowledge of what's available would probably go a long way towards helping people move up. My wife grew up in a small rural area with no job options besides Wal-Mart and fast food joints, and she hated it so much that she ended up getting enough scholarships to make money earning her undergrad. She's the first person in her family to go to college, and most of the rest think college is super expensive, and don't know about scholarships to help poor people go.
Knowledge of what's available would probably go a long way towards helping people move up. My wife grew up in a small rural area with no job options besides Wal-Mart and fast food joints, and she hated it so much that she ended up getting enough scholarships to make money earning her undergrad. She's the first person in her family to go to college, and most of the rest think college is super expensive, and don't know about scholarships to help poor people go.
It really depends. Some jobs in the military don't gain you a lot of marketable skills. Infantry is a good example. If anything it shows you can complete a few years commitment. Then in some jobs, your military experience doesn't matter. Let take the example of a Navy Corpsman. Functionally, they are equivalent of a Medical Assistant, however when they get out, they don't have the necessary licensing requirements to be a Medical Assistant and may still have to pursue schooling before taking the licensing exam.
So, sometimes it leads to marketable skills, sometimes it doesnt. Sometimes it leads to skills that can transition out into the civilian world, but doesn't because of license and certifications constraints.
But yea, some people do join to get out of shitty small town. I did 5 years in the Navy because in my rural North Carolina town there were 2 other options, make the meth or consume the meth.
So, sometimes it leads to marketable skills, sometimes it doesnt. Sometimes it leads to skills that can transition out into the civilian world, but doesn't because of license and certifications constraints.
But yea, some people do join to get out of shitty small town. I did 5 years in the Navy because in my rural North Carolina town there were 2 other options, make the meth or consume the meth.
Joining the Military shouldn’t be the primary path to a better life; that seems incredibly dystopian.
[deleted]
Maybe also depends on the background of the poor person. I grew up poor. Definitely in the bottom 20% of income or wealth. However my parents were both very educated (immigrants), valued education, and I had a stable family life. I did well in school, went to university and am now moderately successful financially.
But I can see someone with a similar financial background, but growing up in a family that didn't value education, perhaps single parent working all the time struggling much more to get ahead.
But I can see someone with a similar financial background, but growing up in a family that didn't value education, perhaps single parent working all the time struggling much more to get ahead.
Note the denominator in this statement. The poor -> middle class transition is relevant for a huge amount of people, and the poor -> filthy rich is relevant to such a small number of people I don't even know a single soul alive who made that transition, despite billionaires being very public figures.
[deleted]
I really would like to see some statistics about this. I have a feeling that many people will agree with you, simply because
1. the American "rags to riches" story is one that the media bombards people with over and over again
2. Lots of people simply lie about the circumstances they come from
1. the American "rags to riches" story is one that the media bombards people with over and over again
2. Lots of people simply lie about the circumstances they come from
[deleted]
Basically literally a lottery.
If you're interested in social mobility, I'd highly recommend the recent book The Meritocracy Trap. [1] The author, a Yale Law professor, talks about how aristocracy has been largely replaced by meritocracy in the US, and what the consequences are for both middle class and elites.
His takeaway is that there is a yawning gap opening up between middle class and elites, and that neither group is well-served by this gap. The middle class have less mobility than before, at least when it comes to achieving super-elite levels. And the elite class work themselves to death and prompt their children to do the same.
1: https://www.amazon.com/Meritocracy-Trap-Foundational-Inequal...
His takeaway is that there is a yawning gap opening up between middle class and elites, and that neither group is well-served by this gap. The middle class have less mobility than before, at least when it comes to achieving super-elite levels. And the elite class work themselves to death and prompt their children to do the same.
1: https://www.amazon.com/Meritocracy-Trap-Foundational-Inequal...
America is being attacked by pervasive narratives like this. News rags the whole world over are shitting on us, meanwhile authoritarian regimes are rising to power. It's a narrative dismantling, and we're being played like fools.
America is still the best country in the world to start a business and take risks.
America still has more freedoms (speech especially) than most of the world. (Side note: The left wants to put more restrictions on speech, which is horrible, because Republicans will swing back into power and use it in the other direction.)
America holds NATO together. Europeans don't give us enough credit. And they're replete with their own crises to always be pointing the finger.
We need more unity. This division by ideology and class is giving us short sightedness and blunting our ability to make sound investments in the future.
Globalism is something that should be reevaluated. Our capital is being invested into the capabilities of rivals, and it doesn't pay dividends. Americans have been turned into buyers of cheap plastic goods, and we've lost the ability to make our own critical components and wares. Huge mistake, driven in part by these narratives.
We're optimists, but the media is telling us not to be. They want us to yell at each other and drive ourselves into the dirt.
America is still the best country in the world to start a business and take risks.
America still has more freedoms (speech especially) than most of the world. (Side note: The left wants to put more restrictions on speech, which is horrible, because Republicans will swing back into power and use it in the other direction.)
America holds NATO together. Europeans don't give us enough credit. And they're replete with their own crises to always be pointing the finger.
We need more unity. This division by ideology and class is giving us short sightedness and blunting our ability to make sound investments in the future.
Globalism is something that should be reevaluated. Our capital is being invested into the capabilities of rivals, and it doesn't pay dividends. Americans have been turned into buyers of cheap plastic goods, and we've lost the ability to make our own critical components and wares. Huge mistake, driven in part by these narratives.
We're optimists, but the media is telling us not to be. They want us to yell at each other and drive ourselves into the dirt.
As a non American I see the US as a country with significant structural problems. On that basis, the narratives are justified.
Especially after Jan 6 riots and the absence of a bipartisan response to this event. It is hard to discount the notion that the US is about 1 or 2 election cycles away from a society changing political crisis. Peaceful transfer of power no longer seems like a given.
1 data based point and 1 anecdote news/item.
1) America is considered a flawed democracy [1].
2) A recent tweet [2] from Gavin Newsom highlights pervasive political fragmentation across the US. Using same legal mechanisms applied by Texas and considered by other red states to curtail abortion access, in this case to curtail access to assault rifles.
Your comment you say "we need more unity". As an outsider I cannot foresee an easy / pragmatic way for the US to move closer to such a goal.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
[2] https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1469865185493983234
Especially after Jan 6 riots and the absence of a bipartisan response to this event. It is hard to discount the notion that the US is about 1 or 2 election cycles away from a society changing political crisis. Peaceful transfer of power no longer seems like a given.
1 data based point and 1 anecdote news/item.
1) America is considered a flawed democracy [1].
2) A recent tweet [2] from Gavin Newsom highlights pervasive political fragmentation across the US. Using same legal mechanisms applied by Texas and considered by other red states to curtail abortion access, in this case to curtail access to assault rifles.
Your comment you say "we need more unity". As an outsider I cannot foresee an easy / pragmatic way for the US to move closer to such a goal.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
[2] https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1469865185493983234
'America is still the best country in the world to start a business and take risks'. Do you have any data to back this up? I'm purely curious. Note you didn't state, 'and make an insanely large sum of money there', so I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more countries where it would be a good choice.
'America has more freedoms than most of the world'. What is in parenthesis is a sweeping generalization and what are you defining as 'most of the world'.
I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the NATO statement in relation to social mobility.
Frankly I'm not sure what is perverse about this article. Isn't it called the American Dream for a reason?
'America has more freedoms than most of the world'. What is in parenthesis is a sweeping generalization and what are you defining as 'most of the world'.
I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the NATO statement in relation to social mobility.
Frankly I'm not sure what is perverse about this article. Isn't it called the American Dream for a reason?
But I think for the Americans at the lower classes NATO, and regimes are worthless, if you are a guy who is going to die in a warehouse because you're going to be forced to work during a weather emergency, then a change of master is just a change of your master. American middle class is shrinking, it has less financial power, workers have less contractual power and less rights, so maybe instead of these useless Hollywood movies-like discourses about unity and NATO, one should address those issues, when you're a worker being replaced by a non-union one because your yearly raise doesn't even cover inflation then it all seems useless.
I am really surprised that this game still works, US needed USSR as an enemy to unite workers and keep them aligned in order to produce to fight communism, now it's the time of Russia and China, and "regimes", that from one side are being depicted as an enemy to fight and against which the people need to unite, and from another side are being used by corporations in order to manufacture and to grow their user base, I would suggest to Americans to stop caring about the enemy in China and to start caring more about their enemies in congress and in the CEO office
I am really surprised that this game still works, US needed USSR as an enemy to unite workers and keep them aligned in order to produce to fight communism, now it's the time of Russia and China, and "regimes", that from one side are being depicted as an enemy to fight and against which the people need to unite, and from another side are being used by corporations in order to manufacture and to grow their user base, I would suggest to Americans to stop caring about the enemy in China and to start caring more about their enemies in congress and in the CEO office
As much as the administration and media seem set on pointlessness in Taiwan and Ukraine, I've yet to find anyone I actually know who thinks it's good idea.
China is not our friend, we would do well to be wary as recent counter intelligence activities have shown.
The enemies in congress and corporations are two sides of the same coin. It's often all the same people moving back and forth between government, NGO, corporations, lobbying, media and then back again.
Corporations use their access to capital to capture market share often at the expense of a local / small business. While 'value engineering' everything until it's shitty.
China is not our friend, we would do well to be wary as recent counter intelligence activities have shown.
The enemies in congress and corporations are two sides of the same coin. It's often all the same people moving back and forth between government, NGO, corporations, lobbying, media and then back again.
Corporations use their access to capital to capture market share often at the expense of a local / small business. While 'value engineering' everything until it's shitty.
> America is still the best country in the world to start a business and take risks.
Not convinced. Serious illness can happen to anyone at any time, especially under the stress of running a business, and America has one of the weakest safety nets for a developed country.
> America still has more freedoms (speech especially) than most of the world.
The First Amendment is a great thing, but it can't maintain a culture of free speech on its own. The US's at-will firing (particularly combined with employer-dependent healthcare) means many Americans find it harder to express their views openly than people in other countries.
> Europeans don't give us enough credit. And they're replete with their own crises to always be pointing the finger.
European countries argue a lot, but there's a deep mutual respect underlying it. A willingness to reflect and see what other countries are doing better is vital in the long run.
> We're optimists, but the media is telling us not to be. They want us to yell at each other and drive ourselves into the dirt.
There's definitely a strain of hair-shirt criticism that's more interested in wallowing in self-denigration than making things better. But acknowledging the problems is important too.
Not convinced. Serious illness can happen to anyone at any time, especially under the stress of running a business, and America has one of the weakest safety nets for a developed country.
> America still has more freedoms (speech especially) than most of the world.
The First Amendment is a great thing, but it can't maintain a culture of free speech on its own. The US's at-will firing (particularly combined with employer-dependent healthcare) means many Americans find it harder to express their views openly than people in other countries.
> Europeans don't give us enough credit. And they're replete with their own crises to always be pointing the finger.
European countries argue a lot, but there's a deep mutual respect underlying it. A willingness to reflect and see what other countries are doing better is vital in the long run.
> We're optimists, but the media is telling us not to be. They want us to yell at each other and drive ourselves into the dirt.
There's definitely a strain of hair-shirt criticism that's more interested in wallowing in self-denigration than making things better. But acknowledging the problems is important too.
> Not convinced. Serious illness can happen to anyone at any time, especially under the stress of running a business, and America has one of the weakest safety nets for a developed country.
US is at the top of the rung amongst OECD health index. The middle class is not too badly positioned. For the poor, there is Medicare: https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/health/
> The First Amendment is a great thing, but it can't maintain a culture of free speech on its own. The US's at-will firing (particularly combined with employer-dependent healthcare) means many Americans find it harder to express their views openly than people in other countries.
US is on par with UK and most OECD nations with regards to civil rights and liberties:
> The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Estonia, and Germany and Sweden (tied in 9th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Japan (11), the United Kingdom and the United States (tied in 17th place), Taiwan (19), South Korea (26), Chile (30), France (33), South Africa (68), Argentina (70), Mexico (86), Brazil (88), Kenya (93), India (111), Russia (115), Turkey (119), China (129), Saudi Arabia (151), Egypt (157), Iran (158), Venezuela (160), and Syria (162).
https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2020
US is at the top of the rung amongst OECD health index. The middle class is not too badly positioned. For the poor, there is Medicare: https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/health/
> The First Amendment is a great thing, but it can't maintain a culture of free speech on its own. The US's at-will firing (particularly combined with employer-dependent healthcare) means many Americans find it harder to express their views openly than people in other countries.
US is on par with UK and most OECD nations with regards to civil rights and liberties:
> The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Estonia, and Germany and Sweden (tied in 9th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Japan (11), the United Kingdom and the United States (tied in 17th place), Taiwan (19), South Korea (26), Chile (30), France (33), South Africa (68), Argentina (70), Mexico (86), Brazil (88), Kenya (93), India (111), Russia (115), Turkey (119), China (129), Saudi Arabia (151), Egypt (157), Iran (158), Venezuela (160), and Syria (162).
https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2020
> US is at the top of the rung amongst OECD health index. The middle class is not too badly positioned. For the poor, there is Medicare: https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/health/
The breakdown on your link shows the US is scoring well because of high self-reported health, which seems very likely to be due to cultural factures. The objective part, life expectancy, is below the OECD average, and in line with the Czech Republic or Turkey.
> US is on par with UK and most OECD nations with regards to civil rights and liberties:
Cato is an American institution with its own biases. Just having a glance through their measurements, they consider female genital mutilation to be anti-freedom but male genital mutilation to be fine, and though this is supposedly a report on "negative rights" it considers countries that require people to call other people particular ways to be more free than those who aren't. They consider governmental ownership of industry to inherently reduce economic freedom, when often the opposite is true because of stronger fairness regulations on governments (e.g. privatized utility companies can deny service to individual more easily than governmental ones). And to return to my original point, despite talking about the importance of economic freedom and quoting Trotsky, their report doesn't even examine cases where people are excluded from employment through mechanisms other than law.
The breakdown on your link shows the US is scoring well because of high self-reported health, which seems very likely to be due to cultural factures. The objective part, life expectancy, is below the OECD average, and in line with the Czech Republic or Turkey.
> US is on par with UK and most OECD nations with regards to civil rights and liberties:
Cato is an American institution with its own biases. Just having a glance through their measurements, they consider female genital mutilation to be anti-freedom but male genital mutilation to be fine, and though this is supposedly a report on "negative rights" it considers countries that require people to call other people particular ways to be more free than those who aren't. They consider governmental ownership of industry to inherently reduce economic freedom, when often the opposite is true because of stronger fairness regulations on governments (e.g. privatized utility companies can deny service to individual more easily than governmental ones). And to return to my original point, despite talking about the importance of economic freedom and quoting Trotsky, their report doesn't even examine cases where people are excluded from employment through mechanisms other than law.
I feel like it’s hard to describe America as being at the “top rung” of health care with the stats linked. Those being
28/40 life expectancy 3/40 reported health 18/40 social inequality
I can’t help but feel that that “reported health” is skewed with such a low life expectancy.
For clarity within these rankings the lower the number the better.
28/40 life expectancy 3/40 reported health 18/40 social inequality
I can’t help but feel that that “reported health” is skewed with such a low life expectancy.
For clarity within these rankings the lower the number the better.
Good points, also to keep in mind that US is massive. State to state differences are presumably wide.
This probably leads to wider social and economic inequality, the richer states are more likely to have the better hospitals and better public health systems.
>Globalism is something that should be reevaluated
The global logistical issues caused by COVID, alongside China's recent belligerence, are seeing to the reversal of a certain amount of globalisation.
>Our capital is being invested into the capabilities of rivals, and it doesn't pay dividends. Americans have been turned into buyers of cheap plastic goods, and we've lost the ability to make our own critical components and wares. Huge mistake, driven in part by these narratives.
This was driven by large US companies seeking profits by offshoring the labour force to where the costs are absolutely minimised. I've believed for a long time that the US willingly and obliviously handed China the keys to the kingdom.
Additionally, the US has managed to dismantle much of the soft-power facade that used to be so well maintained.
There are no "well behaved" countries. Comparison with others is a zero-sum game. Self-analysis is required in order to know how to be better. Denial leads to repeating mistakes.
>Europeans don't give us enough credit. And they're replete with their own crises to always be pointing the finger.
Isn't The Economist a US publication? Looking at the About FAQ, I'm guessing they're US-based since the answer to this question:
Where is your head office?
Contains no reference to a city or country, but a street and a building, thus assuming a fair bit of local knowledge. Such a US trait.
The modern, global version of The Economist was created in “the tower”, as journalists refer to the tallest of the three brutalist concrete buildings that make up the Smithson Plaza (formerly The Economist Plaza) in St James’s Street. Commissioned by The Economist and designed by Alison and Peter Smithson, the tower was our home from 1964 until the summer of 2017, when we moved into the Adelphi, a 1930s art-deco office block on the Embankment.
I'm guessing they're not in Bruges.
The global logistical issues caused by COVID, alongside China's recent belligerence, are seeing to the reversal of a certain amount of globalisation.
>Our capital is being invested into the capabilities of rivals, and it doesn't pay dividends. Americans have been turned into buyers of cheap plastic goods, and we've lost the ability to make our own critical components and wares. Huge mistake, driven in part by these narratives.
This was driven by large US companies seeking profits by offshoring the labour force to where the costs are absolutely minimised. I've believed for a long time that the US willingly and obliviously handed China the keys to the kingdom.
Additionally, the US has managed to dismantle much of the soft-power facade that used to be so well maintained.
There are no "well behaved" countries. Comparison with others is a zero-sum game. Self-analysis is required in order to know how to be better. Denial leads to repeating mistakes.
>Europeans don't give us enough credit. And they're replete with their own crises to always be pointing the finger.
Isn't The Economist a US publication? Looking at the About FAQ, I'm guessing they're US-based since the answer to this question:
Where is your head office?
Contains no reference to a city or country, but a street and a building, thus assuming a fair bit of local knowledge. Such a US trait.
The modern, global version of The Economist was created in “the tower”, as journalists refer to the tallest of the three brutalist concrete buildings that make up the Smithson Plaza (formerly The Economist Plaza) in St James’s Street. Commissioned by The Economist and designed by Alison and Peter Smithson, the tower was our home from 1964 until the summer of 2017, when we moved into the Adelphi, a 1930s art-deco office block on the Embankment.
I'm guessing they're not in Bruges.
> Isn't The Economist a US publication?
"The Economist Group (legally The Economist Newspaper Limited) is a media company headquartered in London, England. It is best known as publisher of The Economist newspaper and its sister lifestyle magazine, 1843."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group
"The Economist Group (legally The Economist Newspaper Limited) is a media company headquartered in London, England. It is best known as publisher of The Economist newspaper and its sister lifestyle magazine, 1843."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group
Oof, severe research fail on my side. Flaming arrows accepted.
I don't think it's too difficult to pick apart your points (You're ranked 20th in the world for economic freedom, for example), but you're not wrong when you point out that the US cops way more flak than it deserves.
The US is at worst mediocre amongst the developed countries, but people can't shut up about how terrible it is.
Every country has their issues, yet no other developed democracy cops it like the US.
The US is at worst mediocre amongst the developed countries, but people can't shut up about how terrible it is.
Every country has their issues, yet no other developed democracy cops it like the US.
I'd just like to point out one thing I've noticed quite a bit and would love Europeans to chime in - that is - European exceptionalism. We, Americans, were known for American exceptionalism but that has eroded to a point where I haven't heard a single good thing about America in the last decade or so. We're shameful and contemptful of our nation. Slightest positive thing is considered nationalistic and right-wing, so we've become accustomed to similar mindset as the Germans post-WWII with regards to nationalism.
But, I am seeing some rise of European exceptionalism and wonder if things have changed over in Europe? Is it more united? Even small things like '.eu' domain is proudly used. I'd be damned if I use '.us' domain. Just a small example of many.
About the only time I see HackerNews coming together is when we talk about semiconductor industry in USA. There is a sense of optimism to invest in US semiconductor industry - but it is short lived.
But, I am seeing some rise of European exceptionalism and wonder if things have changed over in Europe? Is it more united? Even small things like '.eu' domain is proudly used. I'd be damned if I use '.us' domain. Just a small example of many.
About the only time I see HackerNews coming together is when we talk about semiconductor industry in USA. There is a sense of optimism to invest in US semiconductor industry - but it is short lived.
That cause we not only own .com we even own ICANN at it’s true root. We have nuclear powered carrier groups with real projection of power. Europe has nothing in real terms to compare. A simple example is two formerly grand colonial European powers both invaded and attacked Libya. They literally ran out of mumitions and ordnance. Obama had to come and save the day to destroy Libya. Another example is we left Afghanistan and Britain protested. They still could not stay there alone. And NATO only exists to serve us and help us sell more arms to client states. Europe is not an empire or close to it by any means. The 20th century was Pax Americana. The 21st started as us being sole game in town.now after multiple lost treasure after multiple wars we are slightly injured. But we are still much more powerful.
As for freedom of speech we don’t really have it when it is against the national security state and imperial ambitions. We jailed Eugene Debs the politician for advocating against entering the first world war. We imprisoned the director of Spirit of ‘76 for making a movie on Yankee Doodle which was supposedly anti-British. We now have multiple tech censorship platforms instructed by politicians and the media to censor and deplatform even more.
We have the dollar as the global reserve currency and we can export our inflation. If a country threatens the dollar as a reserve currency by trying to sell their petrol in different currencies we bomb them to hell.
We have a great medical care system for the rich. The lower and middle class need not apply.
We have more flags on display than anywhere I have traveled to in Europe (maybe I missed their national holidays). Just come to Fleet Week in San Francisco to see the flags and uniforms on full display.
As for freedom of speech we don’t really have it when it is against the national security state and imperial ambitions. We jailed Eugene Debs the politician for advocating against entering the first world war. We imprisoned the director of Spirit of ‘76 for making a movie on Yankee Doodle which was supposedly anti-British. We now have multiple tech censorship platforms instructed by politicians and the media to censor and deplatform even more.
We have the dollar as the global reserve currency and we can export our inflation. If a country threatens the dollar as a reserve currency by trying to sell their petrol in different currencies we bomb them to hell.
We have a great medical care system for the rich. The lower and middle class need not apply.
We have more flags on display than anywhere I have traveled to in Europe (maybe I missed their national holidays). Just come to Fleet Week in San Francisco to see the flags and uniforms on full display.
It's not EU, but go to Switzerland. Swiss branding permeates literally every thing. Can't go for 5 mins before noticing a Swiss flag in Zurich. Even people of Wyoming would be put off by this much about nationalism.
To be honest, as a european, I don't really understand all this fuss about exceptionalism, being the biggest economy in the world, having the highest amount of billionaires in the world, etc.
I know that it is all a big deal in US and the Americans I speak with every now and then all proudly always talk that greatness, but I would just care about being able to live a life with dignity with socialised services, government pension, sick days, etc, that do not depend on a specific company benefit but belong to the human being as a human being
So I still believe US has greatness, I can see Jeff Bezos created an empire, but then courier have no rights and people dies in a warehouse peeing in a bottle, I see the greatness of Elon Musk but then he just behaves like a child on twitter with non-sense leeching taxpayers
I've gone a bit off topic, but my point is, I am an employee with a government pension, 8% holiday allowance, sick days contribution that are paid monthly from my salary to the department of welfare with pension plan, as many in Europe, and my boss isn't worth thousand times than the average employee and I am not sure if he's classified in the wealthiest person of the world, I don't mind, we're not exceptional, but do our job and have life, I guess European exceptionalism is the lack of it?
I know that it is all a big deal in US and the Americans I speak with every now and then all proudly always talk that greatness, but I would just care about being able to live a life with dignity with socialised services, government pension, sick days, etc, that do not depend on a specific company benefit but belong to the human being as a human being
So I still believe US has greatness, I can see Jeff Bezos created an empire, but then courier have no rights and people dies in a warehouse peeing in a bottle, I see the greatness of Elon Musk but then he just behaves like a child on twitter with non-sense leeching taxpayers
I've gone a bit off topic, but my point is, I am an employee with a government pension, 8% holiday allowance, sick days contribution that are paid monthly from my salary to the department of welfare with pension plan, as many in Europe, and my boss isn't worth thousand times than the average employee and I am not sure if he's classified in the wealthiest person of the world, I don't mind, we're not exceptional, but do our job and have life, I guess European exceptionalism is the lack of it?
What do you think about mega corps in Europe? VW, Siemens, etc?
I was just trying to get some perspective, so thanks! I’d like US to adopt some of the EU bits but without losing the entrepreneural drive and atmosphere. I believe some of them are mutually-exclusive.
Also worth noting corporate policies in EU:
> Sometimes European integration is a byproduct of American policy. Stubbornly national elements of policymaking, such as corporation tax, are slowly being mangled into EU matters thanks to American action. A recent American-led push to set a global minimum tax rate for big business has done more to shunt the EU towards a common tax policy than years of nagging and legal tricks by Brussels. Within the EU, low-tax countries such as Ireland and Hungary wield a veto on its tax affairs. Diplomatic force majeure by America overcame that.
Source: https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/06/17/the-eu-made-in-a...
I was just trying to get some perspective, so thanks! I’d like US to adopt some of the EU bits but without losing the entrepreneural drive and atmosphere. I believe some of them are mutually-exclusive.
Also worth noting corporate policies in EU:
> Sometimes European integration is a byproduct of American policy. Stubbornly national elements of policymaking, such as corporation tax, are slowly being mangled into EU matters thanks to American action. A recent American-led push to set a global minimum tax rate for big business has done more to shunt the EU towards a common tax policy than years of nagging and legal tricks by Brussels. Within the EU, low-tax countries such as Ireland and Hungary wield a veto on its tax affairs. Diplomatic force majeure by America overcame that.
Source: https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/06/17/the-eu-made-in-a...
I am not sure what to think about those mega corps, my idea is that they exist, but their relationship with their workers is subject to the oversight of governments regulations and the relationship they have with the forming unions, etc.
I think their workers have a month of paid time off? The ability to have sick days without receiving them from coworkers? The ability to access socialised health care when they need it without going bankrupt? Paternity and maternity leave which might be nice or not depending on the union country in this case, for Siemens and VW in Germany I guess they have a lot of time off, as Italian I believe Italy doesn't have a good law on paternity leave, but that's improving afaik
--
I think as a system EU is good for being working class, but to be honest in the past few years I've met some cases where I was not happy, I have lived in Germany for few years and I left because the last company I was working with fired 5 people who were trying to set up a worker's union, and my last boss in Netherlands was too self-centric on the way he built his startup, so on his exit he bought a big villa with swimming pool, a new tesla, but of the marketing guy who grew the company 150% YoY for the last 3 years, backend developers and frontend developers, CS, no one got anything
While a friend's company who exit being sold to a US corp, gave even 3k to people who were interns for less than 6 months, and people working there longer got even bigger perks.
So I think bigger companies are more regulated compared to smaller ones, so I am not worried about them, some smaller ones have owners appear to have a big ego and greed drive, which is something I would like to improve in seeing beforehand
I think their workers have a month of paid time off? The ability to have sick days without receiving them from coworkers? The ability to access socialised health care when they need it without going bankrupt? Paternity and maternity leave which might be nice or not depending on the union country in this case, for Siemens and VW in Germany I guess they have a lot of time off, as Italian I believe Italy doesn't have a good law on paternity leave, but that's improving afaik
--
I think as a system EU is good for being working class, but to be honest in the past few years I've met some cases where I was not happy, I have lived in Germany for few years and I left because the last company I was working with fired 5 people who were trying to set up a worker's union, and my last boss in Netherlands was too self-centric on the way he built his startup, so on his exit he bought a big villa with swimming pool, a new tesla, but of the marketing guy who grew the company 150% YoY for the last 3 years, backend developers and frontend developers, CS, no one got anything
While a friend's company who exit being sold to a US corp, gave even 3k to people who were interns for less than 6 months, and people working there longer got even bigger perks.
So I think bigger companies are more regulated compared to smaller ones, so I am not worried about them, some smaller ones have owners appear to have a big ego and greed drive, which is something I would like to improve in seeing beforehand
Another thing I wanted to say is that when I was in Berlin I lived with an American European history/philosophy scholar for a while, and as far as I understood is that US has always been a working class supportive country up to a certain point after the WW2, so I am not surprised to learn that EU is a product of US, I think a lot of working class rights come from policies that originated in US, I just think that at a certain point US diverted from shared wealth and started caring too much about single people wealth
EDIT: So I think you shouldn't take anything from working culture, I think you guys should just go back to where you were a while ago
EDIT: So I think you shouldn't take anything from working culture, I think you guys should just go back to where you were a while ago
I'm surprised to read this given the political situation in the United States. As an outsider it seems like the entire Trump movement has a strong basis in nationalism and exceptionalism, and it was endorsed by half the country's population.
Political rhetoric aside, reading NYTimes or WSJ, I seldom come across any sort of American Exceptionalism especially amongst the tech/SV diaspora. It is quite the opposite - we make fun of American Exceptionalism.
On the otherhand, I hardly ever hear a negative story in the media with regards to EU here in US-media.
On the otherhand, I hardly ever hear a negative story in the media with regards to EU here in US-media.
American exceptionalism (different in meaning to exceptional) as a concept and usage predates over a century. It was in fact a American communist construct:
The earliest documented use of the specific term "American exceptionalism" is by American communists in intra-communist disputes in the late 1920s.
…..
However, the specific term "American exceptionalism" seems to have originated with American communists in the late 1920s. The earliest documented usage cited by the Oxford English Dictionary is from the Daily Worker, 29 January 1929: "This American 'exceptionalism' applies to the whole tactical line of the C.I. as applied to America."[8] In turn, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin (who was likely aware of this earlier use) condemned the "heresy of American exceptionalism" in a tense discussion with Jay Lovestone of the Communist Party USA, after Lovestone echoed the arguments of other American communists that the U.S. is independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions."[8][10] The term later moved into general use by intellectuals.[10][11] "American exceptionalism" was rarely used after the 1930s until U.S. newspapers popularized it in the 1980s to describe America's cultural and political uniqueness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
The earliest documented use of the specific term "American exceptionalism" is by American communists in intra-communist disputes in the late 1920s.
…..
However, the specific term "American exceptionalism" seems to have originated with American communists in the late 1920s. The earliest documented usage cited by the Oxford English Dictionary is from the Daily Worker, 29 January 1929: "This American 'exceptionalism' applies to the whole tactical line of the C.I. as applied to America."[8] In turn, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin (who was likely aware of this earlier use) condemned the "heresy of American exceptionalism" in a tense discussion with Jay Lovestone of the Communist Party USA, after Lovestone echoed the arguments of other American communists that the U.S. is independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions."[8][10] The term later moved into general use by intellectuals.[10][11] "American exceptionalism" was rarely used after the 1930s until U.S. newspapers popularized it in the 1980s to describe America's cultural and political uniqueness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
Thanks, that's a super interesting history of the phrase!
> meanwhile authoritarian regimes are rising to power.
like what an authoritarian tried to do on Jan 6?
> We need more unity.
yes but how do you unite a deeply divided nation?
like what an authoritarian tried to do on Jan 6?
> We need more unity.
yes but how do you unite a deeply divided nation?
Don’t blame the teacher for poor grades and don’t excuse poor grades by pointing out the mediocre students.
This is valuable, but there's a giant caveat, in that if you were to do the study on the EU level, it would be much the same.
Sweden is 10 million people, arguably more egalitarian, but moving from <25% to >75% in Sweden is not nearly the same thing as going from the <25% of EU (say, most of the population of Romania) to >75% of EU.
Swedes at the 25% mark are probably in the 75% percentile for Romania already.
Obviously there is more to it, but it's a tricky comparison.
Sweden is 10 million people, arguably more egalitarian, but moving from <25% to >75% in Sweden is not nearly the same thing as going from the <25% of EU (say, most of the population of Romania) to >75% of EU.
Swedes at the 25% mark are probably in the 75% percentile for Romania already.
Obviously there is more to it, but it's a tricky comparison.
Don't high earner immigrants skew the results heavily?
When I moved to Switzerland as a software engineer, I was considered a high earner, at the same time I didn't feel high on the social ladder as I was a foreigner.
When I moved to Switzerland as a software engineer, I was considered a high earner, at the same time I didn't feel high on the social ladder as I was a foreigner.
This gives more context: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20162015
> redistribution
Of course the real redistribution is the expropriation of the fruits of surplus labor time by those who work to heirs who do not. Redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value.
Of course the real redistribution is the expropriation of the fruits of surplus labor time by those who work to heirs who do not. Redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value.
It seems odd to couch redistribution of income within capitalist systems in Marxist terms like “redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value”, as though the funds being redistributed will have been taken exclusively from the owners of the means of production. They’re not. The vast majority of net contributors to the system are workers. These policies just take money from some workers and give them to other workers.
> Marxist terms like “redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value”
The notion that created wealth is made by workers is not one that Marx credits to himself, but to another revolutionary - Benjamin Franklin.
The notion that created wealth is made by workers is not one that Marx credits to himself, but to another revolutionary - Benjamin Franklin.
Things of possible note:
* This is a survey published in 2018 with (survey) data gathered in two months of 2016
* mobility data comes from a different source for each country and they vary wildly in the period covered. Notable Italy and US data is post 2008 and the others pre 2008. Looks like there’s as much as a 12 year difference in child earning data across countries.
* sample characteristics (the income question mentioned in other posts, not clear these are used for quintiles):
* US 20k, 20-40k, 40-70k, 70k+
* UK £1.5k/mo, £1.5-2.5k/mo, £2.5-3k/mo, £3k+/mo
* FR (UK ranges but €)
* IT <€(?)1.5k/mo, 1.5-2.45k/mo, 2.45-3.35k/mo, 3.35k+/mo
* SE (SEK) <33k/mo, 33-42k/mo, 42-58k/mo, 58k+/mo
* population samples per bracket differ most between US and EU, EU comparisons are pretty similar. Nearly 2x income bracket 1 pop and sample % in EU(.27-.33) vs US (.16/.18)
* From what I’ve found 2004 (UK data) £ conversion rate to USD was ~1.9. (2012)€ was ~1.34. USD and Italy are from 2011-2012, a 2012 $ is 0.82¢ in 2004 $s. So 70k=57.6k and £3000/mo=04$68.4k=12$83.1k, €3000/mo=12$46.8k
* age dist differs non-UK EU has fewer under 30.(~.2 vs .27)
So the lowest UK rate is ~2x the lowest US rate, the US rate is a smaller portion of the pop/sample, and the US upper rate is nearly 1.5-2x of the sample as the Non-US (.39 vs .17-26). The EU top rate is ~0.56 the US top rate when converted to $ using 2012 numbers.
There’s also another important dynamic here. 2011-2012 was the European debt crisis. Italy, in particular, saw a big unemployment spike over the course of the selected years.
[the study](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015)
* This is a survey published in 2018 with (survey) data gathered in two months of 2016
* mobility data comes from a different source for each country and they vary wildly in the period covered. Notable Italy and US data is post 2008 and the others pre 2008. Looks like there’s as much as a 12 year difference in child earning data across countries.
* sample characteristics (the income question mentioned in other posts, not clear these are used for quintiles):
* US 20k, 20-40k, 40-70k, 70k+
* UK £1.5k/mo, £1.5-2.5k/mo, £2.5-3k/mo, £3k+/mo
* FR (UK ranges but €)
* IT <€(?)1.5k/mo, 1.5-2.45k/mo, 2.45-3.35k/mo, 3.35k+/mo
* SE (SEK) <33k/mo, 33-42k/mo, 42-58k/mo, 58k+/mo
* population samples per bracket differ most between US and EU, EU comparisons are pretty similar. Nearly 2x income bracket 1 pop and sample % in EU(.27-.33) vs US (.16/.18)
* From what I’ve found 2004 (UK data) £ conversion rate to USD was ~1.9. (2012)€ was ~1.34. USD and Italy are from 2011-2012, a 2012 $ is 0.82¢ in 2004 $s. So 70k=57.6k and £3000/mo=04$68.4k=12$83.1k, €3000/mo=12$46.8k
* age dist differs non-UK EU has fewer under 30.(~.2 vs .27)
So the lowest UK rate is ~2x the lowest US rate, the US rate is a smaller portion of the pop/sample, and the US upper rate is nearly 1.5-2x of the sample as the Non-US (.39 vs .17-26). The EU top rate is ~0.56 the US top rate when converted to $ using 2012 numbers.
There’s also another important dynamic here. 2011-2012 was the European debt crisis. Italy, in particular, saw a big unemployment spike over the course of the selected years.
[the study](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015)
I really liked this TED talk:
Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? | Harald Eia | TEDxOslo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU
Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? | Harald Eia | TEDxOslo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU
Thanks for sharing that.
This all resonates well with my own beliefs, so I’m sure I’m biased. But good free education for everyone, automation to free up the lower rungs of the workforce and increase productivity, social safety net to make people less concerned about layoffs and work fluctuations.
If only the wealthy supported these policies, they would be more wealthy!
This all resonates well with my own beliefs, so I’m sure I’m biased. But good free education for everyone, automation to free up the lower rungs of the workforce and increase productivity, social safety net to make people less concerned about layoffs and work fluctuations.
If only the wealthy supported these policies, they would be more wealthy!
That’s not a major overestimate. 11.7% and 7.8% are qualitatively similar amounts. What level of accuracy do they expect people to estimate such numbers with?
The elite don't really care if the poor and middle class trade places with each other. They don't even care if the middle class disappears entirely. They just absolutely do not want the poor or middle class joining them in the elite, so they've made sure the system will prevent that.
I think perhaps the US makes it hard for a single person to move from bottom to top quintile. But I bet that the US is the country that makes it the easiest for you to be in the bottom quintile and have grandchildren in the top quintile.
Basically, I think the US is likely the best for generational family mobility. I have seen this story many times with immigrants. The immigrants come over and work often very menial jobs. Their kids study hard and go to colleges and end up as white collar jobs. Their kids in turn (the grandkids) often go to elite colleges and end up with elite careers (lawyers, doctors, etc).
Basically, I think the US is likely the best for generational family mobility. I have seen this story many times with immigrants. The immigrants come over and work often very menial jobs. Their kids study hard and go to colleges and end up as white collar jobs. Their kids in turn (the grandkids) often go to elite colleges and end up with elite careers (lawyers, doctors, etc).
Literally the entire point of the paper is that the U.S. has the worst intergenerational bottom-to-top quintile probability among the five nations, U.K., France, Italy, and Sweden being the others, but Americans believe that the probability is much higher than it really is, as you have just amply demonstrated.
> Basically, I think the US is likely the best for generational family mobility. I have seen this story many times with immigrants
What makes you think this doesn't happen so much in other countries?
What makes you think this doesn't happen so much in other countries?
Because in many countries, you'll always be an outsider.
It's hard to convince large swathes of progressive America of this fact.
Lots of possible cause/effect: child-free lifestyles, exalting the even modestly well-off who choose to leave their children nothing, long-established families who have lost a living connection to their immigrant forebears, etc.
"Families are always rising and falling in America."
Lots of possible cause/effect: child-free lifestyles, exalting the even modestly well-off who choose to leave their children nothing, long-established families who have lost a living connection to their immigrant forebears, etc.
"Families are always rising and falling in America."
Actual paper here: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015
Main takeaway is that upward social mobility in all of these countries is extremely, dangerously high to the point of making society hardly functional at all. It should be extremely hard to get from bottom to the top, or people who are at the top will not care about things in society for the long term - coz why if their children will most probably be poor again anyway? And they are those who actually make decisions.
I hate quintile mobility as a metric and don't think it should be used. Quintile mobility is zero sum. It's impossible for anyone to move up without someone else moving down. I don't want people in the upper middle quintile to go down. But I also want people in the lower quintiles to move up. To upper middle if not top.
Neither wealth nor income is zero sum. Zero sum analyses are therefore not useful IMHO.
Neither wealth nor income is zero sum. Zero sum analyses are therefore not useful IMHO.
I would be interested in seeing more numbers about where the optimism in American citizens starts to deviate based on what privileged statuses the person holds. If I had to make an educated guess I would posit that white Americans and those who are from older generations are going to be more optimistic about upwards economic and therefore social mobility.
Archived: https://archive.ph/EsTD4
Seems to fundamentally confuse social mobility and financial mobility?
Simply earning more doesn't move your social class.
Simply earning more doesn't move your social class.
Correct. A freelance jurno making $40K in NYC has more social status than a Plumber with his own LLC making half a million a year. The former is closer to the cultural elite and the later is 'blue collar'.
It lets you buy ambassadorships and climb via the political patronage system.
Interesting - I posted a comment that referenced this exact same link 4 days ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29485673
This article is from 2018 and the comment got no upvotes.
Strange little bubble here on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29485673
This article is from 2018 and the comment got no upvotes.
Strange little bubble here on HN.
American hacker news commenters clearly in full denial is as funny as it is sad.
[deleted]
Honestly, this should be surprising to basically nobody who's actually paying attention.
[deleted]
The overestimation of social mobility is what explains the people at the bottom voting for governments that promote policies like trickle-down economics that only ever benefit the people at the top.
This is my experience in Australia, which isn't as far along in the progression towards uber-capitalism as the US.
This is my experience in Australia, which isn't as far along in the progression towards uber-capitalism as the US.
Voting is a package deal and it's quite obvious that westerners outside of the US have close to zero understanding of cultural issues, especially abortion. They'll whine about it but they never understand that for quite a large segment of the group they keep calling stupid, abortion is the wholesale slaughter of millions of babies year after year. This is not a shallow belief. It is deeply held for these people. If you don't view abortion that way, you'll just call them stupid and add it to your list of things you feel superior to them about and continue to not understand them in the slightest. Which leads people to make statements such as the one you did about people making irrational fiscal related votes when that might not have even been in their top five issues. Until you can understand the abortion issue beyond the glib dismissive "they want to control women's bodies" you will continue to not understand the people you are talking about. That understanding might not be important to you but if it is, then you must not reduce them to whatever single variable judgement you want to extrapolate into matching your viewpoint, especially when that single variable might not be of high importance to them.
My comment is in direct relation to a handful of people (data points) I've had conversations with who've specifically chosen based on this as a primary issue - both voting _for_ one party touting said trickle-down, and _against_ a party offering an alternative.
I genuinely try (although admittedly regularly fail) to avoid making generalisations as you are alluding to.
I happen to support a legal right to abortion, but I also understand why people don't like it. Let democracy decide. Let science provide research facts and figures. Let religions have their doctrines.
I genuinely try (although admittedly regularly fail) to avoid making generalisations as you are alluding to.
I happen to support a legal right to abortion, but I also understand why people don't like it. Let democracy decide. Let science provide research facts and figures. Let religions have their doctrines.
Why don't they say what the quintiles are in dollars?
The information is in the original papers. If they wanted to give relevant information, they’d have to give twenty to forty numbers: one for each country, upper and lower bar, for previous generation and the current one, in currency (and the Euro has been introduced in several countries) for and likely offer inflation-corrected, purchase-power index, etc.
The Economist has a strict rule about offering as simple infographics as possible and this has generally served them well.
Why it compares just one type of mobility from the very bottom to the very top? Shouldn't it change all the stages in between? Also, assuming we always have the same bell curve of wealth distribution what does it matter who is where? Assuming some poor guy became rich, if the bell curve stays the same it means also that someone else dropped to become poor, so overall, what is the point? If you say the point is that having the opportunity encourage people to work and that in itself improves the situation for everyone then the American optimism is more valuable, even if it is not true.
- Moving from bottom quintile to 2nd highest is significant mobility and completely ignored in this analysis.
- The analysis ignores the fact that the highest quintile in the US is higher in absolute terms than other countries. So moving from bottom to 4th may give more income than bottom to 5th in other countries.
- This analysis also ignores the changes of income within quintiles. The 3rd quintile in 1980 isn't the same income in 2020. 3rd quintile could see significant income improvements.
- This analysis also ignores government transfers.
- Countries that have a lower income spread, but overall less income would do better.