5 ms·

The Mobility Myth (2014)

17 points by Futurebot 11y ago

kabouseng 11y ago
Everybody can't be rich (que incredibles quote: "if everyone's super no one will be"). So for every person who moves up, someone must move down. So here is a thought experiment, instead of thinking about improving upward mobility, rather think about improving downwards mobility. Make it difficult to occupy the top echelons, make people work for it and deserve it, instead of just inheriting a fortune and riding the advantages of passive capital working for you. Just a thought, I have no idea where it could lead but it could perhaps provide a fresh perspective...
- lagadu 11y ago
  > So for every person who moves up, someone must move down. Standards of living and wealth are not a zero-sum game, there are plenty of situations where changes benefit everyone.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The article is about relative mobility (getting from the bottom quintile to the top), not absolute mobility (having cool toys that didn't exist in 1980). Relative mobility is a zero sum game.
  - kabouseng 11y ago
    Standards of living isn't zero sum, I agree. Wealth, or rather relative wealth or a class society is zero sum. Again, everyone can't be rich (relative to other people), unless you want to go the direction of communism / socialism / classless society. So as a thought experiment... PS. Why did you downvote, seriously you downvoted a thought experiment meant to stimulate thought.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Communism / socialism / classless society doesn't escape the zero-sum game you mentioned. Relative wealth is zero-sum by very definition. If everyone has exactly the same wealth, no one is richer than others.
      - kabouseng 11y ago
        I agree.
    - asift 11y ago
      >Wealth, or relative wealth or a class society is zero sum. Relative wealth is zero sum. Wealth is not zero sum. You shouldn't muddle the terms like this.
      - kabouseng 11y ago
        This is nitpicking, but please go and read my post again and tell where I used the word wealth? -edit - I mean my original top post. You introduced the word wealth and then call me out for muddle'ing its meaning :D
        asift 11y ago
        I was referring to the comment I quoted: >Wealth, or relative wealth...
- trowawee 11y ago
  I mean, I think we've got a pretty good idea of where that line of thought leads. High estate taxes, confiscatory or near-confiscatory levels of taxation above a certain income level, serious increases in capital gains taxation. All of which I'm in favor of, despite the fact that, thanks primarily to family circumstances, I enjoy a fairly high net worth. But enough people in my same circumstances hate that idea, and have the wherewithal to fight it politically, that it's unlikely to ever happen.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
asift 11y ago
>Seventy per cent of people born into the bottom quintile of income distribution never make it into the middle class, and fewer than ten per cent get into the top quintile. Forty per cent are still poor as adults. I'm unconvinced this is a terribly concerning level of mobility. Some people seem to assume an ideal level of mobility would demonstrate no advantage to those born in upper quintiles (i.e., your birth quintile plays no role in your adult quintile), but given what we know about the importance of genetics in passing along favourable human capital characteristics, matching behavior in mating markets, and the importance of social capital -- it seems very reasonable that we would see less than "perfect" mobility.
- pron 11y ago
  > but given what we know about the importance of genetics in passing along favourable human capital characteristics I don't think we know that at all, and as an assumption it is a terrible one. If it is wrong (and we have no reason to assume it is correct, at least not to a very high degree), you are deciding to give up on a lot of people. You're basically guessing that the poor are where they belong and as a consequence of that guess, you make no effort to help them. Moreover, even if that assumption is right, so what? Even if people are born less capable of riches, that does not mean we shouldn't do our best to help them achieve moderate levels of success, or at least to better their lot in life. This isn't all altruistic: a more egalitarian society is a more pleasant one. In the end, it all comes to values. But I want to clarify what those values signify: financial success isn't just about how much stuff you can buy, but more importantly about power[1]. The less money you have relative to the median, the less power, and the less power you have -- the less freedom. Giving up on power equality means giving up on greater freedom to great many people. > it seems very reasonable that we would see less than "perfect" mobility. There's a very long way from where the US is now to perfect mobility. Americans can start with striving for European levels of mobility for a start. We know that at least that is possible. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    What facts, measurements or data (if any) would cause you to accept that his hypothesis is true? Interpret his hypothesis in a broad manner; poor folks are predominantly where they belong due to hereditary traits, either genetics or behaviors taught by their parents. These traits will cause them to be poor in any system which rewards hard work, intelligence and the creation of value for other people as a means of gaining income.

17 points by Futurebot 11y ago

Everybody can't be rich (que incredibles quote: "if everyone's super no one will be"). So for every person who moves up, someone must move down. So here is a thought experiment, instead of thinking about improving upward mobility, rather think about improving downwards mobility. Make it difficult to occupy the top echelons, make people work for it and deserve it, instead of just inheriting a fortune and riding the advantages of passive capital working for you. Just a thought, I have no idea where it could lead but it could perhaps provide a fresh perspective...

lagadu 11y ago
> So for every person who moves up, someone must move down. Standards of living and wealth are not a zero-sum game, there are plenty of situations where changes benefit everyone.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The article is about relative mobility (getting from the bottom quintile to the top), not absolute mobility (having cool toys that didn't exist in 1980). Relative mobility is a zero sum game.
- kabouseng 11y ago
  Standards of living isn't zero sum, I agree. Wealth, or rather relative wealth or a class society is zero sum. Again, everyone can't be rich (relative to other people), unless you want to go the direction of communism / socialism / classless society. So as a thought experiment... PS. Why did you downvote, seriously you downvoted a thought experiment meant to stimulate thought.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Communism / socialism / classless society doesn't escape the zero-sum game you mentioned. Relative wealth is zero-sum by very definition. If everyone has exactly the same wealth, no one is richer than others.
    - kabouseng 11y ago
      I agree.
  - asift 11y ago
    >Wealth, or relative wealth or a class society is zero sum. Relative wealth is zero sum. Wealth is not zero sum. You shouldn't muddle the terms like this.
    - kabouseng 11y ago
      This is nitpicking, but please go and read my post again and tell where I used the word wealth? -edit - I mean my original top post. You introduced the word wealth and then call me out for muddle'ing its meaning :D
      - asift 11y ago
        I was referring to the comment I quoted: >Wealth, or relative wealth...
trowawee 11y ago
I mean, I think we've got a pretty good idea of where that line of thought leads. High estate taxes, confiscatory or near-confiscatory levels of taxation above a certain income level, serious increases in capital gains taxation. All of which I'm in favor of, despite the fact that, thanks primarily to family circumstances, I enjoy a fairly high net worth. But enough people in my same circumstances hate that idea, and have the wherewithal to fight it politically, that it's unlikely to ever happen.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

asift 11y ago

>Seventy per cent of people born into the bottom quintile of income distribution never make it into the middle class, and fewer than ten per cent get into the top quintile. Forty per cent are still poor as adults. I'm unconvinced this is a terribly concerning level of mobility. Some people seem to assume an ideal level of mobility would demonstrate no advantage to those born in upper quintiles (i.e., your birth quintile plays no role in your adult quintile), but given what we know about the importance of genetics in passing along favourable human capital characteristics, matching behavior in mating markets, and the importance of social capital -- it seems very reasonable that we would see less than "perfect" mobility.

pron 11y ago
> but given what we know about the importance of genetics in passing along favourable human capital characteristics I don't think we know that at all, and as an assumption it is a terrible one. If it is wrong (and we have no reason to assume it is correct, at least not to a very high degree), you are deciding to give up on a lot of people. You're basically guessing that the poor are where they belong and as a consequence of that guess, you make no effort to help them. Moreover, even if that assumption is right, so what? Even if people are born less capable of riches, that does not mean we shouldn't do our best to help them achieve moderate levels of success, or at least to better their lot in life. This isn't all altruistic: a more egalitarian society is a more pleasant one. In the end, it all comes to values. But I want to clarify what those values signify: financial success isn't just about how much stuff you can buy, but more importantly about power[1]. The less money you have relative to the median, the less power, and the less power you have -- the less freedom. Giving up on power equality means giving up on greater freedom to great many people. > it seems very reasonable that we would see less than "perfect" mobility. There's a very long way from where the US is now to perfect mobility. Americans can start with striving for European levels of mobility for a start. We know that at least that is possible. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  What facts, measurements or data (if any) would cause you to accept that his hypothesis is true? Interpret his hypothesis in a broad manner; poor folks are predominantly where they belong due to hereditary traits, either genetics or behaviors taught by their parents. These traits will cause them to be poor in any system which rewards hard work, intelligence and the creation of value for other people as a means of gaining income.