3 ms·

>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 t

by 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.
  - pron 11y ago
    > What facts, measurements or data (if any) would cause you to accept that his hypothesis is true? Anything that provides strong evidence that no human action -- social or technological -- can possibly improve the fortune of the poor. > either genetics or behaviors taught by their parents Even if that were true, I see no claim that they cannot change, so I don't see why the cause matters. That people's starting positions in life are widely unequal is pretty much a given; no one disputes that. In order to make a powerful claim, the only thing that matters is not the source of their misfortune, but that it cannot be changed. Genetic, "wide" social or "close" social (family), I see no such claim being made, and if anyone were to make that claim, I think that they have no good foundation to base it on. I do see people make that (usually implied) assumption, but as I said before, this assumption is no more than a reflection of their values[1]. > 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. Only provided that the system doesn't do other things, too (and why can't the poor work hard? I think I work far less hard than a great many number of people far poorer than me). ---- [1]: As to values, I have absolutely no problem with people holding values that say "every man to himself", and we shouldn't go out of our ways to help the poor. I do see a huge problem with people offering social structures that try to curtail whatever power the poor do have, but not the power of the rich. The rich have their money and the poor have their numbers. They can use their numbers for violence or the threat of violence, to achieve better standing, or through a more sophisticated mechanism of democracy, where they impose restrictions on the rich. As a consequence, I see no ethical problem with either a social democracy or anarchy. But I see a big ethical problems with ideologies that prohibit violence, the threat of violence, and any form of organization imposing restrictions, while at the same time placing no restrictions on the use of power that comes from money. Those people are saying, "every man to himself as long as we make sure no one with different sources of power than me can use their's against me".

by asift 11y ago

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.
- pron 11y ago
  > What facts, measurements or data (if any) would cause you to accept that his hypothesis is true? Anything that provides strong evidence that no human action -- social or technological -- can possibly improve the fortune of the poor. > either genetics or behaviors taught by their parents Even if that were true, I see no claim that they cannot change, so I don't see why the cause matters. That people's starting positions in life are widely unequal is pretty much a given; no one disputes that. In order to make a powerful claim, the only thing that matters is not the source of their misfortune, but that it cannot be changed. Genetic, "wide" social or "close" social (family), I see no such claim being made, and if anyone were to make that claim, I think that they have no good foundation to base it on. I do see people make that (usually implied) assumption, but as I said before, this assumption is no more than a reflection of their values[1]. > 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. Only provided that the system doesn't do other things, too (and why can't the poor work hard? I think I work far less hard than a great many number of people far poorer than me). ---- [1]: As to values, I have absolutely no problem with people holding values that say "every man to himself", and we shouldn't go out of our ways to help the poor. I do see a huge problem with people offering social structures that try to curtail whatever power the poor do have, but not the power of the rich. The rich have their money and the poor have their numbers. They can use their numbers for violence or the threat of violence, to achieve better standing, or through a more sophisticated mechanism of democracy, where they impose restrictions on the rich. As a consequence, I see no ethical problem with either a social democracy or anarchy. But I see a big ethical problems with ideologies that prohibit violence, the threat of violence, and any form of organization imposing restrictions, while at the same time placing no restrictions on the use of power that comes from money. Those people are saying, "every man to himself as long as we make sure no one with different sources of power than me can use their's against me".