4 ms·

the difference between the US and Russia is that in the US, anyone has the opportunity to change their own economic situation if they want to.

by arrty88 11y ago

p4wnc6 11y ago
This is really, really not true. Or at least it depends a lot on what you mean by "change." It might be better than it is in Russia, but it is not good at all for most people in the U.S.
chipgap98 11y ago
I think there are millions of people in the US who "want" to change their situation. I don't think the US you are describing actually exists
- arrty88 11y ago
  If you have 5 kids, you probably can't easily change things: http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/hilarious-judge-judy-contestant-inadvertently-explains-exactly-whats-wrong-with-liberalism/ http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/hilarious-judge-judy-conte... But anyone with half a brain can start going to local libraries to get interested in subjects, attend community college, apply for new jobs, learn a trade, etc etc
  - vmorgulis 11y ago
    A lot of people are interested by nothing.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >I think there are millions of people in the US who "want" to change their situation. And there are 10s of millions who want to lose weight. Is there a significant social issue preventing the loss of weight, is losing weight an achievable American dream... or does want alone not achieve a dream? The problem isn't the lack of desire, it is the lack of discipline. Even if we made becoming filthy rich as easy as losing weight why would people do the former when they still can't do the latter today?
mirimir 11y ago
Maybe so. But there's a lot more to it than "want". And the playing field is by no means level.
devonkim 11y ago
Isn't this basically the basis of the so-called American Dream? It's fundamentally measured by social mobility (it does rest upon the assumption that nobody CHOOSES to be poor and destitute or that people do want to become wealthier once they've made it up a rung or so) and there's conflicting analysis but most studies are showing that inheritability of class is another perspective and that it is growing stronger, not weaker (while it's different for other countries). http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-social-mobility-parents-income/399311/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-... I also find it amusing you compared the US and Russia for social mobility when the Gini coefficient is actually worse for the US than Russia at present (granted, more of an indicator of economic disparity but almost nobody thinks that high income inequality is what happens with higher social mobility) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/business/8046055/Gini-coefficient-makes-Russia-look-more-equitable.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/business/8046055/G...
crimsonalucard 11y ago
I strongly disagree. Anyone has the opportunity to change their own situation at the expense of others. Think about it like this. No single individual can produce a billion dollars worth of output with his own bare hands. If I "choose" to be a billionaire I have to employ many people and pay them less money than their worth so I can skim the extra resources off the top. If everyone "chose" to be a billionaire who would be left to do the actual work? Billionaires are only billionaires because they employ other people. To be wealthy by definition means other people must be poorer than you and thus by definition if you choose to be wealthy you are choosing for other people to be poorer than you. If you chose for other people to be poor than those people never had a choice. Thus in capitalism there are Plenty of people who do not have the freedom of choice.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  > Billionaires are only billionaires because they employ other people. To some degree true (once we forget about traders, inherited fortunes etc.) The rest of your post is bad framing I think: I think there are a lot of nice people who runs businesses. Of course the opposite exists as well but just because someone is well off doesn't mean they are greedy; some of them worked hard, some where lucky and some played their cards well against bigger companies.
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11151992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11151992 and marked it off-topic.

the difference between the US and Russia is that in the US, anyone has the opportunity to change their own economic situation if they want to.

by arrty88 11y ago

the difference between the US and Russia is that in the US, anyone has the opportunity to change their own economic situation if they want to.

p4wnc6 11y ago

This is really, really not true. Or at least it depends a lot on what you mean by "change." It might be better than it is in Russia, but it is not good at all for most people in the U.S.

chipgap98 11y ago

I think there are millions of people in the US who "want" to change their situation. I don't think the US you are describing actually exists

arrty88 11y ago
If you have 5 kids, you probably can't easily change things: http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/hilarious-judge-judy-contestant-inadvertently-explains-exactly-whats-wrong-with-liberalism/ http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/hilarious-judge-judy-conte... But anyone with half a brain can start going to local libraries to get interested in subjects, attend community college, apply for new jobs, learn a trade, etc etc
- vmorgulis 11y ago
  A lot of people are interested by nothing.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>I think there are millions of people in the US who "want" to change their situation. And there are 10s of millions who want to lose weight. Is there a significant social issue preventing the loss of weight, is losing weight an achievable American dream... or does want alone not achieve a dream? The problem isn't the lack of desire, it is the lack of discipline. Even if we made becoming filthy rich as easy as losing weight why would people do the former when they still can't do the latter today?

mirimir 11y ago

Maybe so. But there's a lot more to it than "want". And the playing field is by no means level.

devonkim 11y ago

Isn't this basically the basis of the so-called American Dream? It's fundamentally measured by social mobility (it does rest upon the assumption that nobody CHOOSES to be poor and destitute or that people do want to become wealthier once they've made it up a rung or so) and there's conflicting analysis but most studies are showing that inheritability of class is another perspective and that it is growing stronger, not weaker (while it's different for other countries). http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-social-mobility-parents-income/399311/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-... I also find it amusing you compared the US and Russia for social mobility when the Gini coefficient is actually worse for the US than Russia at present (granted, more of an indicator of economic disparity but almost nobody thinks that high income inequality is what happens with higher social mobility) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/business/8046055/Gini-coefficient-makes-Russia-look-more-equitable.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/business/8046055/G...

crimsonalucard 11y ago

I strongly disagree. Anyone has the opportunity to change their own situation at the expense of others. Think about it like this. No single individual can produce a billion dollars worth of output with his own bare hands. If I "choose" to be a billionaire I have to employ many people and pay them less money than their worth so I can skim the extra resources off the top. If everyone "chose" to be a billionaire who would be left to do the actual work? Billionaires are only billionaires because they employ other people. To be wealthy by definition means other people must be poorer than you and thus by definition if you choose to be wealthy you are choosing for other people to be poorer than you. If you chose for other people to be poor than those people never had a choice. Thus in capitalism there are Plenty of people who do not have the freedom of choice.

reitanqild 11y ago
> Billionaires are only billionaires because they employ other people. To some degree true (once we forget about traders, inherited fortunes etc.) The rest of your post is bad framing I think: I think there are a lot of nice people who runs businesses. Of course the opposite exists as well but just because someone is well off doesn't mean they are greedy; some of them worked hard, some where lucky and some played their cards well against bigger companies.

dang 11y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11151992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11151992 and marked it off-topic.