4 ms·

In response to your main issue regarding socioeconomic mobility - why is this, in turn, a problem? If you can demonstrate that reduced social mobility is an is

by dsacco 10y ago

In response to your main issue regarding socioeconomic mobility - why is this, in turn, a problem? If you can demonstrate that reduced social mobility is an issue, and that this is increased by progressively greater income inequality (the latter of which I probably agree with on cursory inspection), then it seems income inequality is a net loss. However, from a utilitarian perspective, I don't see a reason to care about social mobility if quality of life increases for everyone, not just the upper classes. Keep in mind that I am working on two axioms: 1. Income inequality is a mathematical certainty in a functional society with more than n participants, where n is the maximum number of people who can be personally and honestly cooperative with each other, and 2. Income inequality refers to differences in an individual's absolute resources available for consumption, not their quality of life (exceptions granted for luxury consumption goods, not basic utilities that are available across all social classes). As a very simplistic example that I'd enjoy having holes poked in, Apple has generated wondrous income inequality for many of its engineers and management. However, it has also leveraged economies of scale and competitive forces to manufacture a mass market product that is, statistically, enjoyed by even the poorest households in America and which affords its users with the most powerful innovation since the printing press in their pockets. EDIT: This comment has had a rapid change in up and down votes. It's fine to disagree with me, but I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether or not a lack of social mobility is actually a bad thing, as a Socratic baseline.

phamilton 10y ago
> In response to your main issue regarding socioeconomic mobility - why is this, in turn, a problem? It depends on the end goal. If the end goal is scientific advancement, for example, mobility into the educated and academic class is important to provide intellectual diversity. If we bifurcate society into the educated and uneducated, it would likely restrict the flow of new ideas and discovery.
hx87 10y ago
Low socioeconomic mobility is a problem because the potential for any individual to contribute to the good of society is at best loosely correlated with their previous socioeconomic status. If people who could have been top-notch scientists, engineers, civil servants and entrepreneurs were prevented from doing so because they couldn't move up the ladder (and inversely, rich rent-seekers couldn't move down), society is deprived of their contributions and is worse off. P.S.: The rapid change in up and down votes is probably caused more by your confusion of socioeconomic mobility and equality (you seem to be using the two interchangeably) than anything else.
- dsacco 10y ago
  Where did I conflate socioeconomic mobility and income equality? I didn't intend to do that. More to your point - I respond by asking whether or not the socioeconomic standing of a scientist matters for the societal impact of their work. I don't see an easy conclusion here. The scientists driving innovation in industry are generally paid very well (this is relative, but we can probably agree they are paid higher than a median salary). The scientists driving innovation in academia are not, as a rule, paid as well as their counterparts in industry, but that doesn't stop them from contributing valuable research to their fields. So how do we conclude that socioeconomic stance matters for a scientist's research impact, if they have grants or corporate sponsorship? To reiterate my point - if reduced socioeconomic mobility can't be demonstrated to be a net loss for society, why does it matter if income inequality causes it or not, and how does it demonstrate income inequality as a net loss for society?
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    How many famous intellectuals from before the 19th century came from the lower classes? That is what we will return to.
    - CydeWeys 10y ago
      Thank you. There are so many "could have beens" throughout history that didn't happen simply because the vast majority of the human populace was, until very recently, entirely excluded from being able to contribute towards human progress.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    How many people who could have become great scientists, engineers, or inventors instead have to grind out an existence planting and farming grain or bussing tables in a diner or some other job? It's not so much an issue for those people who came from poorer backgrounds and became scientists (though there's still a question of whether they could have been better scientists with better early educational support), but it's a bigger issue for those who never got that chance by an accident of birth. I don't support equality of outcome as a desirable goal, but I do support equality of opportunity.
hx87 10y ago
> Where did I conflate socioeconomic mobility and income equality? The first section of your comment was about socioeconomic mobility, but starting with the "two axioms" portion, you started talking about inequality instead. The two concepts are different, although related. > I respond by asking whether or not the socioeconomic standing of a scientist matters for the societal impact of their work. Not very, but for people at the bottom of the ladder, they need some socioeconomic mobility to become a scientist in the first place. > if reduced socioeconomic mobility can't be demonstrated to be a net loss for society That's presupposing that it can't, and thus begging the question.
dmoo 10y ago
I would guess that if income inequality is high and mobility is impossible people may consider other options. If there is no chance that they can earn a better way of life they may band together and take it. It's not like these things haven't happened before.
praxulus 10y ago
Lack of social mobility means life is unfair. Obviously life will always be somewhat unfair, but we should always see things that decrease fairness as a negative, unless they make up for it in other ways.

by dsacco 10y ago

phamilton 10y ago

> In response to your main issue regarding socioeconomic mobility - why is this, in turn, a problem? It depends on the end goal. If the end goal is scientific advancement, for example, mobility into the educated and academic class is important to provide intellectual diversity. If we bifurcate society into the educated and uneducated, it would likely restrict the flow of new ideas and discovery.

hx87 10y ago

Low socioeconomic mobility is a problem because the potential for any individual to contribute to the good of society is at best loosely correlated with their previous socioeconomic status. If people who could have been top-notch scientists, engineers, civil servants and entrepreneurs were prevented from doing so because they couldn't move up the ladder (and inversely, rich rent-seekers couldn't move down), society is deprived of their contributions and is worse off. P.S.: The rapid change in up and down votes is probably caused more by your confusion of socioeconomic mobility and equality (you seem to be using the two interchangeably) than anything else.

dsacco 10y ago
Where did I conflate socioeconomic mobility and income equality? I didn't intend to do that. More to your point - I respond by asking whether or not the socioeconomic standing of a scientist matters for the societal impact of their work. I don't see an easy conclusion here. The scientists driving innovation in industry are generally paid very well (this is relative, but we can probably agree they are paid higher than a median salary). The scientists driving innovation in academia are not, as a rule, paid as well as their counterparts in industry, but that doesn't stop them from contributing valuable research to their fields. So how do we conclude that socioeconomic stance matters for a scientist's research impact, if they have grants or corporate sponsorship? To reiterate my point - if reduced socioeconomic mobility can't be demonstrated to be a net loss for society, why does it matter if income inequality causes it or not, and how does it demonstrate income inequality as a net loss for society?
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  How many famous intellectuals from before the 19th century came from the lower classes? That is what we will return to.
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    Thank you. There are so many "could have beens" throughout history that didn't happen simply because the vast majority of the human populace was, until very recently, entirely excluded from being able to contribute towards human progress.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 10y ago
  How many people who could have become great scientists, engineers, or inventors instead have to grind out an existence planting and farming grain or bussing tables in a diner or some other job? It's not so much an issue for those people who came from poorer backgrounds and became scientists (though there's still a question of whether they could have been better scientists with better early educational support), but it's a bigger issue for those who never got that chance by an accident of birth. I don't support equality of outcome as a desirable goal, but I do support equality of opportunity.

hx87 10y ago

> Where did I conflate socioeconomic mobility and income equality? The first section of your comment was about socioeconomic mobility, but starting with the "two axioms" portion, you started talking about inequality instead. The two concepts are different, although related. > I respond by asking whether or not the socioeconomic standing of a scientist matters for the societal impact of their work. Not very, but for people at the bottom of the ladder, they need some socioeconomic mobility to become a scientist in the first place. > if reduced socioeconomic mobility can't be demonstrated to be a net loss for society That's presupposing that it can't, and thus begging the question.

dmoo 10y ago

I would guess that if income inequality is high and mobility is impossible people may consider other options. If there is no chance that they can earn a better way of life they may band together and take it. It's not like these things haven't happened before.

praxulus 10y ago

Lack of social mobility means life is unfair. Obviously life will always be somewhat unfair, but we should always see things that decrease fairness as a negative, unless they make up for it in other ways.