3 ms·
The spread is also larger. The difference between the bottom 20% and the top 20% in the USA is higher than in Europe. So measuring by that is useless, since, in
by whenwillitstop 10y ago
The spread is also larger. The difference between the bottom 20% and the top 20% in the USA is higher than in Europe. So measuring by that is useless, since, in general, a 40%er in the USA is better off than a 40%er in Europe. Thanks for the propaganda though!
- sevenless 10y agoYet you're arguing that mobilities can't be compared, in response to my post, not to the original article claiming Europe's mobility is worse... :-) It seems a little like special pleading. The ease of transition from bottom to top quintile is an accepted index of how mobile or stratified a society is, not how wealthy individuals are. Of course different nations will be better or worse off, or will have different Gini indices as a result of social policy, but that doesn't mean we can't meaningfully compare their mobilities. Pointing out the figures isn't "propaganda". > a 40%er in the USA is better off than a 40%er in Europe Generalizing about "Europe" doesn't make much sense. Between (say) the UK and Albania, there's a vast economic gap (about 10 fold lower GDP/capita). If you're talking about Western Europe, what do you mean by "is better off"?
- ppereira 10y agoThe mobility between quintiles is not particularly interesting; it is far too coarse a measure. The changes in inequality that we see in the US, Canada, and the UK affect the relative earning capacity of the bottom 90% vs. the top 10%, with the 90th percentile being an inflection point at our levels of inequality. The relevant reduction in mobility would primarily be within the top 10% tail of the Pareto distribution for income, the dynamics of the bottom 90% are quite different -- although their absolute share vs. the top 10% has certainly declined.