3 ms·

On the other hand, the incentive to rise above your parents' percentile is much less if that next percentile doesn't feel much better. At the end of the day, t

On the other hand, the incentive to rise above your parents' percentile is much less if that next percentile doesn't feel much better. At the end of the day, the difficulty with these comparisons is that social mobility measured in percentiles may be the same in a country where it is next to impossible to rise above your parents' social class as in a country where it is completely pointless to even want that.

fsloth 10y ago
I'd claim in many european nations rising is motivated by percieved better chances to have a psychologically fullfilling career, rather than considerable improvement in finances - since the increases are not that thrillingly high. But does this make the urge to rise pointless? In my country (Finland), for instance we don't force anyone to live in the streets. IMO, this creates huge amount of value from second order network effects - better childhoods, better social stability, people are more employable (if we only had jobs). I hope we can still afford this amount of social wellfare after a few decades.
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  I agree completely. But doing something _only_ for the purpose of moving into a higher income bracket may indeed be pointless (or less desirable) in a more equal society. In such a society, any meaningful definition of social mobility has to include more than just income percentiles.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    Personally, I would love to live in a communist society unless the workings of it were not proven completely impractical and incompatible with basic human instincts. So, we probably need prices and actual money for resource optimization, with human-sized goals for individuals to aspire to. But how to optimize human condition is partly a separate question and requires placing some value on the life experiences of individuals disrespective of their economic status.

fsloth 10y ago

I'd claim in many european nations rising is motivated by percieved better chances to have a psychologically fullfilling career, rather than considerable improvement in finances - since the increases are not that thrillingly high. But does this make the urge to rise pointless? In my country (Finland), for instance we don't force anyone to live in the streets. IMO, this creates huge amount of value from second order network effects - better childhoods, better social stability, people are more employable (if we only had jobs). I hope we can still afford this amount of social wellfare after a few decades.

fauigerzigerk 10y ago
I agree completely. But doing something _only_ for the purpose of moving into a higher income bracket may indeed be pointless (or less desirable) in a more equal society. In such a society, any meaningful definition of social mobility has to include more than just income percentiles.
- fsloth 10y ago
  Personally, I would love to live in a communist society unless the workings of it were not proven completely impractical and incompatible with basic human instincts. So, we probably need prices and actual money for resource optimization, with human-sized goals for individuals to aspire to. But how to optimize human condition is partly a separate question and requires placing some value on the life experiences of individuals disrespective of their economic status.