5 ms·

I'm from Utah. I moved to Seattle, then San Francisco. When I had a kid, I moved back to Utah. One thing I noticed is that Utah is almost all middle class. Som

I'm from Utah. I moved to Seattle, then San Francisco. When I had a kid, I moved back to Utah. One thing I noticed is that Utah is almost all middle class. Some have more money, some have less, but most of them are middle class. It's relatively easy to go from poor to rich if you're really middle class. I mean that if your parents are well educated but a high school teacher and a stay-at-home-mom in a middle class neighborhood, you're poor but you can become a medical doctor almost as easily as a rich kid. It's not so easy to become a doctor if you're raised by your high school drop out grandma because your mom's working and your dad's missing and the adults around you are unemployed, going to prison, or working at fast food restaurants. If you can lift up people in situations like that, I'd be much more impressed. I think the Mormon welfare system is very impressive (and I do recommend that progressives take a look at it) and Utah government is vastly better than California's. But I think the lack of a real lower and upper class would make mobility look artificially better.

itchyjunk 10y ago
Maybe that is true for SLC. But how would you explain the million dollar houses and mansions in Park City, Provo etc without upper class? I see kids driving brand new cars and trucks that their parents bought to the SLC community college as well. My parents told me to use the bus.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  It's only relatively true.
DanBC 10y ago
> If you can lift up people in situations like that, I'd be much more impressed. > But I think the lack of a real lower and upper class would make mobility look artificially better. I'm a bit confused. Aren't these contradictory? By not having poverty haven't they achieved the raising people out of poverty bit already?
- thedevil 10y ago
  I'm not sure that achieving a solution is the same as avoiding a problem. And it's not clear to me which has happened.
- skywhopper 10y ago
  The thing is, Utah has never had a truly poor population. They aren't raising people out of poverty, but it's growing fast and most of the people who move there are relatively rich compared to the general population. But also, Utah has the fifth richest bottom quartile of any state, about 40% higher than North Carolina's. So yes, it's much much easier to move from that to the top quartile than in most states.
  - ythn 10y ago
    > The thing is, Utah has never had a truly poor population. What about when the first destitute pioneers arrived and found a desert?
    - tmorton 10y ago
      At the time (1847), they were not the poorest people in North America.
    - duskwuff 10y ago
      It's not really meaningful to describe people as "rich" or "poor" in the absence of an economy.
      - tp3z4u 10y ago
        Where people are involved there is no such thing as an absence of economy.
    - sedachv 10y ago
      The Mormon refugees did not find a desert, they found Native Americans living in the Utah Great Basin and proceeded to steal their land and natural resources: http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/mormons-and-native-americans-historical-overview http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/mormons-and-native-amer...
yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
> But I think the lack of a real lower and upper class would make mobility look artificially better. I'm not sure that's artificial. Everyone being middle class would mean everyone has the resources available that make it practical to improve.

itchyjunk 10y ago

Maybe that is true for SLC. But how would you explain the million dollar houses and mansions in Park City, Provo etc without upper class? I see kids driving brand new cars and trucks that their parents bought to the SLC community college as well. My parents told me to use the bus.

thomastjeffery 10y ago
It's only relatively true.

DanBC 10y ago

> If you can lift up people in situations like that, I'd be much more impressed. > But I think the lack of a real lower and upper class would make mobility look artificially better. I'm a bit confused. Aren't these contradictory? By not having poverty haven't they achieved the raising people out of poverty bit already?

thedevil 10y ago
I'm not sure that achieving a solution is the same as avoiding a problem. And it's not clear to me which has happened.
skywhopper 10y ago
The thing is, Utah has never had a truly poor population. They aren't raising people out of poverty, but it's growing fast and most of the people who move there are relatively rich compared to the general population. But also, Utah has the fifth richest bottom quartile of any state, about 40% higher than North Carolina's. So yes, it's much much easier to move from that to the top quartile than in most states.
- ythn 10y ago
  > The thing is, Utah has never had a truly poor population. What about when the first destitute pioneers arrived and found a desert?
  - tmorton 10y ago
    At the time (1847), they were not the poorest people in North America.
  - duskwuff 10y ago
    It's not really meaningful to describe people as "rich" or "poor" in the absence of an economy.
    - tp3z4u 10y ago
      Where people are involved there is no such thing as an absence of economy.
  - sedachv 10y ago
    The Mormon refugees did not find a desert, they found Native Americans living in the Utah Great Basin and proceeded to steal their land and natural resources: http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/mormons-and-native-americans-historical-overview http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/mormons-and-native-amer...

yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago

> But I think the lack of a real lower and upper class would make mobility look artificially better. I'm not sure that's artificial. Everyone being middle class would mean everyone has the resources available that make it practical to improve.