4 ms·

"Of the children born in the bottom income quintile, 44 percent are still there as adults." Is this actually a problem? I would expect this number to be above

by bleezy 9y ago

"Of the children born in the bottom income quintile, 44 percent are still there as adults." Is this actually a problem? I would expect this number to be above 30% at the very least. I'm glad it's below 50. What is the desired number? 40%? Serious question. If this number was actually 20% that would mean that you would have almost no influence on your child's economic outcomes in life- how could that possibly be?

Consultant32452 9y ago
One step further than that, we need to know what traits are common among the people in that 66%. I'm confident it's not just random. I suspect some fairly simple things like graduating high school, maintaining full time employment, and not having children out of wedlock have massive impact on your economic outcome.
AndrewDucker 9y ago
If society provided those children with an education and options which allowed them to succeed. America lags behind many other countries which do this, and where the earnings of the parents are not such a massive factor in their children's success. http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/ http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobil...
- sp332 9y ago
  Edit: in context, my comment didn't make sense. Never mind.
  - dpark 9y ago
    > If everyone is getting an equal education, no one would move quintiles Huh? Equal education implies more economic movement. Of course education is not the only factor anyway so claiming movement stops completely as a result of some educational change doesn't make sense.
- bleezy 9y ago
  The average person in the lowest quintile in the US is more likely to move up a quintile then remain. That's currently the case. If this were increased even more, that would result in more people from upper quintiles moving down to the lowest one. Shouldn't we focus more on making life better for the lowest quintile than moving people into a higher quintile? Someone has to be in the lowest quintile, I'm sorry to say. Literally 20% of people.
  - dpark 9y ago
    > Shouldn't we focus more on making life better for the lowest quintile than moving people into a higher quintile? Why shouldn't we be focused on both? Obviously more mobility means more people moving down as well as more people moving up. That could be a very good thing if it means that the quintiles are compressed.
- scarface74 9y ago
  America does provide a means of getting an education for everyone. If you're poor you can get Pell grants and government guaranteed loans.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
crpatino 9y ago
Agreed. The issue we seem to forget when discussing these issues is that there will always be a bottom income quintile, and that it will always be populated by a full fifth of the population (not the few deviant outlayers they make it out to be). If just 20% of those at the bottom were already there, it means 80% fell there somehow. Imagine the economic stagnation and nasty social dynamics that would happen if (the perception of) a single mistake or transgression would ruin your life!
Retric 9y ago
The more influence you have on your child economic outcomes the less merit based the society. Ideally it really should be close to 20%. Further, someone going from 19.9% to 20% is a tiny change. The most important number is from each quintuple to top 0.01%.
- bleezy 9y ago
  I agree with this. The movement to and from the very top percentile is much more important that this talk of quintiles. But I don't think my original statement is anti-merit. If I teach my five year old to use VI and write C, and she becomes some sort of genius due to the training I have given her, doesn't she therefore have more 'merit'? Certainly being in a higher quintile would make me more likely to teach her those things.
  - dpark 9y ago
    That's not merit. It's opportunity. A poor kid with absentee parents has as much merit as your daughter.
    - bleezy 9y ago
      Do you mean intrinsic human worth or innate genetic potential to become highly skilled? I thought merit typically meant a person's ambition and skill set, regardless if it comes from nature or nurture. edit: Merit can't mean 'innate human worth'. If it did, then all humans on earth would have equal merit, and terms like 'merit-based scholarship' and 'meritocracy' would be meaningless.
      - dpark 9y ago
        The point is that as a result of being high income, you can provide opportunities for your child that someone of low income cannot. You can call that "merit" if you want, but it's in no sense fair or equal. If your daughter were raised by a poor family, why should her economic potential be worse? Why should Zuckerberg's daughter's economic potential be so much better?

by bleezy 9y ago

Consultant32452 9y ago

One step further than that, we need to know what traits are common among the people in that 66%. I'm confident it's not just random. I suspect some fairly simple things like graduating high school, maintaining full time employment, and not having children out of wedlock have massive impact on your economic outcome.

AndrewDucker 9y ago

If society provided those children with an education and options which allowed them to succeed. America lags behind many other countries which do this, and where the earnings of the parents are not such a massive factor in their children's success. http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/ http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobil...

sp332 9y ago
Edit: in context, my comment didn't make sense. Never mind.
- dpark 9y ago
  > If everyone is getting an equal education, no one would move quintiles Huh? Equal education implies more economic movement. Of course education is not the only factor anyway so claiming movement stops completely as a result of some educational change doesn't make sense.
bleezy 9y ago
The average person in the lowest quintile in the US is more likely to move up a quintile then remain. That's currently the case. If this were increased even more, that would result in more people from upper quintiles moving down to the lowest one. Shouldn't we focus more on making life better for the lowest quintile than moving people into a higher quintile? Someone has to be in the lowest quintile, I'm sorry to say. Literally 20% of people.
- dpark 9y ago
  > Shouldn't we focus more on making life better for the lowest quintile than moving people into a higher quintile? Why shouldn't we be focused on both? Obviously more mobility means more people moving down as well as more people moving up. That could be a very good thing if it means that the quintiles are compressed.
scarface74 9y ago
America does provide a means of getting an education for everyone. If you're poor you can get Pell grants and government guaranteed loans.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

crpatino 9y ago

Agreed. The issue we seem to forget when discussing these issues is that there will always be a bottom income quintile, and that it will always be populated by a full fifth of the population (not the few deviant outlayers they make it out to be). If just 20% of those at the bottom were already there, it means 80% fell there somehow. Imagine the economic stagnation and nasty social dynamics that would happen if (the perception of) a single mistake or transgression would ruin your life!

Retric 9y ago

The more influence you have on your child economic outcomes the less merit based the society. Ideally it really should be close to 20%. Further, someone going from 19.9% to 20% is a tiny change. The most important number is from each quintuple to top 0.01%.

bleezy 9y ago
I agree with this. The movement to and from the very top percentile is much more important that this talk of quintiles. But I don't think my original statement is anti-merit. If I teach my five year old to use VI and write C, and she becomes some sort of genius due to the training I have given her, doesn't she therefore have more 'merit'? Certainly being in a higher quintile would make me more likely to teach her those things.
- dpark 9y ago
  That's not merit. It's opportunity. A poor kid with absentee parents has as much merit as your daughter.
  - bleezy 9y ago
    Do you mean intrinsic human worth or innate genetic potential to become highly skilled? I thought merit typically meant a person's ambition and skill set, regardless if it comes from nature or nurture. edit: Merit can't mean 'innate human worth'. If it did, then all humans on earth would have equal merit, and terms like 'merit-based scholarship' and 'meritocracy' would be meaningless.
    - dpark 9y ago
      The point is that as a result of being high income, you can provide opportunities for your child that someone of low income cannot. You can call that "merit" if you want, but it's in no sense fair or equal. If your daughter were raised by a poor family, why should her economic potential be worse? Why should Zuckerberg's daughter's economic potential be so much better?