4 ms·

Very few Americans get out of poverty. Social mobility rates are surprisingly small in the United States. The American Everyman is very likely to die in the cla

Very few Americans get out of poverty. Social mobility rates are surprisingly small in the United States. The American Everyman is very likely to die in the class into which he was born. Not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#Economic_mobility_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#Economic_mobi...

bluedanieru 16y ago
Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%. According to one study, the income of a person's parents is a great deal more predictive of their own income in the United States than other countries. France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark all have more relative mobility than the US, while only the United Kingdom is shown to have less mobility. It's a point of contention, at any rate.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile. In other words, if you're born in the bottom quintile, you probably will not stay there.
  - hapless 16y ago
    This statement is deceptive -- it conflates movement into the second and middle quintiles. The second quintile of American income is still very, very poor: $18k-$35k of household income. The median household is three people, with only one wage earner. (The second quintile of individual, wage-earner, income tops out at less than $25k.) Movement from abject poverty into the second quintile is quite common. (Movement in the other direction is also common.) Going from zero to one wage-earner in a household can make that difference. Moving from destitution up to the middle (3rd) quintile is a much more difficult road.
    - fizx 16y ago
      > he second quintile of American income is still very, very poor My brother lived a middle-class lifestyle in Michigan on $25k/year. There's plenty of frugal people living in the sticks who do just fine.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        $25k/year is pretty close to the poverty line. What exactly do you call "middle-class lifestyle"?
        mkramlich 16y ago
        In the USA I think $2k/month for a single person, who had the foresight and willpower to not get married (yet) and not make babies (yet) is actually quite livable and hardly poverty.
        loewenskind 16y ago
        Of course you can live on that, but I wouldn't call such a situation middle class.
      - GFischer 16y ago
        I guess that's only true if you already own a place to live in. I would do really well on my current wage if I owned a place, but since I don't, I have to spend between a quarter and half my earnings on a place to live in (I still live way better than the average Uruguayan).
- ryanwaggoner 16y ago
  The exact degree of economic mobility might be a point of contention, but I see very little merit in the statement that "very few Americans get out of poverty" or "The American Everyman is very likely to die in the class into which he was born." The data says otherwise.
  - bluedanieru 16y ago
    Perhaps more likely than in much of the developed world, however. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think the US has high economic mobility.
    - shadowfox 16y ago
      From saying "very few" to requiring "high mobility" seems like a change of goal posts.
    - ryanwaggoner 16y ago
      Again, how is this relevant in the context of the claim that there is almost no economic mobility in the US? This is sort of like claiming that we have hardly any people in the US because China and India have so many more. We still have hundreds of millions.
      - bluedanieru 16y ago
        It's relevant because we're talking about poverty in the context of policy and values, and if the US is falling short on poverty metrics compared to the rest of the developed world, then it's evidence we're doing something wrong.
- pfedor 16y ago
  Might be worth noting that if you look at a place where a person's income is a function of their productivity (i.e., smart, hard working people make more money on average) then you should expect some stickiness, because one's intelligence and work ethic surely is correlated with the same qualities in their parents (and that's regardless of whether you believe in genes or nurture).
neilk 16y ago
No, that is true. Canada is comparable in almost every way to the USA, and yet social mobility is much higher in Canada. And it is higher still in the Scandinavian countries. It's tempting to attribute this to social programs like medicare (which explains Canada and Norway), but England has a similarly lower rate of social mobility, despite being very comparable to Canada. This is just my speculation, but social class systems may also be a factor. The English class system is legendary, but Americans may not appreciate how stratified their society really is. http://books.google.com/books?id=qnPOqwsR5UsC&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=qnPOqwsR5UsC&pg=PA239#v... http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility... (For what it's worth, I just happened to have these references because I was arguing on Reddit with an anarchist who asserted there was no social mobility under capitalism. There is, but not as much as there can be, especially in the USA.)

bluedanieru 16y ago

Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%. According to one study, the income of a person's parents is a great deal more predictive of their own income in the United States than other countries. France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark all have more relative mobility than the US, while only the United Kingdom is shown to have less mobility. It's a point of contention, at any rate.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile. In other words, if you're born in the bottom quintile, you probably will not stay there.
- hapless 16y ago
  This statement is deceptive -- it conflates movement into the second and middle quintiles. The second quintile of American income is still very, very poor: $18k-$35k of household income. The median household is three people, with only one wage earner. (The second quintile of individual, wage-earner, income tops out at less than $25k.) Movement from abject poverty into the second quintile is quite common. (Movement in the other direction is also common.) Going from zero to one wage-earner in a household can make that difference. Moving from destitution up to the middle (3rd) quintile is a much more difficult road.
  - fizx 16y ago
    > he second quintile of American income is still very, very poor My brother lived a middle-class lifestyle in Michigan on $25k/year. There's plenty of frugal people living in the sticks who do just fine.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      $25k/year is pretty close to the poverty line. What exactly do you call "middle-class lifestyle"?
      - mkramlich 16y ago
        In the USA I think $2k/month for a single person, who had the foresight and willpower to not get married (yet) and not make babies (yet) is actually quite livable and hardly poverty.
        loewenskind 16y ago
        Of course you can live on that, but I wouldn't call such a situation middle class.
    - GFischer 16y ago
      I guess that's only true if you already own a place to live in. I would do really well on my current wage if I owned a place, but since I don't, I have to spend between a quarter and half my earnings on a place to live in (I still live way better than the average Uruguayan).
ryanwaggoner 16y ago
The exact degree of economic mobility might be a point of contention, but I see very little merit in the statement that "very few Americans get out of poverty" or "The American Everyman is very likely to die in the class into which he was born." The data says otherwise.
- bluedanieru 16y ago
  Perhaps more likely than in much of the developed world, however. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think the US has high economic mobility.
  - shadowfox 16y ago
    From saying "very few" to requiring "high mobility" seems like a change of goal posts.
  - ryanwaggoner 16y ago
    Again, how is this relevant in the context of the claim that there is almost no economic mobility in the US? This is sort of like claiming that we have hardly any people in the US because China and India have so many more. We still have hundreds of millions.
    - bluedanieru 16y ago
      It's relevant because we're talking about poverty in the context of policy and values, and if the US is falling short on poverty metrics compared to the rest of the developed world, then it's evidence we're doing something wrong.
pfedor 16y ago
Might be worth noting that if you look at a place where a person's income is a function of their productivity (i.e., smart, hard working people make more money on average) then you should expect some stickiness, because one's intelligence and work ethic surely is correlated with the same qualities in their parents (and that's regardless of whether you believe in genes or nurture).

neilk 16y ago

No, that is true. Canada is comparable in almost every way to the USA, and yet social mobility is much higher in Canada. And it is higher still in the Scandinavian countries. It's tempting to attribute this to social programs like medicare (which explains Canada and Norway), but England has a similarly lower rate of social mobility, despite being very comparable to Canada. This is just my speculation, but social class systems may also be a factor. The English class system is legendary, but Americans may not appreciate how stratified their society really is. http://books.google.com/books?id=qnPOqwsR5UsC&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=qnPOqwsR5UsC&pg=PA239#v... http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility... (For what it's worth, I just happened to have these references because I was arguing on Reddit with an anarchist who asserted there was no social mobility under capitalism. There is, but not as much as there can be, especially in the USA.)