4 ms·

Happens in real life, too. The income level of the top 10% and the top 1% and the top 0.1% are relatively stable in aggregate, but who is in each of those cate

by Dove 9y ago

Happens in real life, too. The income level of the top 10% and the top 1% and the top 0.1% are relatively stable in aggregate, but who is in each of those categories changes drastically over time.

lozenge 9y ago
Who is in the top 1% changes drastically over time, but it is still mostly people who were born in the top 40% or so. For example, see this chart - https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-americ... Or for example - > Studies by the Urban Institute and the US Treasury have both found that about half of the families who start in either the top or the bottom quintile of the income distribution are still there after a decade, and that only 3 to 6 percent rise from bottom to top or fall from top to bottom. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#cite_note-debate-34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the... Now, you could look at how people/families move around the distribution over longer timescales (multiple generations) but we don't really have the data yet.
- lotharbot 9y ago
  IMO, 3-6% moving all the way from bottom to top or top to bottom is actually quite good. I'd be extremely concerned if it was 20%, as that would imply the system was nearly random. I'd also be concerned if it was 0%, as that would imply the system was static. 3-6% implies there is mobility, but it takes both hard work and luck to make it all the way from bottom to top. Likewise, half of families staying in either end quintile also seems healthy to me -- it implies half of families leave those quintiles, too. In an ideal world, what range would you like to see for those numbers?

4 ms·

Happens in real life, too. The income level of the top 10% and the top 1% and the top 0.1% are relatively stable in aggregate, but who is in each of those cate

by Dove 9y ago

Happens in real life, too. The income level of the top 10% and the top 1% and the top 0.1% are relatively stable in aggregate, but who is in each of those categories changes drastically over time.

lozenge 9y ago
Who is in the top 1% changes drastically over time, but it is still mostly people who were born in the top 40% or so. For example, see this chart - https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-americ... Or for example - > Studies by the Urban Institute and the US Treasury have both found that about half of the families who start in either the top or the bottom quintile of the income distribution are still there after a decade, and that only 3 to 6 percent rise from bottom to top or fall from top to bottom. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#cite_note-debate-34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the... Now, you could look at how people/families move around the distribution over longer timescales (multiple generations) but we don't really have the data yet.
- lotharbot 9y ago
  IMO, 3-6% moving all the way from bottom to top or top to bottom is actually quite good. I'd be extremely concerned if it was 20%, as that would imply the system was nearly random. I'd also be concerned if it was 0%, as that would imply the system was static. 3-6% implies there is mobility, but it takes both hard work and luck to make it all the way from bottom to top. Likewise, half of families staying in either end quintile also seems healthy to me -- it implies half of families leave those quintiles, too. In an ideal world, what range would you like to see for those numbers?