6 ms·

No, that's not what I said. I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if there is mobility between the income groups.

No, that's not what I said. I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if there is mobility between the income groups. They statistics in the Bloomberg article show income inequality but don't show lack of mobility, and then say we've hit "a disturbing new threshold". There may be lack of mobility along with income inequality, but the article doesn't demonstrate it.

knuththetruth 9y ago
>I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if their is mobility between the income groups I'm not sure how you can't be arguing the same thing I am. The income inequality is what creates the immobility. This is demonstrated by other developed countries where there is less income inequality and greater social mobility, as others have pointed out. Can you elaborate?
- ameister14 9y ago
  Are you sure the income inequality creates the immobility and isn't just linked to the immobility in other ways? The demonstration of other countries implies the latter, but even that is really hard to prove.
  - knuththetruth 9y ago
    Yes, because history. There are no historical examples where wealth was held by the few and social mobility increased broadly. Only when resources are more evenly distributed among social classes has that ever happened.
    - loeg 9y ago
      The graphed figure is not wealth, but income. The (great-)grandparent poster is suggesting that as long as people bounce between income levels, i.e., they have some higher paying years and some lower paying years, it has a smoothing effect on the net income inequality.
    - hueving 9y ago
      >Yes, because history. There are no historical examples where wealth was held by the few and social mobility increased broadly Uh... The industrial revolution. You seem to be confusing wealth inequality with income inequality which might be muddying your arguments.
Retric 9y ago
US ranks very low on income mobility. Some people get bumped when they sell a business, but even selling a home will not put most people into the 420+K income range of the top 1% let alone the top 0.1% which at $1,600,000/year excludes even many lottery winners. PS: Don't forget the median US home is only worth $188,900, which means 1/2 of them are worth less than that.
coliveira 9y ago
> There may be lack of mobility along with income inequality, but they article doesn't demonstrate it. The article doesn't demonstrate it because that is not the goal of the article. But it is happening nonetheless: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-upward-mobility-fallen-sharply.html https://phys.org/news/2017-04-upward-mobility-fallen-sharply...
mtgx 9y ago
That's not what's happening though. First off, social mobility is declining, so let's get that out of the way: http://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-on-the-decline-and-with-it-american-dream-2017-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-on-the-dec... Second, I think it's still a problem if the income of 90-98% of the country stagnates for decades, while the top earners get higher and higher income. Of course that affects inequality. I'm also not sure it matters that much if the players at the top switch around if they have increasingly larger leverage on society. For instance, we're seeing CEOs get rewarded larger and larger amounts of money every year, even if the companies lose money, like in this absurd case: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/snap-ceo-evan-spiegel-got-a-637-million-bonus-last-year/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/snap-ceo-evan-spiegel-got-... Where's that money coming from? The employees' potential salary increases? The retail investors' money? It seems to me that the rich keep siphoning off money from everyone else, and that's not sustainable. They also get larger and larger amounts of money even when they get kicked out of the company for failing. This doesn't make sense to me at all. And I think the excuse that they need such amounts of money or otherwise they wouldn't take the job or something is utter BS. I'd more likely believe the board is giving them the money so the CEO doesn't sue the company, or better yet because the CEO was the one writing their checks before that, or something along those lines. And this is just the corporate world. The US Congress seems to get crazier every year and listening more and more to corporations and their interests, and less and less to the people and solving real problems in the country (healthcare, infrastructure, etc). It's like the whole American society is on the brink of collapse, and everyone just doesn't know it yet. Eventually, people will "suddenly" start to violently riot because of all this stuff added together, and it won't be pretty.
- praha14 9y ago
  One thing I've never understood- in a fair society in which people are not artificially limited, wouldn't we expect social mobility to decrease over time as successive generations "sort" themselves into the spots allowed by their genetics? Let's say we've got a feudal society with dumb nobility that rules over a smart peasantry by force. If that society becomes free, we'll expect smart peasants to move up and dumb noblemen to move down across the first few generations... but once they've moved, they've moved. Ergo, declining social mobility.
evanlivingston 9y ago
I disagree for two reasons. 1) What is mobility? The ability to move out of the lowest income group? How easily does that happen? If it's quick and easy, why doesn't everyone do it? And what about the reverse? How easy it for a person to move from a median income back into the lowest income. I think the idea of mobility is used as a reinforcement for the protestant work ethic / American dream sort of delusion that says "poor people can just work harder and save more and they won't be poor any more". But we have an enormous amount of evidence that points to that not being the case. 2) Also, you haven't provided an argument for why income inequality isn't a problem. If the lowest earners have extremely limited access to housing, healthcare or education, such as is the case in the U.S. I think that's a problem.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  > How easy it for a person to move from a median income back into the lowest income. Many people do when they retire. Or when they take time off between jobs (intentionally or not).
evrydayhustling 9y ago
Other comments have brought additional evidence about declining wage mobility. I'll add that the article's stats about the impact of race demonstrate lack of mobility. Working while black seems to mean a 20% pay cut, regardless of education. As an American, I've always based a lot of national pride on our history as a (relative, for some groups) meritocracy with a lot of mobility. It's really sad to see rapid erosion of this over the last 20y.
- marnett 9y ago
  Most opportunities for mobility were linked to America being a nation of rapid growth, not because of the kindness of some national ethos. As our growth opportunities slow, you can be sure the haves will do everything in their power to prevent loss of ground to the have-nots.
- cmurf 9y ago
  Meritocracy in the U.S. is a myth in civilian life. The military almost approximates meritocracy but it is by design not egalitarian or democratic. Without extreme discipline, again found in militarism, meritocracy results in the formation of elites who define what the metrics are for merit, they quickly become corrupt with nepotism, lowering the ladder for family and friends to the exclusion of people with actual merit, and it becomes incompetent. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/06/the-perils-of-meritocracy/532215/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/06/th...

knuththetruth 9y ago

>I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if their is mobility between the income groups I'm not sure how you can't be arguing the same thing I am. The income inequality is what creates the immobility. This is demonstrated by other developed countries where there is less income inequality and greater social mobility, as others have pointed out. Can you elaborate?

ameister14 9y ago
Are you sure the income inequality creates the immobility and isn't just linked to the immobility in other ways? The demonstration of other countries implies the latter, but even that is really hard to prove.
- knuththetruth 9y ago
  Yes, because history. There are no historical examples where wealth was held by the few and social mobility increased broadly. Only when resources are more evenly distributed among social classes has that ever happened.
  - loeg 9y ago
    The graphed figure is not wealth, but income. The (great-)grandparent poster is suggesting that as long as people bounce between income levels, i.e., they have some higher paying years and some lower paying years, it has a smoothing effect on the net income inequality.
  - hueving 9y ago
    >Yes, because history. There are no historical examples where wealth was held by the few and social mobility increased broadly Uh... The industrial revolution. You seem to be confusing wealth inequality with income inequality which might be muddying your arguments.

Retric 9y ago

US ranks very low on income mobility. Some people get bumped when they sell a business, but even selling a home will not put most people into the 420+K income range of the top 1% let alone the top 0.1% which at $1,600,000/year excludes even many lottery winners. PS: Don't forget the median US home is only worth $188,900, which means 1/2 of them are worth less than that.

coliveira 9y ago

> There may be lack of mobility along with income inequality, but they article doesn't demonstrate it. The article doesn't demonstrate it because that is not the goal of the article. But it is happening nonetheless: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-upward-mobility-fallen-sharply.html https://phys.org/news/2017-04-upward-mobility-fallen-sharply...

mtgx 9y ago

That's not what's happening though. First off, social mobility is declining, so let's get that out of the way: http://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-on-the-decline-and-with-it-american-dream-2017-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-on-the-dec... Second, I think it's still a problem if the income of 90-98% of the country stagnates for decades, while the top earners get higher and higher income. Of course that affects inequality. I'm also not sure it matters that much if the players at the top switch around if they have increasingly larger leverage on society. For instance, we're seeing CEOs get rewarded larger and larger amounts of money every year, even if the companies lose money, like in this absurd case: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/snap-ceo-evan-spiegel-got-a-637-million-bonus-last-year/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/snap-ceo-evan-spiegel-got-... Where's that money coming from? The employees' potential salary increases? The retail investors' money? It seems to me that the rich keep siphoning off money from everyone else, and that's not sustainable. They also get larger and larger amounts of money even when they get kicked out of the company for failing. This doesn't make sense to me at all. And I think the excuse that they need such amounts of money or otherwise they wouldn't take the job or something is utter BS. I'd more likely believe the board is giving them the money so the CEO doesn't sue the company, or better yet because the CEO was the one writing their checks before that, or something along those lines. And this is just the corporate world. The US Congress seems to get crazier every year and listening more and more to corporations and their interests, and less and less to the people and solving real problems in the country (healthcare, infrastructure, etc). It's like the whole American society is on the brink of collapse, and everyone just doesn't know it yet. Eventually, people will "suddenly" start to violently riot because of all this stuff added together, and it won't be pretty.

praha14 9y ago
One thing I've never understood- in a fair society in which people are not artificially limited, wouldn't we expect social mobility to decrease over time as successive generations "sort" themselves into the spots allowed by their genetics? Let's say we've got a feudal society with dumb nobility that rules over a smart peasantry by force. If that society becomes free, we'll expect smart peasants to move up and dumb noblemen to move down across the first few generations... but once they've moved, they've moved. Ergo, declining social mobility.

evanlivingston 9y ago

I disagree for two reasons. 1) What is mobility? The ability to move out of the lowest income group? How easily does that happen? If it's quick and easy, why doesn't everyone do it? And what about the reverse? How easy it for a person to move from a median income back into the lowest income. I think the idea of mobility is used as a reinforcement for the protestant work ethic / American dream sort of delusion that says "poor people can just work harder and save more and they won't be poor any more". But we have an enormous amount of evidence that points to that not being the case. 2) Also, you haven't provided an argument for why income inequality isn't a problem. If the lowest earners have extremely limited access to housing, healthcare or education, such as is the case in the U.S. I think that's a problem.

sokoloff 9y ago
> How easy it for a person to move from a median income back into the lowest income. Many people do when they retire. Or when they take time off between jobs (intentionally or not).

evrydayhustling 9y ago

Other comments have brought additional evidence about declining wage mobility. I'll add that the article's stats about the impact of race demonstrate lack of mobility. Working while black seems to mean a 20% pay cut, regardless of education. As an American, I've always based a lot of national pride on our history as a (relative, for some groups) meritocracy with a lot of mobility. It's really sad to see rapid erosion of this over the last 20y.

marnett 9y ago
Most opportunities for mobility were linked to America being a nation of rapid growth, not because of the kindness of some national ethos. As our growth opportunities slow, you can be sure the haves will do everything in their power to prevent loss of ground to the have-nots.
cmurf 9y ago
Meritocracy in the U.S. is a myth in civilian life. The military almost approximates meritocracy but it is by design not egalitarian or democratic. Without extreme discipline, again found in militarism, meritocracy results in the formation of elites who define what the metrics are for merit, they quickly become corrupt with nepotism, lowering the ladder for family and friends to the exclusion of people with actual merit, and it becomes incompetent. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/06/the-perils-of-meritocracy/532215/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/06/th...