3 ms·

> The data is that the rich don't stay rich This is, of course, yet another lie that must be told to justify what is a deeply evil system. Dig a little deeper

by dnomad 8y ago

> The data is that the rich don't stay rich This is, of course, yet another lie that must be told to justify what is a deeply evil system. Dig a little deeper [1] and you'll find capital concentrations are extremely enduring, particularly those tied to fixed assets like real estate. The thread is full of all sorts of highly motivated reasoning and half truths to try to avoid what is a very simple and very obvious truth: all the economic surplus is being captured by the rich. Not most, not the majority, absolutely all of it [2]. In such an environment it should be obvious -- even if difficult to admit it -- that the poor can't do anything but fuck off and die. Or did you think the falling life expectancy and falling birth rates were just blind luck? [1] https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/upshot/the-benefits-of-economic-expansions-are-increasingly-going-to-the-richest-americans.html?emc=eta1&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/upshot/the-benefits-of-ec...

ChrisLomont 8y ago
The difference between my data and yours is that yours post-selects one or a few families that were rich at time X and remained so at later time Y, while mine takes all people of wealth Z at time X and shows that the majority are below Z at time Y. The Italian paper admits they are not tracking families, but surnames. Read the actual paper, not the pop recount of it. The second link doesn't address that the top 1% varies wildly over time, which my data does. Static snapshots miss lifetime and intergenerational mobility, both of which are not insignificant in the US. Your paper is about Florence, and does not apply to the wider world. Instead of reading a pop account, read a more direct account [3]. They explicitly state their account does not match the same research or outcomes from other places and times. They reach an elasticity for this group of around 0.02, and note this varied "from under 0.2 in the Scandinavian countries to almost 0.5 in Italy, UK, and the US". The only reason their account got widespread coverage and the others didn't is because the others don't reach a conclusion that sells as well. But that result is not applicable to modern US. They state this directly. For example, here's [1] a more recent paper on a more relevant dataset - intergenerational mobility in the US, UK, and Germany. It doesn't reach the same conclusion as your Italian paper. Probably the most comprehensive look at mobility is the Chetty et al paper [2] that looked at all tax records for several generations and found mobility in the US is consistent with what it has been for decades stretching back into the 1900s. Most interestingly, they compute transition probabilities over time to move from one quntile to another by generation. Put this into a markov chain, and you'll find that it takes very few generations for nearly perfect mixing of incomes. (I've done this years ago - try it). These transition probabilities match ones from the FRED research which are only for recent people. So, in short, the rich don't stay rich as a group. Post selecting the few that did is simply bad statistics and misleading. A simple experiment you can do yourself is take the lists of Forbes 400 riches over time, and see how many are first generation, and how many drop off the list over time. You'll find that the top in general do not remain so very long. It's easy - try it. >This is, of course, yet another lie that must be told to justify what is a deeply evil system Yours is, of course, a misleading statement cherry picked from all available data to spread unfounded beliefs. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/roiw.12364 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/roiw.12364 [2] http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/mobility_trends_published.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/mobility_trends_publish... [3] https://voxeu.org/article/what-s-your-surname-intergenerational-mobility-over-six-centuries https://voxeu.org/article/what-s-your-surname-intergeneratio...
- dnomad 8y ago
  > A simple experiment you can do yourself is take the lists of Forbes 400 riches over time I'm not sure what you imagine this proves. Social mobility is something that has been well studied in America. It is well-known that social mobility is over in the United States. A simple visit to Wikipedia will set this straight -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_.... > Yours is, of course, a misleading statement cherry picked from all available data to spread unfounded beliefs. Frankly this entire thread is you leaping from one myth to another. Now you seem to be clinging to this myth that there is high firm competition and social mobility in the US. This is not supported by any of recent research. All of the recent research shows that there is far less competitiveness across firms and that net social mobility has collapsed.
  - ChrisLomont 8y ago
    >Frankly this entire thread is you leaping from one myth to another. You claimed a paper about Florence had wider applicability than it does, by ignoring what the authors specifically wrote to make your claim. I quoted the statement from your own paper contradicting your claims and I presented more recent papers on the US that show you're incorrect. So I don't think I'm the one making mythical leaps. >All of the recent research shows that there is far less competitiveness across firms and that net social mobility has collapsed. I just cited one of the most cited paper in this area, the Raj Chetty one, and it directly contradicts your statement. Did you look at it? They had unprecedented access to all US taxpayer records, making their study vastly more comprehensive than anything before (and since as far as I can tell). They analyzed every single person in the US income for the period in question. You're not going to get a much better dataset than that. >I'm not sure what you imagine this proves. It is evidence for the claim this started with: the rich get poorer, where you take some definition of wealth, take all people in that group, and see what happens to them over time. One such metric is the top X people, and demonstrating that they do not remain is one data point showing this statement true. I've yet to see a dataset for which you can answer this statement that does not support. The Forbes 400 is a particularly easy one for anyone to check. Or simply google what percentage of millionaires or billionaires are first gen, and again you'll see most wealthy are new, not inherited. So, do you have any dataset showing for everyone of some level of wealth in the US, that over time that same set of people don't regress to mean? I've just given several places showing exactly this. >net social mobility has collapsed FRED, Raj, BLS, and Census disagree. Even your Wiki link states "A large academic study released in 2014 found US mobility overall has not changed appreciably in the last 25 years ". I don't think the word "collapsed" means "has remained fairly constant".

by dnomad 8y ago

ChrisLomont 8y ago

The difference between my data and yours is that yours post-selects one or a few families that were rich at time X and remained so at later time Y, while mine takes all people of wealth Z at time X and shows that the majority are below Z at time Y. The Italian paper admits they are not tracking families, but surnames. Read the actual paper, not the pop recount of it. The second link doesn't address that the top 1% varies wildly over time, which my data does. Static snapshots miss lifetime and intergenerational mobility, both of which are not insignificant in the US. Your paper is about Florence, and does not apply to the wider world. Instead of reading a pop account, read a more direct account [3]. They explicitly state their account does not match the same research or outcomes from other places and times. They reach an elasticity for this group of around 0.02, and note this varied "from under 0.2 in the Scandinavian countries to almost 0.5 in Italy, UK, and the US". The only reason their account got widespread coverage and the others didn't is because the others don't reach a conclusion that sells as well. But that result is not applicable to modern US. They state this directly. For example, here's [1] a more recent paper on a more relevant dataset - intergenerational mobility in the US, UK, and Germany. It doesn't reach the same conclusion as your Italian paper. Probably the most comprehensive look at mobility is the Chetty et al paper [2] that looked at all tax records for several generations and found mobility in the US is consistent with what it has been for decades stretching back into the 1900s. Most interestingly, they compute transition probabilities over time to move from one quntile to another by generation. Put this into a markov chain, and you'll find that it takes very few generations for nearly perfect mixing of incomes. (I've done this years ago - try it). These transition probabilities match ones from the FRED research which are only for recent people. So, in short, the rich don't stay rich as a group. Post selecting the few that did is simply bad statistics and misleading. A simple experiment you can do yourself is take the lists of Forbes 400 riches over time, and see how many are first generation, and how many drop off the list over time. You'll find that the top in general do not remain so very long. It's easy - try it. >This is, of course, yet another lie that must be told to justify what is a deeply evil system Yours is, of course, a misleading statement cherry picked from all available data to spread unfounded beliefs. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/roiw.12364 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/roiw.12364 [2] http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/mobility_trends_published.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/mobility_trends_publish... [3] https://voxeu.org/article/what-s-your-surname-intergenerational-mobility-over-six-centuries https://voxeu.org/article/what-s-your-surname-intergeneratio...

dnomad 8y ago
> A simple experiment you can do yourself is take the lists of Forbes 400 riches over time I'm not sure what you imagine this proves. Social mobility is something that has been well studied in America. It is well-known that social mobility is over in the United States. A simple visit to Wikipedia will set this straight -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_.... > Yours is, of course, a misleading statement cherry picked from all available data to spread unfounded beliefs. Frankly this entire thread is you leaping from one myth to another. Now you seem to be clinging to this myth that there is high firm competition and social mobility in the US. This is not supported by any of recent research. All of the recent research shows that there is far less competitiveness across firms and that net social mobility has collapsed.
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  >Frankly this entire thread is you leaping from one myth to another. You claimed a paper about Florence had wider applicability than it does, by ignoring what the authors specifically wrote to make your claim. I quoted the statement from your own paper contradicting your claims and I presented more recent papers on the US that show you're incorrect. So I don't think I'm the one making mythical leaps. >All of the recent research shows that there is far less competitiveness across firms and that net social mobility has collapsed. I just cited one of the most cited paper in this area, the Raj Chetty one, and it directly contradicts your statement. Did you look at it? They had unprecedented access to all US taxpayer records, making their study vastly more comprehensive than anything before (and since as far as I can tell). They analyzed every single person in the US income for the period in question. You're not going to get a much better dataset than that. >I'm not sure what you imagine this proves. It is evidence for the claim this started with: the rich get poorer, where you take some definition of wealth, take all people in that group, and see what happens to them over time. One such metric is the top X people, and demonstrating that they do not remain is one data point showing this statement true. I've yet to see a dataset for which you can answer this statement that does not support. The Forbes 400 is a particularly easy one for anyone to check. Or simply google what percentage of millionaires or billionaires are first gen, and again you'll see most wealthy are new, not inherited. So, do you have any dataset showing for everyone of some level of wealth in the US, that over time that same set of people don't regress to mean? I've just given several places showing exactly this. >net social mobility has collapsed FRED, Raj, BLS, and Census disagree. Even your Wiki link states "A large academic study released in 2014 found US mobility overall has not changed appreciably in the last 25 years ". I don't think the word "collapsed" means "has remained fairly constant".