4 ms·

It would better to present the data in this article alongside data about upward mobility. For example: Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent

It would better to present the data in this article alongside data about upward mobility. For example: Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

hugh3 16y ago
Low upward mobility shouldn't be considered a bad thing -- in fact, it's a sign of a functioning meritocracy along with the fact that merit is at least partially inheirited. Rich people tend to be smart, smart people tend to have smart children, smart children tend to grow up to be rich, and so rich people wind up having rich children. Rich people would have rich children even in a society where all children were taken away from their parents at birth and raised communally. Add to this the fact that children also pick up financial literacy and values (good or bad) from their parents, and there's your low upward mobility right there. I doubt if the other effects (i.e. rich children inheirit wealth and can often get into better schools) are nearly as important as the genetics of it.
- borism 16y ago
  Rich people tend to be smart, smart people tend to have smart children, smart children tend to grow up to be rich, and so rich people wind up having rich children. Rich people would have rich children even in a society where all children were taken away from their parents at birth and raised communally. Add to this the fact that children also pick up financial literacy and values (good or bad) from their parents, and there's your low upward mobility right there. I doubt if the other effects (i.e. rich children inheirit wealth and can often get into better schools) are nearly as important as the genetics of it. this is so full of misconceptions that I won't even start.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Please don't do this. If you don't have anything specific to say except "You're wrong, about everything, ner ner" then don't comment at all. If you "won't even start", then, y'know, don't even start.
    - borism 16y ago
      But you were wrong about basically everything in this thread. You seem to have some weird theory that wealth is somehow correlated with genetics - a theory that you cannot support with any evidence, but continue to reintroduce. And then you seem to make a conclusion that it's all quite ok and the research in question is totally pointless. I mean, what do all those former middle-class and newly-poor are whining about? There's nothing we can do if they were born with genetic defect, right?
      - hugh3 16y ago
        You seem to have some weird theory that wealth is somehow correlated with genetics - a theory that you cannot support with any evidence, but continue to reintroduce. That's a weird theory? I think it follows quite naturally from: 1. Wealth is correlated with intelligence, and 2. Intelligence is at least partly inherited. These both seem like they would be fairly obvious and noncontroversial, and I'm sure could be backed up with a few minutes googling. Which one would you like to take issue with? PS. It's possible your misconception comes from thinking that "wealth is correlated with intelligence" allows us to make statements about specific cases -- like that rich person A is necessarily more intelligent than poor person B, or that the lower average wealth of group C than group D implies that group C is of lower average intelligence. Of course it means nothing of the sort.
        lutorm 16y ago
        As people here are fond of pointing out: correlation does not imply causation. One can easily make a plausible case that the reason people from wealthy backgrounds score higher on measures of intelligence is because, to the extent intelligence really is inherited, attempts to quantify it are still sensitive to things like quality of education and intellectual stimulation throughout life, both of which strongly correlate with wealth.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Social Darwinism, alive and well in the 21st. Plus ca change.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    What's wrong with social Darwinism? You can't argue against something just by calling it an unfashionable name. I've heard it said that nobody can agree on what "social Darwinism" means but that everybody is against it. I'm trying to remove the stigma to promote a more sober discussion of ideas that often suffer from this label.
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      I don't see what's hard to define about social Darwinism, especially since you did a pretty good job expounding it in the parent post. The reason everybody is against it (except the children of rich people, generally) is that it's not much more than post-facto rationalization for the nineteenth century. I know I didn't come of rich stock, and yet I think I'm pretty smart. I can think of a couple of examples of the stupid rich, too. Lots of them, lately. I'll grant that richer families have better educational opportunities and you could perhaps make an argument based on cultural transmission of "beneficial" behavior - but the primary trait that causes wealth is ruthlessness, not intelligence, and it's no way to run a railroad.
    - borism 16y ago
      > What's wrong with social Darwinism? Apparently there's nothing wrong with it. It's alive and well as your upvotes prove.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  I think you need to separate your factual statements from your value judgments. On a factual level, you're right (and don't deserve all those downvotes). Every study I've seen suggests a strong correlation between genetics and intelligence, between intelligence and income, and between income and wealth. When you multiply them out, the correlation becomes somewhat less, but it still seems like a fair statement to say that genetics is correlated with wealth. That doesn't imply that this correlation indicates a functioning meritocracy, because to the extent that intelligence is genetic, intelligence is not merit. Merit usually implies that something admirable that someone chose to do, and if someone was born intelligent, how is that merit? It's like making a value judgment on any other inborn trait - say, that blondes are better than brunettes, or fair-skinned people are better than dark-skinned ones. The part of intelligence that people usually associate with "merit" is the part that's not inborn, the part that people have to work for. Intelligence can lead to a functioning meritocracy despite its genetic component, not because of it.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Thanks for an intelligent response. I think there are multiple definitions of "merit" at work here. The form of merit which is chosen and admirable is not necessarily the same as the "merit" in "meritocracy". I agree that merely being born with an attribute is not really "merit", but on the other hand I think a "meritocracy" is about rewarding ability, not "merit", and perhaps needs a better name. Wikipedia defines it as: Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit). which is different again to what I meant... the form of "meritocracy" I mentioned would exist even in the absence of society. If the world consisted of a bunch of individuals on isolated and identical islands who never interacted then it would be a perfect "meritocracy" in the sense I meant it, because each would acquire wealth and quality of life depending only upon his own ability to hunt, gather, build shelter, et cetera.

hugh3 16y ago

Low upward mobility shouldn't be considered a bad thing -- in fact, it's a sign of a functioning meritocracy along with the fact that merit is at least partially inheirited. Rich people tend to be smart, smart people tend to have smart children, smart children tend to grow up to be rich, and so rich people wind up having rich children. Rich people would have rich children even in a society where all children were taken away from their parents at birth and raised communally. Add to this the fact that children also pick up financial literacy and values (good or bad) from their parents, and there's your low upward mobility right there. I doubt if the other effects (i.e. rich children inheirit wealth and can often get into better schools) are nearly as important as the genetics of it.

borism 16y ago
Rich people tend to be smart, smart people tend to have smart children, smart children tend to grow up to be rich, and so rich people wind up having rich children. Rich people would have rich children even in a society where all children were taken away from their parents at birth and raised communally. Add to this the fact that children also pick up financial literacy and values (good or bad) from their parents, and there's your low upward mobility right there. I doubt if the other effects (i.e. rich children inheirit wealth and can often get into better schools) are nearly as important as the genetics of it. this is so full of misconceptions that I won't even start.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Please don't do this. If you don't have anything specific to say except "You're wrong, about everything, ner ner" then don't comment at all. If you "won't even start", then, y'know, don't even start.
  - borism 16y ago
    But you were wrong about basically everything in this thread. You seem to have some weird theory that wealth is somehow correlated with genetics - a theory that you cannot support with any evidence, but continue to reintroduce. And then you seem to make a conclusion that it's all quite ok and the research in question is totally pointless. I mean, what do all those former middle-class and newly-poor are whining about? There's nothing we can do if they were born with genetic defect, right?
    - hugh3 16y ago
      You seem to have some weird theory that wealth is somehow correlated with genetics - a theory that you cannot support with any evidence, but continue to reintroduce. That's a weird theory? I think it follows quite naturally from: 1. Wealth is correlated with intelligence, and 2. Intelligence is at least partly inherited. These both seem like they would be fairly obvious and noncontroversial, and I'm sure could be backed up with a few minutes googling. Which one would you like to take issue with? PS. It's possible your misconception comes from thinking that "wealth is correlated with intelligence" allows us to make statements about specific cases -- like that rich person A is necessarily more intelligent than poor person B, or that the lower average wealth of group C than group D implies that group C is of lower average intelligence. Of course it means nothing of the sort.
      - lutorm 16y ago
        As people here are fond of pointing out: correlation does not imply causation. One can easily make a plausible case that the reason people from wealthy backgrounds score higher on measures of intelligence is because, to the extent intelligence really is inherited, attempts to quantify it are still sensitive to things like quality of education and intellectual stimulation throughout life, both of which strongly correlate with wealth.
Vivtek 16y ago
Social Darwinism, alive and well in the 21st. Plus ca change.
- hugh3 16y ago
  What's wrong with social Darwinism? You can't argue against something just by calling it an unfashionable name. I've heard it said that nobody can agree on what "social Darwinism" means but that everybody is against it. I'm trying to remove the stigma to promote a more sober discussion of ideas that often suffer from this label.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    I don't see what's hard to define about social Darwinism, especially since you did a pretty good job expounding it in the parent post. The reason everybody is against it (except the children of rich people, generally) is that it's not much more than post-facto rationalization for the nineteenth century. I know I didn't come of rich stock, and yet I think I'm pretty smart. I can think of a couple of examples of the stupid rich, too. Lots of them, lately. I'll grant that richer families have better educational opportunities and you could perhaps make an argument based on cultural transmission of "beneficial" behavior - but the primary trait that causes wealth is ruthlessness, not intelligence, and it's no way to run a railroad.
  - borism 16y ago
    > What's wrong with social Darwinism? Apparently there's nothing wrong with it. It's alive and well as your upvotes prove.
nostrademons 16y ago
I think you need to separate your factual statements from your value judgments. On a factual level, you're right (and don't deserve all those downvotes). Every study I've seen suggests a strong correlation between genetics and intelligence, between intelligence and income, and between income and wealth. When you multiply them out, the correlation becomes somewhat less, but it still seems like a fair statement to say that genetics is correlated with wealth. That doesn't imply that this correlation indicates a functioning meritocracy, because to the extent that intelligence is genetic, intelligence is not merit. Merit usually implies that something admirable that someone chose to do, and if someone was born intelligent, how is that merit? It's like making a value judgment on any other inborn trait - say, that blondes are better than brunettes, or fair-skinned people are better than dark-skinned ones. The part of intelligence that people usually associate with "merit" is the part that's not inborn, the part that people have to work for. Intelligence can lead to a functioning meritocracy despite its genetic component, not because of it.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Thanks for an intelligent response. I think there are multiple definitions of "merit" at work here. The form of merit which is chosen and admirable is not necessarily the same as the "merit" in "meritocracy". I agree that merely being born with an attribute is not really "merit", but on the other hand I think a "meritocracy" is about rewarding ability, not "merit", and perhaps needs a better name. Wikipedia defines it as: Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit). which is different again to what I meant... the form of "meritocracy" I mentioned would exist even in the absence of society. If the world consisted of a bunch of individuals on isolated and identical islands who never interacted then it would be a perfect "meritocracy" in the sense I meant it, because each would acquire wealth and quality of life depending only upon his own ability to hunt, gather, build shelter, et cetera.