6 ms·

Income mobility has been rising fastest in Britain

56 points by randomname2 8y ago

dijit 8y ago
Reads like an opinionated piece which is cherry-picking it's stats. The report he's citing most heavily is indeed about social mobility, but social mobility isn't always "up", social mobility measured by OECD is the state of flux and certainly by itself does not correlate at all with improvements in social class from the lower levels. The author also talks about "more equal" not equating to "more mobile" and he/she is absolutely correct, however the way it's phrased makes me believe he/she is intending to change the mind of the reader as to whether more equal is a good thing. Overall I'm not coming to the same conclusion as the author from the source material. Flux is bad if you're middle/working class are ending up in the poor class. Which is happening from what I can tell anecdotally.
Malarkey73 8y ago
It's just really difficult to understand what this means. The first big caveat is that 1990s to 2010s stops at the financial crisis. Due to austerity the UK has since then seen the greatest period of wage stagnation of all the advanced nations except Greece. But employment has remained high. So whilst the report is a picture of time before the crash its not clear to me what has happened since. Second - Yes I think I do care more about the overall level of poverty and inequality. I'm not happy if people are moving in and out of destitution. Third - I really don't understand how to square this analysis with the obvious fact that half as many people own their own home now as in the 80s. For 25-34 year olds its gone from 65% to 27% during the period of this study . What's that downward income mobility? I sthat a good thing? Or does that not count as it's not income? .. I just don't really know what this is saying..?
- easytiger 8y ago
  > 25-34 year olds its gone from 65% to 27% during the period of this study back then people used to be in full time work from 16-21. Education has assumed the role work once had. Most people I know are in Education untill mid to late 20s. 1/15 into their 30ies on and off. further to that 100 years ago home ownership was in the 15% area. Standards of living where "worse" by modern metrics (of course that's not true per se IMHO).
  - downrightmike 8y ago
    The jobs that are available now for 16-21 are subsistence jobs. It makes more economic sense that they spend the time in school and get out of the sub livable wage jobs.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Old Rich people like to point to income as a definition of "rich". They say "I'm poor", despite someone on £70k/year being unable to afford their lifestyle because of housing It helps keep the taxation on the workers, not on the leachers
- grasshopperpurp 8y ago
  It looks like countries with greater inequality may provide more motivation for people to move up. Of course, there are countless other factors (regulation, societal norms, etc.), but if I'm a generally content person living in Finland or Sweden, and I'm relatively (but not remarkably) poor and still have what I need, I can focus on self-improvements that make me happy/fullfilled. If I'm in the USA, it'd be hard to divorce the idea of self-improvement from how I can monetize it. In countries where the poor feel more threatened (talking degrees, not absolutes), there's real urgency to distance yourself from that class. I also wonder if the higher mobility among countries like GB, Japan, the US, and Turkey suggest societies that create more zero-sum scenarios. I'd be interested in other explanations.
zucchini_head 8y ago
The article doesn't touch upon education much at all, which I believe is a central part of social (im)mobility. Problems arising in society later on will simply stem from the early life of members of society, not afterwards. It's a common principle that education is the key to societal equality, in some way. All I can offer is my story on this. I've lived in the UK all my life in all sorts of regions from those of lower working class (my hometown) to my recent years where I've lived in rather upper-class "lawyer-doctor-business owner" regions. The difference in education between the lower and upper classes is stark. Let me explain. Upper-class children are enrolled in schools of like-minded high-achievers full of entrance exams and interviews (provides a non-zero floor to student "intelligence/quality" at the school), and strict rules/discipline. They are further pushed towards degrees leading to higher paying careers - Finance, Medicine, Law, by their families and the schools themselves. Their families purchase extra tutoring, they have smarter parents (this is a positive feedback loop across generations!) to guide them, and so on... Compare this to lower-class children, who, in the UK (and i'm pretty sure everywhere else essentially) are enrolled in "state schools" (free). These schools have no entrance requirements (there is zero floor for student quality), the families almost never purchase extra tutoring, and are much less pushed towards "meaningful" degrees. The schools offer equal environments to the best and the worst of students. This imbalance in education (and by extension upbringing in general) is what seeds everything else. And indeed, in the past few years the UK government has recognized all the above. How they plan of solving it? The reintroduction of "Grammer Schools"! These are state schools (still), but _do_ have enterance requirements, thereby allowing lower-class students of high intelligence/quality a chance to separate from the worst students in state schools and enroll in a more challenging education. There is much debate in the UK whether this will work, or will simply just allow children of rich families to more-often/further separate themselves from poor families. Time will tell. That's my 0.02c anyway: Education.
- pjc50 8y ago
  If grammar (you spelt this incorrectly) schools were effective at improving society as a whole, you'd be able to measure an effect in the places in the UK where they were retained. Especially Northern Ireland. Instead you have to address what happens to the 50% of people who don't get into the selective schools. You can't improve overall quality through rejecting students, because there's no "away" to reject them to! People who are actually involved in education are more likely to tell you that the key factor for most of the lower-achieving students is obstacles, especially out of school; are they getting enough sleep and 3 square meals a day? Do they have at least one parent around who's engaged in their education? What obstacles does that parent face? Is the child being bullied at school or home? etc.
seanhandley 8y ago
Gavin Kelly is associated with Downing Street. It's in the conservative government's interest to downplay social issues caused by its policies. I smell a conflict of interest.
- steffandroid 8y ago
  He worked at Downing Street until 2010, under the Labour government at the time.

56 points by randomname2 8y ago

Reads like an opinionated piece which is cherry-picking it's stats. The report he's citing most heavily is indeed about social mobility, but social mobility isn't always "up", social mobility measured by OECD is the state of flux and certainly by itself does not correlate at all with improvements in social class from the lower levels. The author also talks about "more equal" not equating to "more mobile" and he/she is absolutely correct, however the way it's phrased makes me believe he/she is intending to change the mind of the reader as to whether more equal is a good thing. Overall I'm not coming to the same conclusion as the author from the source material. Flux is bad if you're middle/working class are ending up in the poor class. Which is happening from what I can tell anecdotally.

Malarkey73 8y ago

It's just really difficult to understand what this means. The first big caveat is that 1990s to 2010s stops at the financial crisis. Due to austerity the UK has since then seen the greatest period of wage stagnation of all the advanced nations except Greece. But employment has remained high. So whilst the report is a picture of time before the crash its not clear to me what has happened since. Second - Yes I think I do care more about the overall level of poverty and inequality. I'm not happy if people are moving in and out of destitution. Third - I really don't understand how to square this analysis with the obvious fact that half as many people own their own home now as in the 80s. For 25-34 year olds its gone from 65% to 27% during the period of this study . What's that downward income mobility? I sthat a good thing? Or does that not count as it's not income? .. I just don't really know what this is saying..?

easytiger 8y ago
> 25-34 year olds its gone from 65% to 27% during the period of this study back then people used to be in full time work from 16-21. Education has assumed the role work once had. Most people I know are in Education untill mid to late 20s. 1/15 into their 30ies on and off. further to that 100 years ago home ownership was in the 15% area. Standards of living where "worse" by modern metrics (of course that's not true per se IMHO).
- downrightmike 8y ago
  The jobs that are available now for 16-21 are subsistence jobs. It makes more economic sense that they spend the time in school and get out of the sub livable wage jobs.
isostatic 8y ago
Old Rich people like to point to income as a definition of "rich". They say "I'm poor", despite someone on £70k/year being unable to afford their lifestyle because of housing It helps keep the taxation on the workers, not on the leachers
grasshopperpurp 8y ago
It looks like countries with greater inequality may provide more motivation for people to move up. Of course, there are countless other factors (regulation, societal norms, etc.), but if I'm a generally content person living in Finland or Sweden, and I'm relatively (but not remarkably) poor and still have what I need, I can focus on self-improvements that make me happy/fullfilled. If I'm in the USA, it'd be hard to divorce the idea of self-improvement from how I can monetize it. In countries where the poor feel more threatened (talking degrees, not absolutes), there's real urgency to distance yourself from that class. I also wonder if the higher mobility among countries like GB, Japan, the US, and Turkey suggest societies that create more zero-sum scenarios. I'd be interested in other explanations.

zucchini_head 8y ago

The article doesn't touch upon education much at all, which I believe is a central part of social (im)mobility. Problems arising in society later on will simply stem from the early life of members of society, not afterwards. It's a common principle that education is the key to societal equality, in some way. All I can offer is my story on this. I've lived in the UK all my life in all sorts of regions from those of lower working class (my hometown) to my recent years where I've lived in rather upper-class "lawyer-doctor-business owner" regions. The difference in education between the lower and upper classes is stark. Let me explain. Upper-class children are enrolled in schools of like-minded high-achievers full of entrance exams and interviews (provides a non-zero floor to student "intelligence/quality" at the school), and strict rules/discipline. They are further pushed towards degrees leading to higher paying careers - Finance, Medicine, Law, by their families and the schools themselves. Their families purchase extra tutoring, they have smarter parents (this is a positive feedback loop across generations!) to guide them, and so on... Compare this to lower-class children, who, in the UK (and i'm pretty sure everywhere else essentially) are enrolled in "state schools" (free). These schools have no entrance requirements (there is zero floor for student quality), the families almost never purchase extra tutoring, and are much less pushed towards "meaningful" degrees. The schools offer equal environments to the best and the worst of students. This imbalance in education (and by extension upbringing in general) is what seeds everything else. And indeed, in the past few years the UK government has recognized all the above. How they plan of solving it? The reintroduction of "Grammer Schools"! These are state schools (still), but _do_ have enterance requirements, thereby allowing lower-class students of high intelligence/quality a chance to separate from the worst students in state schools and enroll in a more challenging education. There is much debate in the UK whether this will work, or will simply just allow children of rich families to more-often/further separate themselves from poor families. Time will tell. That's my 0.02c anyway: Education.

pjc50 8y ago
If grammar (you spelt this incorrectly) schools were effective at improving society as a whole, you'd be able to measure an effect in the places in the UK where they were retained. Especially Northern Ireland. Instead you have to address what happens to the 50% of people who don't get into the selective schools. You can't improve overall quality through rejecting students, because there's no "away" to reject them to! People who are actually involved in education are more likely to tell you that the key factor for most of the lower-achieving students is obstacles, especially out of school; are they getting enough sleep and 3 square meals a day? Do they have at least one parent around who's engaged in their education? What obstacles does that parent face? Is the child being bullied at school or home? etc.

seanhandley 8y ago

Gavin Kelly is associated with Downing Street. It's in the conservative government's interest to downplay social issues caused by its policies. I smell a conflict of interest.

steffandroid 8y ago
He worked at Downing Street until 2010, under the Labour government at the time.