5 ms·

As European, which only discovered aboug legacy preferences [0] recently, I am still not sure how to reconcile it with my belief that meritocracy was a cornerst

by seren 7y ago

As European, which only discovered aboug legacy preferences [0] recently, I am still not sure how to reconcile it with my belief that meritocracy was a cornerstone American value, and how this case is fundamentally different. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

smt88 7y ago
Meritocracy is a spoken value, but it's never been a reality. I'm sure that's true in every country. In fact, upward mobility is much better in places like France and the UK[1]. Most people like me, who pay attention to history and current social issues, see the American dream and the myth of meritocracy as a way to keep the poor from seeing that the system is rigged against them and becoming restless. 1. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/american...
- turk73 7y ago
  Despite the citation, I remain skeptical. How is it possible that countries with such high tax rates would have that level of upward mobility? Just when you're getting going, the rug is getting pulled out from under you. Not that it isn't the case in the states, too, mind you. Just to a slightly lesser degree. Meritocracy? GTFO! Companies do nothing but virtue signal these days.
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    “Just when you're getting going, the rug is getting pulled out from under you.” What do you mean with that?
    - lovich 7y ago
      He means you can't turn into a billionaire without paying into society so obviously no meritocracy. /s I don't actually want to put words into the other posters mouth. There is, however, a sizeable number of people in America who act like the only the that matters is the rules around getting rich and that having social services that allow anyone to take a gamble on entrepreneurship don't count as helping a meritocracy get in place
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    I understand that you once we consider US health insurance payments by employers and employees to be a tax (in many EU states, it is explicitly a tax), the US does actually have a comparably high tax rate to many EU countries with that significantly higher mobility. Which might suggest that the high tax rate isn't inherently linked to upward mobility, or at least that it's much more complicated; that taxing high-earners isn't inherently anti-mobility.
    - mises 7y ago
      Americans don't consider a large, essential expenditure to he a tax because it's not. Food and rent are not taxes either.
      - EliRivers 7y ago
        You've missed the point and are addressing some other topic entirely; I suspect because you just can't help indulging your pet obsessions on economics and politics. I suppose the clue is in your name.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    > How is it possible that countries with such high tax rates would have that level of upward mobility? They have such high upward mobility because of high tax rates since high tax rates allow funding more public institutions (health care, education, housing, child care) that make upward mobility possible. By the time you're wealthy enough to "have the rug pulled our from under you" you're already in the top 10% - top 1%. Getting the rug pulled at that point just means you make a little less money.
    - mat4magic 7y ago
      >Getting the rug pulled at that point just means you make a little less money. It also means you have a much harder time saving for a house, funding a company etc. The top 10% are also the most important part of a society from an economic perspective. So basically its easier to get into the top 10% in Europe while its easier to get into the very top in America. The are much more selfmade Billionaires in America , i suspect its the same for Millionaires https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/05/world-billionaire-wealth-global-one-percent/482802/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/05/world-billionaire-wealt...
      - mercer 7y ago
        There are many more people who would like to enter the 'Tonnaires' than there are who consider Millionaire or Billionaire status a worthwhile goal. And as far as I can tell anything beyond a few ton doesn't significantly increase happiness. From my perspective there's no reason to value the ability to become a 'self-made' billionaire if it leaves more of the 'precariat', and I prefer a society that reduces the number of people that are part of it.
        mat4magic 7y ago
        I agree with you that this would be a more pleasant society for the majority, which would be a good thing. Unfortunately i think that the more "unfair" society would be more dominant and will outcompete it over time, thereby making it worse. So i think in the end some unfairness will isnecessary, but maybe less then we have today
  - Kurtz79 7y ago
    Tax rates are progressive, meaning that those with lower income pay significantly less than those with high earnings. Taxes are used to finance and subsidize common services such as heathcare, public transport and education, which people with a disadvantaged background otherwise could not afford. Thus, it is more likely that those which were born in a low income family (and are willing to improve their situation) can move upwards, since they don't have to worry so much about basic needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/american...
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Upward mobility there is defined as movement between different income quintiles. Higher taxes affect everyone so would merely adjust the boundaries of those quintiles.
- refurb 7y ago
  Sorry, but I have a bone to pick with social mobility as measured in the cited articles. Why do they only limit social mobility in terms of going from the bottom to the top quintile? That seems like one very limited measure. Also, how does social mobility measure when you look at absolute gains? If America's top quintile is much higher than Europe's (which it is), you could have someone go from $20K to $200K per year in the US (bottom to 4th quintile) and that would be viewed as worse than someone going from $20K to $150K in Europe (bottom to top quintile). Plus, you can't cherry pick social mobility papers, because they actually go both ways (US low or US high). It all depends on how you measure it.

by seren 7y ago

smt88 7y ago

Meritocracy is a spoken value, but it's never been a reality. I'm sure that's true in every country. In fact, upward mobility is much better in places like France and the UK[1]. Most people like me, who pay attention to history and current social issues, see the American dream and the myth of meritocracy as a way to keep the poor from seeing that the system is rigged against them and becoming restless. 1. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/american...

turk73 7y ago
Despite the citation, I remain skeptical. How is it possible that countries with such high tax rates would have that level of upward mobility? Just when you're getting going, the rug is getting pulled out from under you. Not that it isn't the case in the states, too, mind you. Just to a slightly lesser degree. Meritocracy? GTFO! Companies do nothing but virtue signal these days.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  “Just when you're getting going, the rug is getting pulled out from under you.” What do you mean with that?
  - lovich 7y ago
    He means you can't turn into a billionaire without paying into society so obviously no meritocracy. /s I don't actually want to put words into the other posters mouth. There is, however, a sizeable number of people in America who act like the only the that matters is the rules around getting rich and that having social services that allow anyone to take a gamble on entrepreneurship don't count as helping a meritocracy get in place
- EliRivers 7y ago
  I understand that you once we consider US health insurance payments by employers and employees to be a tax (in many EU states, it is explicitly a tax), the US does actually have a comparably high tax rate to many EU countries with that significantly higher mobility. Which might suggest that the high tax rate isn't inherently linked to upward mobility, or at least that it's much more complicated; that taxing high-earners isn't inherently anti-mobility.
  - mises 7y ago
    Americans don't consider a large, essential expenditure to he a tax because it's not. Food and rent are not taxes either.
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      You've missed the point and are addressing some other topic entirely; I suspect because you just can't help indulging your pet obsessions on economics and politics. I suppose the clue is in your name.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  > How is it possible that countries with such high tax rates would have that level of upward mobility? They have such high upward mobility because of high tax rates since high tax rates allow funding more public institutions (health care, education, housing, child care) that make upward mobility possible. By the time you're wealthy enough to "have the rug pulled our from under you" you're already in the top 10% - top 1%. Getting the rug pulled at that point just means you make a little less money.
  - mat4magic 7y ago
    >Getting the rug pulled at that point just means you make a little less money. It also means you have a much harder time saving for a house, funding a company etc. The top 10% are also the most important part of a society from an economic perspective. So basically its easier to get into the top 10% in Europe while its easier to get into the very top in America. The are much more selfmade Billionaires in America , i suspect its the same for Millionaires https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/05/world-billionaire-wealth-global-one-percent/482802/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/05/world-billionaire-wealt...
    - mercer 7y ago
      There are many more people who would like to enter the 'Tonnaires' than there are who consider Millionaire or Billionaire status a worthwhile goal. And as far as I can tell anything beyond a few ton doesn't significantly increase happiness. From my perspective there's no reason to value the ability to become a 'self-made' billionaire if it leaves more of the 'precariat', and I prefer a society that reduces the number of people that are part of it.
      - mat4magic 7y ago
        I agree with you that this would be a more pleasant society for the majority, which would be a good thing. Unfortunately i think that the more "unfair" society would be more dominant and will outcompete it over time, thereby making it worse. So i think in the end some unfairness will isnecessary, but maybe less then we have today
- Kurtz79 7y ago
  Tax rates are progressive, meaning that those with lower income pay significantly less than those with high earnings. Taxes are used to finance and subsidize common services such as heathcare, public transport and education, which people with a disadvantaged background otherwise could not afford. Thus, it is more likely that those which were born in a low income family (and are willing to improve their situation) can move upwards, since they don't have to worry so much about basic needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/american...
- mikeash 7y ago
  Upward mobility there is defined as movement between different income quintiles. Higher taxes affect everyone so would merely adjust the boundaries of those quintiles.
refurb 7y ago
Sorry, but I have a bone to pick with social mobility as measured in the cited articles. Why do they only limit social mobility in terms of going from the bottom to the top quintile? That seems like one very limited measure. Also, how does social mobility measure when you look at absolute gains? If America's top quintile is much higher than Europe's (which it is), you could have someone go from $20K to $200K per year in the US (bottom to 4th quintile) and that would be viewed as worse than someone going from $20K to $150K in Europe (bottom to top quintile). Plus, you can't cherry pick social mobility papers, because they actually go both ways (US low or US high). It all depends on how you measure it.