4 ms·

I just find it amusing that anyone ever thought otherwise. At the end of the day, having capital means you don't have to have a job while you're in school, you

I just find it amusing that anyone ever thought otherwise. At the end of the day, having capital means you don't have to have a job while you're in school, you can do extracurriculars to gain a leg up, you can start a business, or you'll have friends in high places or who own business to network with and get jobs from. Self-preservation is in everyone's nature. If you're rich, you're going to do the most for your family, your children and you're going to make sure it stays that way. Education doesn't lead to social mobility, redistribution of wealth does. The countries with the most social mobility as well as the most equality have fairly 'socialist' political and economic systems. Of course, going full communist has been shown to have disastrous effects, so there's obviously a balance somewhere, but it seems that in the US and UK for sure the systems are still tipped a little too much towards the rich.

benjohnson 7y ago
>>Education doesn't lead to social mobility, redistribution of wealth does. Two random thoughts: Education is good for everybody - the poor may perhaps not gain on the rich, but their quality of life will be better than their similarly poor parents. Severe redistribution of wealth can have second-order effects : people stop working and producing if too much of their labor is taken from them.
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  > Education is good for everybody - the poor may perhaps not gain on the rich, but their quality of life will be better than their similarly poor parents. I'm not in the UK, Canada rather, but our generation is more educated than our parents' by a rather large margin, yet we're the first generation that's going to be poorer than the previous. Not sure this is progress. While we have computers and cell phones nowadays, buying a house and raising children on a single income is a pipe dream for most. Wages have stagnated in a bunch of industries. Yet the rich get richer. > Severe redistribution of wealth can have second-order effects : people stop working and producing if too much of their labor is taken from them. I did mention that, and yes it does. Hence a middle ground.
- flogic 7y ago
  People deciding to stop working is a good thing. It means they have market power and potential employers need to take that into account.
- throwawaycanada 7y ago
  >Severe redistribution of wealth can have second-order effects : people stop working and producing if too much of their labor is taken from them. I guess the key is to only take from people who do absolutely nothing.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Taking from people who have absolutely nothing might be a flawed plan...
pgcj_poster 7y ago
As a software engineer who makes $150,000 per year, I'm wondering why you assume that inequality is bad? It's possible that we could improve the conditions of the poor while also increasing inequality, so that means that there's never any reason to discuss wealth redistribution as a possible solution to poverty. Also, it's human nature to want to help your offspring, so therefore it's immoral to ever even think of doing anything to reduce the advantages that rich kids get. After all, I'm for equality of opportunity, not outcome. If you really want to help the poor, the priority should be growing the economy, which should be measured by how well my stocks are doing. This article should be flagged as a propaganda piece from the far-left publication Vice.
- throw_this_one 7y ago
  You’re assuming the natural order of society is to preserve the wealth of the wealthy. Which may not be true at all.
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  Look to countries like Brazil, Mexico, India, Russia to see why too much inequality is bad. Like I said, there's a balance.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than_europe.asp https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than... The poorest 20% in the U.S. have it better than the middle class in most countries, despite the inequality.
    - Mikeb85 7y ago
      The point is that inequality causes a bunch of societal ills (crime for example), nevermind what the actual living standards are.
      - insickness 7y ago
noonespecial 7y ago
Socialism seems to act like a societal micronutrient. A deficiency leads to the possibility of wide range of social sicknesses whereas overdosing on it (communism) is acutely (one generation) fatal. Like everything else, moderation and balance.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  Look at the parliaments of European countries, actual socialists are generally in the small minority. People mistake socialism with social democracy, which is more or less the same as what moderate democrats in the US are espousing.
  - playing_colours 7y ago
    I would measure socialism not by the number of people who call themselves socialists. Europe is farther to the left on the spectrum, so today’s moderate are yesterday’s core socialists. Look at the tax burden, state role and involvement in business and personal lives.
gridlockd 7y ago
> The countries with the most social mobility as well as the most equality have fairly 'socialist' political and economic systems. Which countries are you talking about? There are almost no countries left that actually have socialist economic systems, because they just don't work. Countries like Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands or Norway that are often misleadingly described as "socialist" (positive or negative) all have free-market capitalist economic systems. In some cases more free than in the US. The difference is usually in that they have socialized both health care and pensions, as well as somewhat more comprehensive social security programs. Furthermore, it is unsurprising that low inequality often leads to higher social mobility[1], because income strata are closer together. It tells you nothing about how much of an improvement moving upwards is in real terms, nor does it say anything about the real level of wealth. Case in point, income in the US is more unequal, but income and purchasing power is generally higher[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#/media/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_... [2] https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/10/the-truth-poor-in-us-are-richer-than.html https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/10/the-truth-poor...
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  Going to split hairs over the definition of socialism? Also, the US is closest on the chart to Singapore and Argentina, two places with disparate purchasing power. Maybe that's not correlated? On the other hand, inequality and social mobility do seem somewhat more connected. It's also obvious that all the countries with lower inequality and higher social mobility have higher living standards than the opposite, with a few potential outliers.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Going to split hairs over the definition of socialism? Absolutely. Socialism equals failure born out of ignorance. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist. These people are clueless about the economy, as well as the countries that they themselves refer to as socialist[1]. [1] https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/01/17/denmark-american-leftists-were-not-socialist https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/01/17/denm... Social democracy works. Obama is a social democrat. A welfare state can work, if there's an economy to support it. Socialism ends up destroying the economy, which ultimately destroys the welfare state as well. The American socialists will not destroy the economy by turning the means of production over to the state, like the Soviets. They will destroy the economy with reckless spending programs that will create so much debt, it will either bankrupt the state or destroy the US dollar - the one major export good that the US has left. > On the other hand, inequality and social mobility do seem somewhat more connected. Yes, as I explained, if equality is low, it easier to move up or down an income strata, but it also means less in terms of wealth. > It's also obvious that all the countries with lower inequality and higher social mobility have higher living standards than the opposite, with a few potential outliers. Similar reason, if the standard of living is generally lower, it's relatively easier to rise up in absolute numbers. That is, if you want to go into the top percentile in Denmark, you'll need to earn maybe half a million euros (couldn't find a number), whereas in China you only need to earn less than 100,000$[2]. [2] https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/09/23/what-percent-are-you-in-china/ https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/09/23/what-percent-...
vlehto 7y ago
>Education doesn't lead to social mobility, redistribution of wealth does. I cannot name a single example that would prove this. Having little education and redistribution of wealth has led to whole nation simply getting poor in every example I can think of.
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  Social mobility != wealth and doesn't even necessarily correlate. Some countries have high mobility and are rich (Germany, Sweden, Canada). Some countries have low mobility and are still rich (US, UK, or maybe for a more extreme example, Saudi Arabia). Some relatively poor countries have low mobility (Brazil, Argentina). Some poor countries have high mobility where the topline is still poor. Education does help the total wealth of a nation. But education doesn't necessarily help anyone change their social standing within a single country.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Doesn't high mobility actually mean that outcomes aren't correlated to inputs, which doesn't seem like an obviously good thing? Low mobility would also mean the same thing. Somewhere in between would be where the actual difference between generations equals the difference in outcomes.
  - vlehto 7y ago
    My understanding is that you claimed that education does not help one bit to social mobility. On national level, to big groups of people. I still think that is false and I still have not seen any one example that would even rise a suspicion that your claim could be sometimes true.

benjohnson 7y ago

>>Education doesn't lead to social mobility, redistribution of wealth does. Two random thoughts: Education is good for everybody - the poor may perhaps not gain on the rich, but their quality of life will be better than their similarly poor parents. Severe redistribution of wealth can have second-order effects : people stop working and producing if too much of their labor is taken from them.

Mikeb85 7y ago
> Education is good for everybody - the poor may perhaps not gain on the rich, but their quality of life will be better than their similarly poor parents. I'm not in the UK, Canada rather, but our generation is more educated than our parents' by a rather large margin, yet we're the first generation that's going to be poorer than the previous. Not sure this is progress. While we have computers and cell phones nowadays, buying a house and raising children on a single income is a pipe dream for most. Wages have stagnated in a bunch of industries. Yet the rich get richer. > Severe redistribution of wealth can have second-order effects : people stop working and producing if too much of their labor is taken from them. I did mention that, and yes it does. Hence a middle ground.
flogic 7y ago
People deciding to stop working is a good thing. It means they have market power and potential employers need to take that into account.
throwawaycanada 7y ago
>Severe redistribution of wealth can have second-order effects : people stop working and producing if too much of their labor is taken from them. I guess the key is to only take from people who do absolutely nothing.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Taking from people who have absolutely nothing might be a flawed plan...

pgcj_poster 7y ago

As a software engineer who makes $150,000 per year, I'm wondering why you assume that inequality is bad? It's possible that we could improve the conditions of the poor while also increasing inequality, so that means that there's never any reason to discuss wealth redistribution as a possible solution to poverty. Also, it's human nature to want to help your offspring, so therefore it's immoral to ever even think of doing anything to reduce the advantages that rich kids get. After all, I'm for equality of opportunity, not outcome. If you really want to help the poor, the priority should be growing the economy, which should be measured by how well my stocks are doing. This article should be flagged as a propaganda piece from the far-left publication Vice.

throw_this_one 7y ago
You’re assuming the natural order of society is to preserve the wealth of the wealthy. Which may not be true at all.
Mikeb85 7y ago
Look to countries like Brazil, Mexico, India, Russia to see why too much inequality is bad. Like I said, there's a balance.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than_europe.asp https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than... The poorest 20% in the U.S. have it better than the middle class in most countries, despite the inequality.
  - Mikeb85 7y ago
    The point is that inequality causes a bunch of societal ills (crime for example), nevermind what the actual living standards are.
    - insickness 7y ago

noonespecial 7y ago

Socialism seems to act like a societal micronutrient. A deficiency leads to the possibility of wide range of social sicknesses whereas overdosing on it (communism) is acutely (one generation) fatal. Like everything else, moderation and balance.

gridlockd 7y ago
Look at the parliaments of European countries, actual socialists are generally in the small minority. People mistake socialism with social democracy, which is more or less the same as what moderate democrats in the US are espousing.
- playing_colours 7y ago
  I would measure socialism not by the number of people who call themselves socialists. Europe is farther to the left on the spectrum, so today’s moderate are yesterday’s core socialists. Look at the tax burden, state role and involvement in business and personal lives.

gridlockd 7y ago

> The countries with the most social mobility as well as the most equality have fairly 'socialist' political and economic systems. Which countries are you talking about? There are almost no countries left that actually have socialist economic systems, because they just don't work. Countries like Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands or Norway that are often misleadingly described as "socialist" (positive or negative) all have free-market capitalist economic systems. In some cases more free than in the US. The difference is usually in that they have socialized both health care and pensions, as well as somewhat more comprehensive social security programs. Furthermore, it is unsurprising that low inequality often leads to higher social mobility[1], because income strata are closer together. It tells you nothing about how much of an improvement moving upwards is in real terms, nor does it say anything about the real level of wealth. Case in point, income in the US is more unequal, but income and purchasing power is generally higher[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#/media/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_... [2] https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/10/the-truth-poor-in-us-are-richer-than.html https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/10/the-truth-poor...

Mikeb85 7y ago
Going to split hairs over the definition of socialism? Also, the US is closest on the chart to Singapore and Argentina, two places with disparate purchasing power. Maybe that's not correlated? On the other hand, inequality and social mobility do seem somewhat more connected. It's also obvious that all the countries with lower inequality and higher social mobility have higher living standards than the opposite, with a few potential outliers.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Going to split hairs over the definition of socialism? Absolutely. Socialism equals failure born out of ignorance. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist. These people are clueless about the economy, as well as the countries that they themselves refer to as socialist[1]. [1] https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/01/17/denmark-american-leftists-were-not-socialist https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/01/17/denm... Social democracy works. Obama is a social democrat. A welfare state can work, if there's an economy to support it. Socialism ends up destroying the economy, which ultimately destroys the welfare state as well. The American socialists will not destroy the economy by turning the means of production over to the state, like the Soviets. They will destroy the economy with reckless spending programs that will create so much debt, it will either bankrupt the state or destroy the US dollar - the one major export good that the US has left. > On the other hand, inequality and social mobility do seem somewhat more connected. Yes, as I explained, if equality is low, it easier to move up or down an income strata, but it also means less in terms of wealth. > It's also obvious that all the countries with lower inequality and higher social mobility have higher living standards than the opposite, with a few potential outliers. Similar reason, if the standard of living is generally lower, it's relatively easier to rise up in absolute numbers. That is, if you want to go into the top percentile in Denmark, you'll need to earn maybe half a million euros (couldn't find a number), whereas in China you only need to earn less than 100,000$[2]. [2] https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/09/23/what-percent-are-you-in-china/ https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/09/23/what-percent-...

vlehto 7y ago

>Education doesn't lead to social mobility, redistribution of wealth does. I cannot name a single example that would prove this. Having little education and redistribution of wealth has led to whole nation simply getting poor in every example I can think of.

Mikeb85 7y ago
Social mobility != wealth and doesn't even necessarily correlate. Some countries have high mobility and are rich (Germany, Sweden, Canada). Some countries have low mobility and are still rich (US, UK, or maybe for a more extreme example, Saudi Arabia). Some relatively poor countries have low mobility (Brazil, Argentina). Some poor countries have high mobility where the topline is still poor. Education does help the total wealth of a nation. But education doesn't necessarily help anyone change their social standing within a single country.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Doesn't high mobility actually mean that outcomes aren't correlated to inputs, which doesn't seem like an obviously good thing? Low mobility would also mean the same thing. Somewhere in between would be where the actual difference between generations equals the difference in outcomes.
- vlehto 7y ago
  My understanding is that you claimed that education does not help one bit to social mobility. On national level, to big groups of people. I still think that is false and I still have not seen any one example that would even rise a suspicion that your claim could be sometimes true.