4 ms·

> The countries with the most social mobility as well as the most equality have fairly 'socialist' political and economic systems. Which countries are you talk

> 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-...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

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-...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]