3 ms·

I think the point is that the ability to achieve success ought not be so skewed towards those whose ancestors achieved success, but rather towards individuals t

by buqler 7y ago

I think the point is that the ability to achieve success ought not be so skewed towards those whose ancestors achieved success, but rather towards individuals that have worked for it and have legitimate merit in society. If you’re suggesting that it’s easy to go from being rich to being poor, I think it would be useful to find data that examines how many people born rich become poor over time, and how many people born poor stay poor over time. Like, backing that claim up would make it more believable. Anecdotally, I don’t think it’s that hard for rich people to be born and then stay rich. Especially considering all the things that money can buy that helps one make even more money. Like a better education, for example.

gridlockd 7y ago
> If you’re suggesting that it’s easy to go from being rich to being poor, I think it would be useful to find data that examines how many people born rich become poor over time, and how many people born poor stay poor over time. Like, backing that claim up would make it more believable. It's not easy to get data on the very rich. However, the top fifth of the population is about as likely to become poorer over time as the the bottom fifth is likely to get richer over time (page 6): https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpe... In total, only a minority (~40%) maintain their status over the course of a single generation.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  You need something like decile transition probabilities, not merely directional changes. Going from the top decile of wealth to the second or third from top is not a significant loss of wealth. Even if “most rich people lost money” over their lifetimes, it would say nothing about how easy it is to go from rich to poor. How many people who are born into the top decile of wealth end up below the poverty line in total assets + income?
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > You need something like decile transition probabilities, not merely directional changes. That's exactly what's in the linked article. The probability of going from the top to the bottom in one generation is 8%, to second-to-bottom 10%. That's a significant chance. > Going from the top decile of wealth to the second or third from top is not a significant loss of wealth. I disagree. Going to the third decile likely puts you in the bottom half. > How many people who are born into the top decile of wealth end up below the poverty line in total assets + income? Roughly 8%, as the bottom decile roughly coincides with the poverty line.

by buqler 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago

> If you’re suggesting that it’s easy to go from being rich to being poor, I think it would be useful to find data that examines how many people born rich become poor over time, and how many people born poor stay poor over time. Like, backing that claim up would make it more believable. It's not easy to get data on the very rich. However, the top fifth of the population is about as likely to become poorer over time as the the bottom fifth is likely to get richer over time (page 6): https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpe... In total, only a minority (~40%) maintain their status over the course of a single generation.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
You need something like decile transition probabilities, not merely directional changes. Going from the top decile of wealth to the second or third from top is not a significant loss of wealth. Even if “most rich people lost money” over their lifetimes, it would say nothing about how easy it is to go from rich to poor. How many people who are born into the top decile of wealth end up below the poverty line in total assets + income?
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > You need something like decile transition probabilities, not merely directional changes. That's exactly what's in the linked article. The probability of going from the top to the bottom in one generation is 8%, to second-to-bottom 10%. That's a significant chance. > Going from the top decile of wealth to the second or third from top is not a significant loss of wealth. I disagree. Going to the third decile likely puts you in the bottom half. > How many people who are born into the top decile of wealth end up below the poverty line in total assets + income? Roughly 8%, as the bottom decile roughly coincides with the poverty line.