3 ms·

> As we have seen, relatively few children of the poor rise to affluence, and relatively few children of affluence fall below the ranks of the upper-middle clas

> As we have seen, relatively few children of the poor rise to affluence, and relatively few children of affluence fall below the ranks of the upper-middle class. Notwithstanding the American dream of rising from rags to riches, upward mobility is less common in the United States than in many European countries, and there is no evidence of improvement in recent decades. This I believe is the crux of the problem in how the "upward mobility" is measured. If it is strictly by income/wealth quintiles, then it is strictly zero-sum. But is the world really a zero-sum game? I'd content that 80-90% people in USA / Western Europe have a far superior quality of life than the top-1% of the past on many metrics like health, nutrition or peace. So one can say that their entire societies were upwardly mobile from 1946 onward.

_qulr 6y ago
> relatively few children of affluence fall below the ranks of the upper-middle class Everyone talks about upward mobility, but we rarely talk about downward mobility. It's not impossible to go from "rags to riches", but who ever goes from riches to rags? It's not a true "meritocracy" unless the system reliably impoverishes the idiot children of the wealthy, but that almost never happens. The wealthy are protected, regardless of merit, and they take up space at or near the top of the system, reducing the number of positions open to more qualified candidates.
- RestlessMind 6y ago
  > unless the system reliably impoverishes the idiot children of the wealthy While I agree that the idiot children of the wealthy should not get to wield any significant influence on the society, "impoverishing them" doesn't seem like the right goal, since that might provoke a reaction from their wealthy parents who are driven, connected and talented. Rather, such idiots should be managed out on a safe landing, where they don't influence society at all but their parents are still not worried about their future.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > "impoverishing them" doesn't seem like the right goal I don't think anyone should be impoverished, and indeed I'm not a supporter of the idea of "meritocracy", but I think it's fair to take the arguments for it to their logical and abhorrent conclusion. After all, the supporters seem perfectly content to allow the non-wealthy (and assumed non-meritorious) to become impoverished.

_qulr 6y ago

> relatively few children of affluence fall below the ranks of the upper-middle class Everyone talks about upward mobility, but we rarely talk about downward mobility. It's not impossible to go from "rags to riches", but who ever goes from riches to rags? It's not a true "meritocracy" unless the system reliably impoverishes the idiot children of the wealthy, but that almost never happens. The wealthy are protected, regardless of merit, and they take up space at or near the top of the system, reducing the number of positions open to more qualified candidates.

RestlessMind 6y ago
> unless the system reliably impoverishes the idiot children of the wealthy While I agree that the idiot children of the wealthy should not get to wield any significant influence on the society, "impoverishing them" doesn't seem like the right goal, since that might provoke a reaction from their wealthy parents who are driven, connected and talented. Rather, such idiots should be managed out on a safe landing, where they don't influence society at all but their parents are still not worried about their future.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > "impoverishing them" doesn't seem like the right goal I don't think anyone should be impoverished, and indeed I'm not a supporter of the idea of "meritocracy", but I think it's fair to take the arguments for it to their logical and abhorrent conclusion. After all, the supporters seem perfectly content to allow the non-wealthy (and assumed non-meritorious) to become impoverished.