3 ms·

So US social mobility is only slightly better (insignificantly) than the two worst countries in Europe. I think that article rather supports my claim. Italy is

by tovej 5y ago

So US social mobility is only slightly better (insignificantly) than the two worst countries in Europe. I think that article rather supports my claim. Italy is also rather a troublesome example, because northern and southern Italy are vastly different. Regional differences account for much of the inequality and the persistence of it there. Looking at the mean in Europe vs the US there is no contest. Other metrics in the same paper indicate that for factors that impact long term social stability, like schooling, the US is the worst. It's possible that, since the US is such a big territory, regional differences are distorted. But I couldn't find a better source myself, with a quick search.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> US social mobility is only slightly better (insignificantly) than the two worst countries in Europe. I think that article rather supports my claim. Compared with the cohort of European countries, America fairs poorly (though not excessively so). The original claim, however, was that it fares "among the worst in the world." This is incorrect; it's roughly middle of the pack [1][2]. On the measure of the "number of generations it would take...those born to...the bottom 10% of the income distribution...to approach the mean in their society," America ties with Ireland, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Italy, Austria and Switzerland. It is ahead of France, Germany and Hungary. In summary, America is good at allowing the poor to become middle class. It is less good at letting the middle class become exorbitantly rich, though not terribly so. [1] https://www.oecd.org/social/broken-elevator-how-to-promote-social-mobility-9789264301085-en.htm https://www.oecd.org/social/broken-elevator-how-to-promote-s... [2] https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/1-5%20generations.png https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/1-5%20generations.png
- tovej 5y ago
  "Among the worst" is a bad qualifier, I'll admit. Not least because it is vague. However, the US is still worse than Europe when it comes to social mobility. Going back to the original argument that something in the US's tax policy or job markets makes the US perform better when it comes to upwards social mobility, I think we can definitely debunk that.
- pedrosorio 5y ago
  > In summary, America is good at allowing the poor to become middle class. It is less good at letting the middle class become exorbitantly rich, though not terribly so. The common view is the opposite though: higher tax rates and lower entrepreneurship in Europe are assumed to put a damper on the middle class from amassing significant wealth. On the other hand, the US has significantly more billionaires per capita than most countries in Europe [1], and many of those are "self-made" (i.e. not generational wealth). What am I missing here? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...

by tovej 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> US social mobility is only slightly better (insignificantly) than the two worst countries in Europe. I think that article rather supports my claim. Compared with the cohort of European countries, America fairs poorly (though not excessively so). The original claim, however, was that it fares "among the worst in the world." This is incorrect; it's roughly middle of the pack [1][2]. On the measure of the "number of generations it would take...those born to...the bottom 10% of the income distribution...to approach the mean in their society," America ties with Ireland, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Italy, Austria and Switzerland. It is ahead of France, Germany and Hungary. In summary, America is good at allowing the poor to become middle class. It is less good at letting the middle class become exorbitantly rich, though not terribly so. [1] https://www.oecd.org/social/broken-elevator-how-to-promote-social-mobility-9789264301085-en.htm https://www.oecd.org/social/broken-elevator-how-to-promote-s... [2] https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/1-5%20generations.png https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/1-5%20generations.png

tovej 5y ago
"Among the worst" is a bad qualifier, I'll admit. Not least because it is vague. However, the US is still worse than Europe when it comes to social mobility. Going back to the original argument that something in the US's tax policy or job markets makes the US perform better when it comes to upwards social mobility, I think we can definitely debunk that.
pedrosorio 5y ago
> In summary, America is good at allowing the poor to become middle class. It is less good at letting the middle class become exorbitantly rich, though not terribly so. The common view is the opposite though: higher tax rates and lower entrepreneurship in Europe are assumed to put a damper on the middle class from amassing significant wealth. On the other hand, the US has significantly more billionaires per capita than most countries in Europe [1], and many of those are "self-made" (i.e. not generational wealth). What am I missing here? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...