3 ms·

I strongly disagree with the statement, United States, although behind a lot of countries in social mobility index, still ranks pretty high in the world. It als

I strongly disagree with the statement, United States, although behind a lot of countries in social mobility index, still ranks pretty high in the world. It also leads with 8.8% of the adult population being millionaires, only behind Switzerland and Australia. That speaks volumes on how many opportunities exist in this country to make yourself better.

convolvatron 5y ago
or, it means that 80% are left behind with no real opportunity for advancement whatsoever. I'm not saying this is true - but largest number of millionaires isn't maybe the best metric for the overall happiness of the population?
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago
  Thats why the comment also mentioned social mobility index. But curiously, everyone seems to be ignoring that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
brnt 5y ago
Superstarism is the bias of only looking at success (which here is defined in a very narrow which betrays a secnd bias but that's another discussion). Superstarism is a old tool and well documented (for those who read) tool of the rulers of courts to keep their entourage in check. In brief: be an abbedient lackey or lose the favour of the court. Because it misses the bottom percentiles overlooking, it overlooks them; as e.g. the French revolution shows, it may become untenable, for good reasons, at any moment. The existence of opportunity is best proven not by looking at how high one might go, but at how many are left behind. And how, according to certain measures, they are in fact regressing.
- nsonha 5y ago
  who said anything about success? If you are even suggesting poverty in America is the same as poverty in most of Asia, or Africa, I think you should shut the hell up and do some traveling. Same to the middle class. This guy is from South East Asia.
- tsol 5y ago
  >Superstarism is a old tool and well documented (for those who read) tool of the rulers of courts to keep their entourage in check. In brief: be an abbedient lackey or lose the favour of the court. This isn't really an argument against as much as a reason to be suspicious. It still can be a useful metric, it says something about social mobility. I'm unconvinced. >it misses the bottom percentiles overlooking, it overlooks them; as e.g. the French revolution shows, it may become untenable, for good reasons, at any moment. The French Revolution was precipitated by large scale starvation, conditions that the US is extremely far from. This is, ironically, a case of bias looking at successful revolution-- most revolutions historically aren't successful and certainly not to the extent the French Revolution was(influencing later revolutions and the political thought). Looking at recent revolutions across the Middle East and Africa in the past decade, most of them largely fizzle out when the ruling party pushes back with force. Even when everyone want a revolution, most people aren't willing to put their own life on the line for it. Not unless the alternative is worse-- bringing us back to the conditions that started the French Revolution
jazzyjackson 5y ago
I was shocked by a statistic I saw somewhere that one million millionaires live in the new york metro area - it made more sense once i realized anyone who bought a house in the 80s is now a millionaire thanks merely to rising cost of housing. I don’t think this metric is very useful for measuring economic opportunity.
mbrodersen 5y ago
The # of millionaires have nothing to do with the overall happiness of the population.

convolvatron 5y ago

or, it means that 80% are left behind with no real opportunity for advancement whatsoever. I'm not saying this is true - but largest number of millionaires isn't maybe the best metric for the overall happiness of the population?

cscurmudgeon 5y ago
Thats why the comment also mentioned social mobility index. But curiously, everyone seems to be ignoring that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

brnt 5y ago

Superstarism is the bias of only looking at success (which here is defined in a very narrow which betrays a secnd bias but that's another discussion). Superstarism is a old tool and well documented (for those who read) tool of the rulers of courts to keep their entourage in check. In brief: be an abbedient lackey or lose the favour of the court. Because it misses the bottom percentiles overlooking, it overlooks them; as e.g. the French revolution shows, it may become untenable, for good reasons, at any moment. The existence of opportunity is best proven not by looking at how high one might go, but at how many are left behind. And how, according to certain measures, they are in fact regressing.

nsonha 5y ago
who said anything about success? If you are even suggesting poverty in America is the same as poverty in most of Asia, or Africa, I think you should shut the hell up and do some traveling. Same to the middle class. This guy is from South East Asia.
tsol 5y ago
>Superstarism is a old tool and well documented (for those who read) tool of the rulers of courts to keep their entourage in check. In brief: be an abbedient lackey or lose the favour of the court. This isn't really an argument against as much as a reason to be suspicious. It still can be a useful metric, it says something about social mobility. I'm unconvinced. >it misses the bottom percentiles overlooking, it overlooks them; as e.g. the French revolution shows, it may become untenable, for good reasons, at any moment. The French Revolution was precipitated by large scale starvation, conditions that the US is extremely far from. This is, ironically, a case of bias looking at successful revolution-- most revolutions historically aren't successful and certainly not to the extent the French Revolution was(influencing later revolutions and the political thought). Looking at recent revolutions across the Middle East and Africa in the past decade, most of them largely fizzle out when the ruling party pushes back with force. Even when everyone want a revolution, most people aren't willing to put their own life on the line for it. Not unless the alternative is worse-- bringing us back to the conditions that started the French Revolution

jazzyjackson 5y ago

I was shocked by a statistic I saw somewhere that one million millionaires live in the new york metro area - it made more sense once i realized anyone who bought a house in the 80s is now a millionaire thanks merely to rising cost of housing. I don’t think this metric is very useful for measuring economic opportunity.

mbrodersen 5y ago

The # of millionaires have nothing to do with the overall happiness of the population.