19 ms·

Americans overestimate social mobility in their country

216 points by ipeefreely 5y ago

imgabe 5y ago
How different is the top quintile of earnings between countries? For example (made up numbers), if the top quintile in the UK earn $100k and the top quintile in the US earn $400k, it's not really the same comparison to move from the bottom to the top. Going from earning $20k to $100k is going to be different than going from $20k to $400k. I suspect the top is higher in the US.
ralph84 5y ago
The elite don't really care if the poor and middle class trade places with each other. They don't even care if the middle class disappears entirely. They just absolutely do not want the poor or middle class joining them in the elite, so they've made sure the system will prevent that.
jwommack 5y ago
Things of possible note: * This is a survey published in 2018 with (survey) data gathered in two months of 2016 * mobility data comes from a different source for each country and they vary wildly in the period covered. Notable Italy and US data is post 2008 and the others pre 2008. Looks like there’s as much as a 12 year difference in child earning data across countries. * sample characteristics (the income question mentioned in other posts, not clear these are used for quintiles): * US 20k, 20-40k, 40-70k, 70k+ * UK £1.5k/mo, £1.5-2.5k/mo, £2.5-3k/mo, £3k+/mo * FR (UK ranges but €) * IT <€(?)1.5k/mo, 1.5-2.45k/mo, 2.45-3.35k/mo, 3.35k+/mo * SE (SEK) <33k/mo, 33-42k/mo, 42-58k/mo, 58k+/mo * population samples per bracket differ most between US and EU, EU comparisons are pretty similar. Nearly 2x income bracket 1 pop and sample % in EU(.27-.33) vs US (.16/.18) * From what I’ve found 2004 (UK data) £ conversion rate to USD was ~1.9. (2012)€ was ~1.34. USD and Italy are from 2011-2012, a 2012 $ is 0.82¢ in 2004 $s. So 70k=57.6k and £3000/mo=04$68.4k=12$83.1k, €3000/mo=12$46.8k * age dist differs non-UK EU has fewer under 30.(~.2 vs .27) So the lowest UK rate is ~2x the lowest US rate, the US rate is a smaller portion of the pop/sample, and the US upper rate is nearly 1.5-2x of the sample as the Non-US (.39 vs .17-26). The EU top rate is ~0.56 the US top rate when converted to $ using 2012 numbers. There’s also another important dynamic here. 2011-2012 was the European debt crisis. Italy, in particular, saw a big unemployment spike over the course of the selected years. [the study](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015)
foolzcrow 5y ago
Lies promoted to divide us.
ipeefreely 5y ago
Social mobility is really hard to measure, but all else equal, I think America is the best place in the world for a poor person to become filthy rich (top 0.1%) but not the best place in the world for a poor person to simply transition to middle/upper class.
- klabb3 5y ago
  Note the denominator in this statement. The poor -> middle class transition is relevant for a huge amount of people, and the poor -> filthy rich is relevant to such a small number of people I don't even know a single soul alive who made that transition, despite billionaires being very public figures.
- Bukhmanizer 5y ago
  I really would like to see some statistics about this. I have a feeling that many people will agree with you, simply because 1. the American "rags to riches" story is one that the media bombards people with over and over again 2. Lots of people simply lie about the circumstances they come from
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bigdict 5y ago
  Basically literally a lottery.
- atoav 5y ago
  I think it would be easier to become "filthy rich" for a poor person when they start in a nation with free healthcare and education. Because both of those things have a big chance of impacting your poor person's career lastingly if they don't have luck. Most of the 0.1% inherited their wealth or at least came from an well educated background.
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    > I think it would be easier to become "filthy rich" for a poor person when they start in a nation with free healthcare and education. Poor people in USA have both free healthcare and education. If they're willing to fill-out some forms. Edit: Yes, contrary to the popular belief, poor people in USA do, in fact, get free health care and education.
hhs 5y ago
This gives more context: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20162015 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20162015
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > redistribution Of course the real redistribution is the expropriation of the fruits of surplus labor time by those who work to heirs who do not. Redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value.
  - marcusverus 5y ago
    It seems odd to couch redistribution of income within capitalist systems in Marxist terms like “redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value”, as though the funds being redistributed will have been taken exclusively from the owners of the means of production. They’re not. The vast majority of net contributors to the system are workers. These policies just take money from some workers and give them to other workers.
    - VictorPath 5y ago
      > Marxist terms like “redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value” The notion that created wealth is made by workers is not one that Marx credits to himself, but to another revolutionary - Benjamin Franklin.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
echelon 5y ago
America is being attacked by pervasive narratives like this. News rags the whole world over are shitting on us, meanwhile authoritarian regimes are rising to power. It's a narrative dismantling, and we're being played like fools. America is still the best country in the world to start a business and take risks. America still has more freedoms (speech especially) than most of the world. (Side note: The left wants to put more restrictions on speech, which is horrible, because Republicans will swing back into power and use it in the other direction.) America holds NATO together. Europeans don't give us enough credit. And they're replete with their own crises to always be pointing the finger. We need more unity. This division by ideology and class is giving us short sightedness and blunting our ability to make sound investments in the future. Globalism is something that should be reevaluated. Our capital is being invested into the capabilities of rivals, and it doesn't pay dividends. Americans have been turned into buyers of cheap plastic goods, and we've lost the ability to make our own critical components and wares. Huge mistake, driven in part by these narratives. We're optimists, but the media is telling us not to be. They want us to yell at each other and drive ourselves into the dirt.
- Waterluvian 5y ago
  Don’t blame the teacher for poor grades and don’t excuse poor grades by pointing out the mediocre students.
- blown_gasket 5y ago
  'America is still the best country in the world to start a business and take risks'. Do you have any data to back this up? I'm purely curious. Note you didn't state, 'and make an insanely large sum of money there', so I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more countries where it would be a good choice. 'America has more freedoms than most of the world'. What is in parenthesis is a sweeping generalization and what are you defining as 'most of the world'. I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the NATO statement in relation to social mobility. Frankly I'm not sure what is perverse about this article. Isn't it called the American Dream for a reason?
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  I'd just like to point out one thing I've noticed quite a bit and would love Europeans to chime in - that is - European exceptionalism. We, Americans, were known for American exceptionalism but that has eroded to a point where I haven't heard a single good thing about America in the last decade or so. We're shameful and contemptful of our nation. Slightest positive thing is considered nationalistic and right-wing, so we've become accustomed to similar mindset as the Germans post-WWII with regards to nationalism. But, I am seeing some rise of European exceptionalism and wonder if things have changed over in Europe? Is it more united? Even small things like '.eu' domain is proudly used. I'd be damned if I use '.us' domain. Just a small example of many. About the only time I see HackerNews coming together is when we talk about semiconductor industry in USA. There is a sense of optimism to invest in US semiconductor industry - but it is short lived.
golemiprague 5y ago
Why it compares just one type of mobility from the very bottom to the very top? Shouldn't it change all the stages in between? Also, assuming we always have the same bell curve of wealth distribution what does it matter who is where? Assuming some poor guy became rich, if the bell curve stays the same it means also that someone else dropped to become poor, so overall, what is the point? If you say the point is that having the opportunity encourage people to work and that in itself improves the situation for everyone then the American optimism is more valuable, even if it is not true.
chrisseaton 5y ago
Seems to fundamentally confuse social mobility and financial mobility? Simply earning more doesn't move your social class.
- sremani 5y ago
  Correct. A freelance jurno making $40K in NYC has more social status than a Plumber with his own LLC making half a million a year. The former is closer to the cultural elite and the later is 'blue collar'.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  It lets you buy ambassadorships and climb via the political patronage system.
jackcosgrove 5y ago
The article measures mobility based on one's percentile movement across the income distribution. There are more rungs to climb in the US because there's a wider income range, whereas in Europe income differences are compressed. The same income increase in absolute terms gets you more social mobility in Europe than in the US. I'm initially skeptical of studies that imply large-scale misunderstanding among the public about their own lives; here that Americans are too optimistic and Europeans are too pessimistic. I'm sure there's some truth to it, but it's not the whole story. The conclusion of the article is in part a reflection of the methodology.
- notacoward 5y ago
  > there's a wider income range ...and that's why such comparisons should be done using percentiles instead of absolute values. Which they did. > The conclusion of the article is in part a reflection of the methodology. The biggest methodological flaw points in quite a different direction than you seem to be suggesting. Change in percentile across the income distribution is less informative than change in percentile across the wealth distribution, and that should be the age adjusted wealth distribution as well. Comparing my retirement income to somebody who's still working is practically useless. Comparing it to what my age peers have in the bank compared to when we were all much younger tells something close to the true story.
  - twoodfin 5y ago
    Absolute is what matters. If 80% of your society is earning between $60k and $90k, a quintile jump around the middle is small compared to a similar shift in a $40k to $180k society. Relative mobility doesn’t buy you a vacation home.
    - notacoward 5y ago
      > Absolute is what matters. Only from a purely acquisitive standpoint, but not with respect to social mobility which is the subject here. Also, study after study has shown that life satisfaction is more highly correlated with relative income or wealth than absolute. If we want to use science instead of personal preference to determine what matters, you're flatly wrong. > If 80% of your society is earning between $60k and $90K Why choose such an unrealistic example when a real one is right there? Seems suspect TBH. The real distribution is nowhere near as tightly clustered around the median, and is quite asymmetric with a much longer tail at the high end. Also, why only consider changes in the middle? A small percentile difference at either end can have a much larger effect on quality of life. > Relative mobility doesn’t buy you a vacation home. The difference between second and fourth quintile actually does mean something like that, and does so regardless of prices or inflation. Absolute values are the ones that become meaningless without the context of prices in a particular time and place. The house I'm sitting in right now as I write this (vs. the dumps I grew up in) is a pretty good testament to the difference between first and fifth quintile, but the price of the house doesn't matter a damn bit.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
I think perhaps the US makes it hard for a single person to move from bottom to top quintile. But I bet that the US is the country that makes it the easiest for you to be in the bottom quintile and have grandchildren in the top quintile. Basically, I think the US is likely the best for generational family mobility. I have seen this story many times with immigrants. The immigrants come over and work often very menial jobs. Their kids study hard and go to colleges and end up as white collar jobs. Their kids in turn (the grandkids) often go to elite colleges and end up with elite careers (lawyers, doctors, etc).
- rowanajmarshall 5y ago
  > Basically, I think the US is likely the best for generational family mobility. I have seen this story many times with immigrants What makes you think this doesn't happen so much in other countries?
  - refurb 5y ago
    Because in many countries, you'll always be an outsider.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Literally the entire point of the paper is that the U.S. has the worst intergenerational bottom-to-top quintile probability among the five nations, U.K., France, Italy, and Sweden being the others, but Americans believe that the probability is much higher than it really is, as you have just amply demonstrated.
- brandonmenc 5y ago
  It's hard to convince large swathes of progressive America of this fact. Lots of possible cause/effect: child-free lifestyles, exalting the even modestly well-off who choose to leave their children nothing, long-established families who have lost a living connection to their immigrant forebears, etc. "Families are always rising and falling in America."
rpmisms 5y ago
Social mobility is very different than economic mobility. It's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field. Heck, I did it without any college. Social mobility is a different story. I was raised in a rural area, which is essentially a social class of its own. Since becoming an adult, I've found myself gravitating towards working-class people. I like the bluntness, the awareness of real issues, and the family values. I make more money than many of the yuppies who live a mile away, but socially, I'm several rungs "below" them. I could get a nice haircut, mow my lawn properly, get divorced, and fit right in, if I chose to, but I don't want to. I think you'll find many lower-class Americans wouldn't, even if they knew how to. Edit: by "Working class", I mean blue-collar and not wealthy. The salary cap is a little higher than the traditional definition, but I think it's a more accurate representation of middle America.
- baby 5y ago
  Ah, survivor bias
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    See my other replies, I'm aware of this, baby.
  - mynameishere 5y ago
    Not even that. Just sheltered fool bias.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      I was running around my nearest city at age 14, looking for work. I got in fights at bus stops, got mugged once*, slept on benches when I missed a ride a couple of times. Sheltered, yes, ignorant, no. I know what being hungry is like, I remember how weird it was to wear brand-new clothes. I'm not complaining, it was all perfectly normal to me at the time, but I'm not talking down at the poors, I'm talking about who I am. *Mugged once and then learned how not to get mugged. People tried after that, didn't go well.
stavros 5y ago
I really liked this TED talk: Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? | Harald Eia | TEDxOslo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU
- bluejekyll 5y ago
  Thanks for sharing that. This all resonates well with my own beliefs, so I’m sure I’m biased. But good free education for everyone, automation to free up the lower rungs of the workforce and increase productivity, social safety net to make people less concerned about layoffs and work fluctuations. If only the wealthy supported these policies, they would be more wealthy!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
999900000999 5y ago
Social mobility is a very tricky thing. I think every person can succeed as long as they have the courage to cut off people who are counterproductive to that. For example, when I look at my own parents, they're simply self-destructive people who never took responsibility for any of their actions. Whenever I've needed to depend on anyone in my family. I've ultimately been let down, but when it comes to my own efforts. You know I got my own apartment when I was 19, and I've made six figures, despite a family member screwing me out of finishing college, by the time I was 25. It's very hard to cut off your own family though, but whatever situation your parents are in, that's the situation they're in. I did make the mistake of trying to save my family members, and it was a very costly mistake. They were perfectly fine with ruining the life I built for myself, up until I blocked most of them and just moved to a different city. Work hard and cut off lazy people. Don't get involved of anyone who doesn't want to work, outside of laziness being disgusting upon itself, these people tend to cause unlimited drama. A person who's finishing up their PhD, while working full time doesn't have time to cause problems. Someone who's 28 or 29 and still doesn't work has plenty of problem causing time. Once you understand this, and just to add, make sure if you're having trouble finding the right type of people where you live, you consider moving. I'm from LA, I've had so many strange situations created by people who I've alluded to above. The moment I left LA, I had a fantastic partner, and I've never had someone try to put me in a volatile situation since. All of this sad, I've been very lucky. Medical conditions I'd be screwed. All it takes is a single severe medical condition to financially ruin you, and then you can't afford treatment, in this country says good luck try a go fund me
- fartcannon 5y ago
  It's also not possible for everyone to succeed since it's a zero sum game. Therefore, you should be thanking the people who's life circumstances prevent them from learning to succeed and doubly you should thank your parents for raising you in a way that you were able to surpass them.
  - bogota 5y ago
    How is it a zero sum game? I see this said a lot here without any proof? It this just taken as true and no proof is needed?
refurb 5y ago
Again, it's highly problematic defining mobility as "moving from bottom quintile to top quintile". - Moving from bottom quintile to 2nd highest is significant mobility and completely ignored in this analysis. - The analysis ignores the fact that the highest quintile in the US is higher in absolute terms than other countries. So moving from bottom to 4th may give more income than bottom to 5th in other countries. - This analysis also ignores the changes of income within quintiles. The 3rd quintile in 1980 isn't the same income in 2020. 3rd quintile could see significant income improvements. - This analysis also ignores government transfers. - Countries that have a lower income spread, but overall less income would do better.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  " - [blah blah ignorance] ignored in this analysis" Q1-Q4 mobility is not ignored, it's right there in Table 2 of the paper. For your information the U.S. is also worst among the five studied nations for Q1-Q4 mobility. Furthermore the U.S. is also worst for Q1-Q3. HTH.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    The paper isn't linked in the article (I think the parent was referring to the article). I think you're referring to the paper here: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantcheva/files/alesina_stantcheva_teso_mobility.pdf#page=12 https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantcheva/files/alesina_s... Looking at it myself now, it doesn't seem like the US is all that different from the other countries examined, e.g. US 12.7% Q1->Q4 vs. 12.9% for UK vs. 12.8% for France. For Q1->Q3 it's somewhat higher (18.7% vs. 19.9% for UK for example) but for Q1->Q2 the US is also higher than the others (e.g., 27.7% US vs. 25.1% UK).
    - twoodfin 5y ago
      Indeed. Some quick digging came up with UK figures from 2019[1]: Average in Q1: £13,300 Average in Q4: £35,700 For US stats, Googling only got 2018 figures[2]: Average in Q1: $13,775 Average in Q4: $101,570 So there’s a big absolute distinction hiding behind those similar relative %’s. [1] https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-income/income-distribution/latest https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-... [2] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-...
jollybean 5y ago
This is valuable, but there's a giant caveat, in that if you were to do the study on the EU level, it would be much the same. Sweden is 10 million people, arguably more egalitarian, but moving from <25% to >75% in Sweden is not nearly the same thing as going from the <25% of EU (say, most of the population of Romania) to >75% of EU. Swedes at the 25% mark are probably in the 75% percentile for Romania already. Obviously there is more to it, but it's a tricky comparison.
serverlessmom 5y ago
I would be interested in seeing more numbers about where the optimism in American citizens starts to deviate based on what privileged statuses the person holds. If I had to make an educated guess I would posit that white Americans and those who are from older generations are going to be more optimistic about upwards economic and therefore social mobility.
twobitshifter 5y ago
I think the first step is to admit we have a problem. People don’t like the United States being labeled as anything less than exceptional. If you look at the Amazon workers, Uber drivers, door dashers, etc in this country it’s amazing how hard people can work and not get ahead. 2nd and 3rd jobs can be necessary to just make ends meet. The story that hard work is all it takes in America does need to be questioned.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  > People don’t like the United States being labeled as anything less than exceptional. I mean, it _is_ exceptional. Americans, per the article, are exceptionally overly optimistic about social mobility.
- vmception 5y ago
  Talk with any patriotic person and you'll quickly notice that American exceptionalism relies on comparing the United States to the worst countries in the world and ignoring the existence of other developed nations. Eventually followed by "well at least we can talk about it, unlike <authoritative country where people disappear>" and so therefore all indiscretions must be absolved and ignorable since we have the "unique" ability to criticize the government at all, which isn't unique or exceptional or a well implemented vehicle of change.
  - danaris 5y ago
    ...or, worse, when a comparison with another developed country is brought up, its successes are simply rejected as the result of eeeeevil socialism, which destroys freedom, don't you know.
    - vmception 5y ago
      or a generic assumption of high taxes in a completely different tax system, while not understanding their own tax system
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
The overestimation of social mobility is what explains the people at the bottom voting for governments that promote policies like trickle-down economics that only ever benefit the people at the top. This is my experience in Australia, which isn't as far along in the progression towards uber-capitalism as the US.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Voting is a package deal and it's quite obvious that westerners outside of the US have close to zero understanding of cultural issues, especially abortion. They'll whine about it but they never understand that for quite a large segment of the group they keep calling stupid, abortion is the wholesale slaughter of millions of babies year after year. This is not a shallow belief. It is deeply held for these people. If you don't view abortion that way, you'll just call them stupid and add it to your list of things you feel superior to them about and continue to not understand them in the slightest. Which leads people to make statements such as the one you did about people making irrational fiscal related votes when that might not have even been in their top five issues. Until you can understand the abortion issue beyond the glib dismissive "they want to control women's bodies" you will continue to not understand the people you are talking about. That understanding might not be important to you but if it is, then you must not reduce them to whatever single variable judgement you want to extrapolate into matching your viewpoint, especially when that single variable might not be of high importance to them.
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    My comment is in direct relation to a handful of people (data points) I've had conversations with who've specifically chosen based on this as a primary issue - both voting _for_ one party touting said trickle-down, and _against_ a party offering an alternative. I genuinely try (although admittedly regularly fail) to avoid making generalisations as you are alluding to. I happen to support a legal right to abortion, but I also understand why people don't like it. Let democracy decide. Let science provide research facts and figures. Let religions have their doctrines.
xiphias2 5y ago
Don't high earner immigrants skew the results heavily? When I moved to Switzerland as a software engineer, I was considered a high earner, at the same time I didn't feel high on the social ladder as I was a foreigner.
thepasswordis 5y ago
Regardless of how much money I make, none of my friends went to Stanford, I grew up in a boring town in a boring part of the world, and I made my money in an “unglamorous” industry. I could make $10B. I still wouldn’t reach the top level of class. Maybe my kids kids will. Here’s an attempt to say something positive about this: you guys should try to seek out those unglamorous industries, usually in unglamorous parts of the country, with people who have unglamorous ideas about the world. Many of them unglamorously PRINT money using 1980s technology and will happily pay you whatever you ask them if you can help them do that more efficiently. There’s a good chance you can, because nobody else is really even trying.
- bluedays 5y ago
  Cool, like where?
- mehphp 5y ago
  Do you have an example of this? I’m intrigued
- TuringNYC 5y ago
  >> I could make $10B. I still wouldn’t reach the top level of class. Maybe my kids kids will. Is there really anyone wrong with this? If you and your family are happy, and your needs are met, and clearly you have options -- does anyone else's definition of class really matter?
  - JaimeThompson 5y ago
    When our elected leaders and law enforces listen to the upper class(s) instead of everyone equally then yes, it matters.
    - eikenberry 5y ago
      So you're saying that the defining aspect of being upper class is how much you bribe politicians?
ummonk 5y ago
That’s not a major overestimate. 11.7% and 7.8% are qualitatively similar amounts. What level of accuracy do they expect people to estimate such numbers with?
niels_olson 5y ago
Actual paper here: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015
forrestthewoods 5y ago
I hate quintile mobility as a metric and don't think it should be used. Quintile mobility is zero sum. It's impossible for anyone to move up without someone else moving down. I don't want people in the upper middle quintile to go down. But I also want people in the lower quintiles to move up. To upper middle if not top. Neither wealth nor income is zero sum. Zero sum analyses are therefore not useful IMHO.
black_13 5y ago
And maybe this the wrong question to ask „to be wealthy“. Maybe there is another question to ask. That no matter how bad off you are you can still live?
jfrunyon 5y ago
Honestly, this should be surprising to basically nobody who's actually paying attention.
anovikov 5y ago
Main takeaway is that upward social mobility in all of these countries is extremely, dangerously high to the point of making society hardly functional at all. It should be extremely hard to get from bottom to the top, or people who are at the top will not care about things in society for the long term - coz why if their children will most probably be poor again anyway? And they are those who actually make decisions.
mitchbob 5y ago
Archived: https://archive.ph/EsTD4 https://archive.ph/EsTD4
atlgator 5y ago
Why don't they say what the quintiles are in dollars?
- bertil 5y ago
  The information is in the original papers. If they wanted to give relevant information, they’d have to give twenty to forty numbers: one for each country, upper and lower bar, for previous generation and the current one, in currency (and the Euro has been introduced in several countries) for and likely offer inflation-corrected, purchase-power index, etc. The Economist has a strict rule about offering as simple infographics as possible and this has generally served them well.
epgui 5y ago
American hacker news commenters clearly in full denial is as funny as it is sad.
gnicholas 5y ago
If you're interested in social mobility, I'd highly recommend the recent book The Meritocracy Trap. [1] The author, a Yale Law professor, talks about how aristocracy has been largely replaced by meritocracy in the US, and what the consequences are for both middle class and elites. His takeaway is that there is a yawning gap opening up between middle class and elites, and that neither group is well-served by this gap. The middle class have less mobility than before, at least when it comes to achieving super-elite levels. And the elite class work themselves to death and prompt their children to do the same. 1: https://www.amazon.com/Meritocracy-Trap-Foundational-Inequality-Dismantles/dp/0735221995 https://www.amazon.com/Meritocracy-Trap-Foundational-Inequal...
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
Interesting - I posted a comment that referenced this exact same link 4 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29485673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29485673 This article is from 2018 and the comment got no upvotes. Strange little bubble here on HN.
hintymad 5y ago
From Taleb's book Skin in the Game: Consider that about ten percent of Americans will spend at least a year in the top one percent and more than half of all Americans will spent a year in the top ten percent. This is visibly not the same for the more static –but nominally more equal –Europe. For instance, only ten percent of the wealthiest five hundred American people or dynasties were so thirty years ago; more than sixty percent of those on the French list were heirs and a third of the richest Europeans were the richest centuries ago. In Florence, it was just revealed that things are really even worse: the same handful of families have kept the wealth for five centuries.

216 points by ipeefreely 5y ago

How different is the top quintile of earnings between countries? For example (made up numbers), if the top quintile in the UK earn $100k and the top quintile in the US earn $400k, it's not really the same comparison to move from the bottom to the top. Going from earning $20k to $100k is going to be different than going from $20k to $400k. I suspect the top is higher in the US.

ralph84 5y ago

The elite don't really care if the poor and middle class trade places with each other. They don't even care if the middle class disappears entirely. They just absolutely do not want the poor or middle class joining them in the elite, so they've made sure the system will prevent that.

jwommack 5y ago

Things of possible note: * This is a survey published in 2018 with (survey) data gathered in two months of 2016 * mobility data comes from a different source for each country and they vary wildly in the period covered. Notable Italy and US data is post 2008 and the others pre 2008. Looks like there’s as much as a 12 year difference in child earning data across countries. * sample characteristics (the income question mentioned in other posts, not clear these are used for quintiles): * US 20k, 20-40k, 40-70k, 70k+ * UK £1.5k/mo, £1.5-2.5k/mo, £2.5-3k/mo, £3k+/mo * FR (UK ranges but €) * IT <€(?)1.5k/mo, 1.5-2.45k/mo, 2.45-3.35k/mo, 3.35k+/mo * SE (SEK) <33k/mo, 33-42k/mo, 42-58k/mo, 58k+/mo * population samples per bracket differ most between US and EU, EU comparisons are pretty similar. Nearly 2x income bracket 1 pop and sample % in EU(.27-.33) vs US (.16/.18) * From what I’ve found 2004 (UK data) £ conversion rate to USD was ~1.9. (2012)€ was ~1.34. USD and Italy are from 2011-2012, a 2012 $ is 0.82¢ in 2004 $s. So 70k=57.6k and £3000/mo=04$68.4k=12$83.1k, €3000/mo=12$46.8k * age dist differs non-UK EU has fewer under 30.(~.2 vs .27) So the lowest UK rate is ~2x the lowest US rate, the US rate is a smaller portion of the pop/sample, and the US upper rate is nearly 1.5-2x of the sample as the Non-US (.39 vs .17-26). The EU top rate is ~0.56 the US top rate when converted to $ using 2012 numbers. There’s also another important dynamic here. 2011-2012 was the European debt crisis. Italy, in particular, saw a big unemployment spike over the course of the selected years. [the study](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015)

foolzcrow 5y ago

Lies promoted to divide us.

ipeefreely 5y ago

Social mobility is really hard to measure, but all else equal, I think America is the best place in the world for a poor person to become filthy rich (top 0.1%) but not the best place in the world for a poor person to simply transition to middle/upper class.

klabb3 5y ago
Note the denominator in this statement. The poor -> middle class transition is relevant for a huge amount of people, and the poor -> filthy rich is relevant to such a small number of people I don't even know a single soul alive who made that transition, despite billionaires being very public figures.
Bukhmanizer 5y ago
I really would like to see some statistics about this. I have a feeling that many people will agree with you, simply because 1. the American "rags to riches" story is one that the media bombards people with over and over again 2. Lots of people simply lie about the circumstances they come from
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bigdict 5y ago
Basically literally a lottery.
atoav 5y ago
I think it would be easier to become "filthy rich" for a poor person when they start in a nation with free healthcare and education. Because both of those things have a big chance of impacting your poor person's career lastingly if they don't have luck. Most of the 0.1% inherited their wealth or at least came from an well educated background.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  > I think it would be easier to become "filthy rich" for a poor person when they start in a nation with free healthcare and education. Poor people in USA have both free healthcare and education. If they're willing to fill-out some forms. Edit: Yes, contrary to the popular belief, poor people in USA do, in fact, get free health care and education.

hhs 5y ago

This gives more context: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20162015 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20162015

VictorPath 5y ago
> redistribution Of course the real redistribution is the expropriation of the fruits of surplus labor time by those who work to heirs who do not. Redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  It seems odd to couch redistribution of income within capitalist systems in Marxist terms like “redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value”, as though the funds being redistributed will have been taken exclusively from the owners of the means of production. They’re not. The vast majority of net contributors to the system are workers. These policies just take money from some workers and give them to other workers.
  - VictorPath 5y ago
    > Marxist terms like “redistribution in this context is giving value back to the workers who created that value” The notion that created wealth is made by workers is not one that Marx credits to himself, but to another revolutionary - Benjamin Franklin.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

echelon 5y ago

America is being attacked by pervasive narratives like this. News rags the whole world over are shitting on us, meanwhile authoritarian regimes are rising to power. It's a narrative dismantling, and we're being played like fools. America is still the best country in the world to start a business and take risks. America still has more freedoms (speech especially) than most of the world. (Side note: The left wants to put more restrictions on speech, which is horrible, because Republicans will swing back into power and use it in the other direction.) America holds NATO together. Europeans don't give us enough credit. And they're replete with their own crises to always be pointing the finger. We need more unity. This division by ideology and class is giving us short sightedness and blunting our ability to make sound investments in the future. Globalism is something that should be reevaluated. Our capital is being invested into the capabilities of rivals, and it doesn't pay dividends. Americans have been turned into buyers of cheap plastic goods, and we've lost the ability to make our own critical components and wares. Huge mistake, driven in part by these narratives. We're optimists, but the media is telling us not to be. They want us to yell at each other and drive ourselves into the dirt.

Waterluvian 5y ago
Don’t blame the teacher for poor grades and don’t excuse poor grades by pointing out the mediocre students.
blown_gasket 5y ago
'America is still the best country in the world to start a business and take risks'. Do you have any data to back this up? I'm purely curious. Note you didn't state, 'and make an insanely large sum of money there', so I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more countries where it would be a good choice. 'America has more freedoms than most of the world'. What is in parenthesis is a sweeping generalization and what are you defining as 'most of the world'. I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the NATO statement in relation to social mobility. Frankly I'm not sure what is perverse about this article. Isn't it called the American Dream for a reason?
systemvoltage 5y ago
I'd just like to point out one thing I've noticed quite a bit and would love Europeans to chime in - that is - European exceptionalism. We, Americans, were known for American exceptionalism but that has eroded to a point where I haven't heard a single good thing about America in the last decade or so. We're shameful and contemptful of our nation. Slightest positive thing is considered nationalistic and right-wing, so we've become accustomed to similar mindset as the Germans post-WWII with regards to nationalism. But, I am seeing some rise of European exceptionalism and wonder if things have changed over in Europe? Is it more united? Even small things like '.eu' domain is proudly used. I'd be damned if I use '.us' domain. Just a small example of many. About the only time I see HackerNews coming together is when we talk about semiconductor industry in USA. There is a sense of optimism to invest in US semiconductor industry - but it is short lived.

golemiprague 5y ago

Why it compares just one type of mobility from the very bottom to the very top? Shouldn't it change all the stages in between? Also, assuming we always have the same bell curve of wealth distribution what does it matter who is where? Assuming some poor guy became rich, if the bell curve stays the same it means also that someone else dropped to become poor, so overall, what is the point? If you say the point is that having the opportunity encourage people to work and that in itself improves the situation for everyone then the American optimism is more valuable, even if it is not true.

chrisseaton 5y ago

Seems to fundamentally confuse social mobility and financial mobility? Simply earning more doesn't move your social class.

sremani 5y ago
Correct. A freelance jurno making $40K in NYC has more social status than a Plumber with his own LLC making half a million a year. The former is closer to the cultural elite and the later is 'blue collar'.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
It lets you buy ambassadorships and climb via the political patronage system.

jackcosgrove 5y ago

The article measures mobility based on one's percentile movement across the income distribution. There are more rungs to climb in the US because there's a wider income range, whereas in Europe income differences are compressed. The same income increase in absolute terms gets you more social mobility in Europe than in the US. I'm initially skeptical of studies that imply large-scale misunderstanding among the public about their own lives; here that Americans are too optimistic and Europeans are too pessimistic. I'm sure there's some truth to it, but it's not the whole story. The conclusion of the article is in part a reflection of the methodology.

notacoward 5y ago
> there's a wider income range ...and that's why such comparisons should be done using percentiles instead of absolute values. Which they did. > The conclusion of the article is in part a reflection of the methodology. The biggest methodological flaw points in quite a different direction than you seem to be suggesting. Change in percentile across the income distribution is less informative than change in percentile across the wealth distribution, and that should be the age adjusted wealth distribution as well. Comparing my retirement income to somebody who's still working is practically useless. Comparing it to what my age peers have in the bank compared to when we were all much younger tells something close to the true story.
- twoodfin 5y ago
  Absolute is what matters. If 80% of your society is earning between $60k and $90k, a quintile jump around the middle is small compared to a similar shift in a $40k to $180k society. Relative mobility doesn’t buy you a vacation home.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    > Absolute is what matters. Only from a purely acquisitive standpoint, but not with respect to social mobility which is the subject here. Also, study after study has shown that life satisfaction is more highly correlated with relative income or wealth than absolute. If we want to use science instead of personal preference to determine what matters, you're flatly wrong. > If 80% of your society is earning between $60k and $90K Why choose such an unrealistic example when a real one is right there? Seems suspect TBH. The real distribution is nowhere near as tightly clustered around the median, and is quite asymmetric with a much longer tail at the high end. Also, why only consider changes in the middle? A small percentile difference at either end can have a much larger effect on quality of life. > Relative mobility doesn’t buy you a vacation home. The difference between second and fourth quintile actually does mean something like that, and does so regardless of prices or inflation. Absolute values are the ones that become meaningless without the context of prices in a particular time and place. The house I'm sitting in right now as I write this (vs. the dumps I grew up in) is a pretty good testament to the difference between first and fifth quintile, but the price of the house doesn't matter a damn bit.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

I think perhaps the US makes it hard for a single person to move from bottom to top quintile. But I bet that the US is the country that makes it the easiest for you to be in the bottom quintile and have grandchildren in the top quintile. Basically, I think the US is likely the best for generational family mobility. I have seen this story many times with immigrants. The immigrants come over and work often very menial jobs. Their kids study hard and go to colleges and end up as white collar jobs. Their kids in turn (the grandkids) often go to elite colleges and end up with elite careers (lawyers, doctors, etc).

rowanajmarshall 5y ago
> Basically, I think the US is likely the best for generational family mobility. I have seen this story many times with immigrants What makes you think this doesn't happen so much in other countries?
- refurb 5y ago
  Because in many countries, you'll always be an outsider.
jeffbee 5y ago
Literally the entire point of the paper is that the U.S. has the worst intergenerational bottom-to-top quintile probability among the five nations, U.K., France, Italy, and Sweden being the others, but Americans believe that the probability is much higher than it really is, as you have just amply demonstrated.
brandonmenc 5y ago
It's hard to convince large swathes of progressive America of this fact. Lots of possible cause/effect: child-free lifestyles, exalting the even modestly well-off who choose to leave their children nothing, long-established families who have lost a living connection to their immigrant forebears, etc. "Families are always rising and falling in America."

rpmisms 5y ago

Social mobility is very different than economic mobility. It's not hugely difficult to earn six figures in the US if you're committed, work hard, and pick a good field. Heck, I did it without any college. Social mobility is a different story. I was raised in a rural area, which is essentially a social class of its own. Since becoming an adult, I've found myself gravitating towards working-class people. I like the bluntness, the awareness of real issues, and the family values. I make more money than many of the yuppies who live a mile away, but socially, I'm several rungs "below" them. I could get a nice haircut, mow my lawn properly, get divorced, and fit right in, if I chose to, but I don't want to. I think you'll find many lower-class Americans wouldn't, even if they knew how to. Edit: by "Working class", I mean blue-collar and not wealthy. The salary cap is a little higher than the traditional definition, but I think it's a more accurate representation of middle America.

baby 5y ago
Ah, survivor bias
- rpmisms 5y ago
  See my other replies, I'm aware of this, baby.
- mynameishere 5y ago
  Not even that. Just sheltered fool bias.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    I was running around my nearest city at age 14, looking for work. I got in fights at bus stops, got mugged once*, slept on benches when I missed a ride a couple of times. Sheltered, yes, ignorant, no. I know what being hungry is like, I remember how weird it was to wear brand-new clothes. I'm not complaining, it was all perfectly normal to me at the time, but I'm not talking down at the poors, I'm talking about who I am. *Mugged once and then learned how not to get mugged. People tried after that, didn't go well.

stavros 5y ago

I really liked this TED talk: Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? | Harald Eia | TEDxOslo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU

bluejekyll 5y ago
Thanks for sharing that. This all resonates well with my own beliefs, so I’m sure I’m biased. But good free education for everyone, automation to free up the lower rungs of the workforce and increase productivity, social safety net to make people less concerned about layoffs and work fluctuations. If only the wealthy supported these policies, they would be more wealthy!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

999900000999 5y ago

Social mobility is a very tricky thing. I think every person can succeed as long as they have the courage to cut off people who are counterproductive to that. For example, when I look at my own parents, they're simply self-destructive people who never took responsibility for any of their actions. Whenever I've needed to depend on anyone in my family. I've ultimately been let down, but when it comes to my own efforts. You know I got my own apartment when I was 19, and I've made six figures, despite a family member screwing me out of finishing college, by the time I was 25. It's very hard to cut off your own family though, but whatever situation your parents are in, that's the situation they're in. I did make the mistake of trying to save my family members, and it was a very costly mistake. They were perfectly fine with ruining the life I built for myself, up until I blocked most of them and just moved to a different city. Work hard and cut off lazy people. Don't get involved of anyone who doesn't want to work, outside of laziness being disgusting upon itself, these people tend to cause unlimited drama. A person who's finishing up their PhD, while working full time doesn't have time to cause problems. Someone who's 28 or 29 and still doesn't work has plenty of problem causing time. Once you understand this, and just to add, make sure if you're having trouble finding the right type of people where you live, you consider moving. I'm from LA, I've had so many strange situations created by people who I've alluded to above. The moment I left LA, I had a fantastic partner, and I've never had someone try to put me in a volatile situation since. All of this sad, I've been very lucky. Medical conditions I'd be screwed. All it takes is a single severe medical condition to financially ruin you, and then you can't afford treatment, in this country says good luck try a go fund me

fartcannon 5y ago
It's also not possible for everyone to succeed since it's a zero sum game. Therefore, you should be thanking the people who's life circumstances prevent them from learning to succeed and doubly you should thank your parents for raising you in a way that you were able to surpass them.
- bogota 5y ago
  How is it a zero sum game? I see this said a lot here without any proof? It this just taken as true and no proof is needed?

refurb 5y ago

Again, it's highly problematic defining mobility as "moving from bottom quintile to top quintile". - Moving from bottom quintile to 2nd highest is significant mobility and completely ignored in this analysis. - The analysis ignores the fact that the highest quintile in the US is higher in absolute terms than other countries. So moving from bottom to 4th may give more income than bottom to 5th in other countries. - This analysis also ignores the changes of income within quintiles. The 3rd quintile in 1980 isn't the same income in 2020. 3rd quintile could see significant income improvements. - This analysis also ignores government transfers. - Countries that have a lower income spread, but overall less income would do better.

jeffbee 5y ago
" - [blah blah ignorance] ignored in this analysis" Q1-Q4 mobility is not ignored, it's right there in Table 2 of the paper. For your information the U.S. is also worst among the five studied nations for Q1-Q4 mobility. Furthermore the U.S. is also worst for Q1-Q3. HTH.
- dataflow 5y ago
  The paper isn't linked in the article (I think the parent was referring to the article). I think you're referring to the paper here: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantcheva/files/alesina_stantcheva_teso_mobility.pdf#page=12 https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantcheva/files/alesina_s... Looking at it myself now, it doesn't seem like the US is all that different from the other countries examined, e.g. US 12.7% Q1->Q4 vs. 12.9% for UK vs. 12.8% for France. For Q1->Q3 it's somewhat higher (18.7% vs. 19.9% for UK for example) but for Q1->Q2 the US is also higher than the others (e.g., 27.7% US vs. 25.1% UK).
  - twoodfin 5y ago
    Indeed. Some quick digging came up with UK figures from 2019[1]: Average in Q1: £13,300 Average in Q4: £35,700 For US stats, Googling only got 2018 figures[2]: Average in Q1: $13,775 Average in Q4: $101,570 So there’s a big absolute distinction hiding behind those similar relative %’s. [1] https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-income/income-distribution/latest https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-... [2] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-...

jollybean 5y ago

This is valuable, but there's a giant caveat, in that if you were to do the study on the EU level, it would be much the same. Sweden is 10 million people, arguably more egalitarian, but moving from <25% to >75% in Sweden is not nearly the same thing as going from the <25% of EU (say, most of the population of Romania) to >75% of EU. Swedes at the 25% mark are probably in the 75% percentile for Romania already. Obviously there is more to it, but it's a tricky comparison.

serverlessmom 5y ago

I would be interested in seeing more numbers about where the optimism in American citizens starts to deviate based on what privileged statuses the person holds. If I had to make an educated guess I would posit that white Americans and those who are from older generations are going to be more optimistic about upwards economic and therefore social mobility.

twobitshifter 5y ago

I think the first step is to admit we have a problem. People don’t like the United States being labeled as anything less than exceptional. If you look at the Amazon workers, Uber drivers, door dashers, etc in this country it’s amazing how hard people can work and not get ahead. 2nd and 3rd jobs can be necessary to just make ends meet. The story that hard work is all it takes in America does need to be questioned.

rsynnott 5y ago
> People don’t like the United States being labeled as anything less than exceptional. I mean, it _is_ exceptional. Americans, per the article, are exceptionally overly optimistic about social mobility.
vmception 5y ago
Talk with any patriotic person and you'll quickly notice that American exceptionalism relies on comparing the United States to the worst countries in the world and ignoring the existence of other developed nations. Eventually followed by "well at least we can talk about it, unlike <authoritative country where people disappear>" and so therefore all indiscretions must be absolved and ignorable since we have the "unique" ability to criticize the government at all, which isn't unique or exceptional or a well implemented vehicle of change.
- danaris 5y ago
  ...or, worse, when a comparison with another developed country is brought up, its successes are simply rejected as the result of eeeeevil socialism, which destroys freedom, don't you know.
  - vmception 5y ago
    or a generic assumption of high taxes in a completely different tax system, while not understanding their own tax system
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

The overestimation of social mobility is what explains the people at the bottom voting for governments that promote policies like trickle-down economics that only ever benefit the people at the top. This is my experience in Australia, which isn't as far along in the progression towards uber-capitalism as the US.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Voting is a package deal and it's quite obvious that westerners outside of the US have close to zero understanding of cultural issues, especially abortion. They'll whine about it but they never understand that for quite a large segment of the group they keep calling stupid, abortion is the wholesale slaughter of millions of babies year after year. This is not a shallow belief. It is deeply held for these people. If you don't view abortion that way, you'll just call them stupid and add it to your list of things you feel superior to them about and continue to not understand them in the slightest. Which leads people to make statements such as the one you did about people making irrational fiscal related votes when that might not have even been in their top five issues. Until you can understand the abortion issue beyond the glib dismissive "they want to control women's bodies" you will continue to not understand the people you are talking about. That understanding might not be important to you but if it is, then you must not reduce them to whatever single variable judgement you want to extrapolate into matching your viewpoint, especially when that single variable might not be of high importance to them.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  My comment is in direct relation to a handful of people (data points) I've had conversations with who've specifically chosen based on this as a primary issue - both voting _for_ one party touting said trickle-down, and _against_ a party offering an alternative. I genuinely try (although admittedly regularly fail) to avoid making generalisations as you are alluding to. I happen to support a legal right to abortion, but I also understand why people don't like it. Let democracy decide. Let science provide research facts and figures. Let religions have their doctrines.

xiphias2 5y ago

Don't high earner immigrants skew the results heavily? When I moved to Switzerland as a software engineer, I was considered a high earner, at the same time I didn't feel high on the social ladder as I was a foreigner.

thepasswordis 5y ago

Regardless of how much money I make, none of my friends went to Stanford, I grew up in a boring town in a boring part of the world, and I made my money in an “unglamorous” industry. I could make $10B. I still wouldn’t reach the top level of class. Maybe my kids kids will. Here’s an attempt to say something positive about this: you guys should try to seek out those unglamorous industries, usually in unglamorous parts of the country, with people who have unglamorous ideas about the world. Many of them unglamorously PRINT money using 1980s technology and will happily pay you whatever you ask them if you can help them do that more efficiently. There’s a good chance you can, because nobody else is really even trying.

bluedays 5y ago
Cool, like where?
mehphp 5y ago
Do you have an example of this? I’m intrigued
TuringNYC 5y ago
>> I could make $10B. I still wouldn’t reach the top level of class. Maybe my kids kids will. Is there really anyone wrong with this? If you and your family are happy, and your needs are met, and clearly you have options -- does anyone else's definition of class really matter?
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  When our elected leaders and law enforces listen to the upper class(s) instead of everyone equally then yes, it matters.
  - eikenberry 5y ago
    So you're saying that the defining aspect of being upper class is how much you bribe politicians?

ummonk 5y ago

That’s not a major overestimate. 11.7% and 7.8% are qualitatively similar amounts. What level of accuracy do they expect people to estimate such numbers with?

niels_olson 5y ago

Actual paper here: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20162015

forrestthewoods 5y ago

I hate quintile mobility as a metric and don't think it should be used. Quintile mobility is zero sum. It's impossible for anyone to move up without someone else moving down. I don't want people in the upper middle quintile to go down. But I also want people in the lower quintiles to move up. To upper middle if not top. Neither wealth nor income is zero sum. Zero sum analyses are therefore not useful IMHO.

black_13 5y ago

And maybe this the wrong question to ask „to be wealthy“. Maybe there is another question to ask. That no matter how bad off you are you can still live?

jfrunyon 5y ago

Honestly, this should be surprising to basically nobody who's actually paying attention.

anovikov 5y ago

Main takeaway is that upward social mobility in all of these countries is extremely, dangerously high to the point of making society hardly functional at all. It should be extremely hard to get from bottom to the top, or people who are at the top will not care about things in society for the long term - coz why if their children will most probably be poor again anyway? And they are those who actually make decisions.

mitchbob 5y ago

Archived: https://archive.ph/EsTD4 https://archive.ph/EsTD4

atlgator 5y ago

Why don't they say what the quintiles are in dollars?

bertil 5y ago
The information is in the original papers. If they wanted to give relevant information, they’d have to give twenty to forty numbers: one for each country, upper and lower bar, for previous generation and the current one, in currency (and the Euro has been introduced in several countries) for and likely offer inflation-corrected, purchase-power index, etc. The Economist has a strict rule about offering as simple infographics as possible and this has generally served them well.

epgui 5y ago

American hacker news commenters clearly in full denial is as funny as it is sad.

gnicholas 5y ago

If you're interested in social mobility, I'd highly recommend the recent book The Meritocracy Trap. [1] The author, a Yale Law professor, talks about how aristocracy has been largely replaced by meritocracy in the US, and what the consequences are for both middle class and elites. His takeaway is that there is a yawning gap opening up between middle class and elites, and that neither group is well-served by this gap. The middle class have less mobility than before, at least when it comes to achieving super-elite levels. And the elite class work themselves to death and prompt their children to do the same. 1: https://www.amazon.com/Meritocracy-Trap-Foundational-Inequality-Dismantles/dp/0735221995 https://www.amazon.com/Meritocracy-Trap-Foundational-Inequal...

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago

Interesting - I posted a comment that referenced this exact same link 4 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29485673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29485673 This article is from 2018 and the comment got no upvotes. Strange little bubble here on HN.

hintymad 5y ago

From Taleb's book Skin in the Game: Consider that about ten percent of Americans will spend at least a year in the top one percent and more than half of all Americans will spent a year in the top ten percent. This is visibly not the same for the more static –but nominally more equal –Europe. For instance, only ten percent of the wealthiest five hundred American people or dynasties were so thirty years ago; more than sixty percent of those on the French list were heirs and a third of the richest Europeans were the richest centuries ago. In Florence, it was just revealed that things are really even worse: the same handful of families have kept the wealth for five centuries.