5 ms·

While not strictly zero-sum, my understanding is that in order to have upward mobility, you must also have some downward mobility.

by Arubis 5y ago

DarylZero 5y ago
It is strictly zero-sum the way mobility is normally defined. It's actually a misnomer, "upward mobility" -- it's all "mobility".
iso1210 5y ago
Only 10% of the population can be in the top 10% of wealth at any time. What's more important for the majority is how good life is at the bottom half than the top. You're far more likely to get knocked into the bottom 10%, and especially the bottom 50%, than get into the top 10%.
- toomanydoubts 5y ago
  Depends where you are. In Brazil, making enough to live with dignity puts you in top 5%
- adventured 5y ago
  > You're far more likely to get knocked into the bottom 10%, and especially the bottom 50%, than get into the top 10%. The odds don't say that at all necessarily. That entirely depends on you, your competency, your circumstances, the random events in your life. Depending on who and what you are, your odds can be dramatically better that you will end up in the top 10% than that you will end up in the bottom 50%. All people are not created equal and are obviously not born into equal circumstances. It invalidates the premise of applying detached likelihoods (detached from the person they're supposed to apply to) to such a concept entirely. A simple example is Bill Gates. The odds were radically better that he'd end up in the top 10% than in the bottom 50%, based on his traits and circumstances growing up. The same goes for Paul Allen, even though he came from a different economic background than Gates; his attributes, circumstances growing up and chosen professional field heavily tilted the odds toward top 10% rather than bottom 50%. You have to know enough about the person you're talking about, if you want to have some glimmer of insight at the odds in question.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    The average person would be at the 50% line. Vast majority of people are closer to the bottom 50% than the top 10%. Sure if you're born into a family at the 85% range then you're closer to the top 10%. 85% people are not born into that range though.
lettergram 5y ago
I believe it was Yeonmi Park - a North Korean defector - who said (on Joe Rogan’s podcast) how surprised and in a sense happy she was to see homeless. Effectively, you can’t have upward mobility unless you let people fail (and id argue many homeless choose that life style, based on my experience working with them). She explained in North Korea there are no homeless, everyone is equally poor. Highly recommend listening to a talk with her. Truly eye opening
- mistrial9 5y ago
  interesting but also delusional -- disease and preventable misery skyrockets among the "homeless" in the USA meanwhile, how difficult is stability, especially in high-tech tracks? amazingly stupid in some ways, to declare a victory with skyrocketing homelessness in modern streets
- sumnole 5y ago
  You don't need homeless to have upward mobility. That there are homeless means the consequences of failing are too high and the risk will have a repressive effect on society. People are much more likely to thrive and innovate when they have safe and secure living conditions.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    > consequences of failing are too high and the risk will have a repressive effect on society as a USA citizen I absolutely agree with this -- a rise in low-level legal cheating over money, and a marked decrease in arts and the lives of artists, are plainly visible now
- mattm 5y ago
  Don't agree with this at all. In fact, this seems like a very American point of view. There's plenty of poor countries where people are allowed to fail. It doesn't correlate to upwards mobility. Some of the richest people - Gates, Bezos, Buffett - were able to become that way because they had a safety net provided by their parents. They were able to take risks knowing they wouldn't become destitute if it didn't work out.
mrkentutbabi 5y ago
This is interesting, any article that you can give me?
savant_penguin 5y ago
This is nonsense If everyone makes $10 more a day there is no ""mobility"" in the percentage sense, but everyone is better off. If you ask a hobo that makes $0 a day, he certainly perceives an upgrade
- swader999 5y ago
  And if bread rises to $100 a loaf?
  - cerved 5y ago
    That would suck but that's not how inflation works
    - jkepler 5y ago
      Its how it worked in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, in Argentina in the 1980s, Zimbabwe after 2011, and in Venezuela in recent years. Especially if you look at bond market yield curves going negative, and consider that massively indebted governments don't have any politically viable options to solve their debt problem other than default through massive inflation. It could totally happen. Governments don't have a good option.
      - cerved 5y ago
        If everyone's wealth increased by $10 because they produced $10, the price of a loaf doesn't magically become $100. You're mixing up monetary policy with macroeconomics. Though often correlated to a degree, they are not the same. The Weimar republic adding zeroes to the DM is not the same as wage increase due to economic growth
  - savant_penguin 5y ago
    Then the hobo is fucked However, inflation does not derive from poor people making more money. It comes from insane government spending. Of course, if you try to achieve better life conditions through government spending you can end up with bread at $100.

While not strictly zero-sum, my understanding is that in order to have upward mobility, you must also have some downward mobility.

by Arubis 5y ago

While not strictly zero-sum, my understanding is that in order to have upward mobility, you must also have some downward mobility.

DarylZero 5y ago

It is strictly zero-sum the way mobility is normally defined. It's actually a misnomer, "upward mobility" -- it's all "mobility".

iso1210 5y ago

Only 10% of the population can be in the top 10% of wealth at any time. What's more important for the majority is how good life is at the bottom half than the top. You're far more likely to get knocked into the bottom 10%, and especially the bottom 50%, than get into the top 10%.

toomanydoubts 5y ago
Depends where you are. In Brazil, making enough to live with dignity puts you in top 5%
adventured 5y ago
> You're far more likely to get knocked into the bottom 10%, and especially the bottom 50%, than get into the top 10%. The odds don't say that at all necessarily. That entirely depends on you, your competency, your circumstances, the random events in your life. Depending on who and what you are, your odds can be dramatically better that you will end up in the top 10% than that you will end up in the bottom 50%. All people are not created equal and are obviously not born into equal circumstances. It invalidates the premise of applying detached likelihoods (detached from the person they're supposed to apply to) to such a concept entirely. A simple example is Bill Gates. The odds were radically better that he'd end up in the top 10% than in the bottom 50%, based on his traits and circumstances growing up. The same goes for Paul Allen, even though he came from a different economic background than Gates; his attributes, circumstances growing up and chosen professional field heavily tilted the odds toward top 10% rather than bottom 50%. You have to know enough about the person you're talking about, if you want to have some glimmer of insight at the odds in question.
- iso1210 5y ago
  The average person would be at the 50% line. Vast majority of people are closer to the bottom 50% than the top 10%. Sure if you're born into a family at the 85% range then you're closer to the top 10%. 85% people are not born into that range though.

lettergram 5y ago

I believe it was Yeonmi Park - a North Korean defector - who said (on Joe Rogan’s podcast) how surprised and in a sense happy she was to see homeless. Effectively, you can’t have upward mobility unless you let people fail (and id argue many homeless choose that life style, based on my experience working with them). She explained in North Korea there are no homeless, everyone is equally poor. Highly recommend listening to a talk with her. Truly eye opening

mistrial9 5y ago
interesting but also delusional -- disease and preventable misery skyrockets among the "homeless" in the USA meanwhile, how difficult is stability, especially in high-tech tracks? amazingly stupid in some ways, to declare a victory with skyrocketing homelessness in modern streets
sumnole 5y ago
You don't need homeless to have upward mobility. That there are homeless means the consequences of failing are too high and the risk will have a repressive effect on society. People are much more likely to thrive and innovate when they have safe and secure living conditions.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  > consequences of failing are too high and the risk will have a repressive effect on society as a USA citizen I absolutely agree with this -- a rise in low-level legal cheating over money, and a marked decrease in arts and the lives of artists, are plainly visible now
mattm 5y ago
Don't agree with this at all. In fact, this seems like a very American point of view. There's plenty of poor countries where people are allowed to fail. It doesn't correlate to upwards mobility. Some of the richest people - Gates, Bezos, Buffett - were able to become that way because they had a safety net provided by their parents. They were able to take risks knowing they wouldn't become destitute if it didn't work out.

mrkentutbabi 5y ago

This is interesting, any article that you can give me?

savant_penguin 5y ago

This is nonsense If everyone makes $10 more a day there is no ""mobility"" in the percentage sense, but everyone is better off. If you ask a hobo that makes $0 a day, he certainly perceives an upgrade

swader999 5y ago
And if bread rises to $100 a loaf?
- cerved 5y ago
  That would suck but that's not how inflation works
  - jkepler 5y ago
    Its how it worked in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, in Argentina in the 1980s, Zimbabwe after 2011, and in Venezuela in recent years. Especially if you look at bond market yield curves going negative, and consider that massively indebted governments don't have any politically viable options to solve their debt problem other than default through massive inflation. It could totally happen. Governments don't have a good option.
    - cerved 5y ago
      If everyone's wealth increased by $10 because they produced $10, the price of a loaf doesn't magically become $100. You're mixing up monetary policy with macroeconomics. Though often correlated to a degree, they are not the same. The Weimar republic adding zeroes to the DM is not the same as wage increase due to economic growth
- savant_penguin 5y ago
  Then the hobo is fucked However, inflation does not derive from poor people making more money. It comes from insane government spending. Of course, if you try to achieve better life conditions through government spending you can end up with bread at $100.