3 ms·
For people unable to look at the source, here is a direct copy of the chart in question: http://i.imgur.com/DV5JZ.png http://i.imgur.com/DV5JZ.png As you shou
by ansy 15y ago
For people unable to look at the source, here is a direct copy of the chart in question:
http://i.imgur.com/DV5JZ.png http://i.imgur.com/DV5JZ.png
As you should see, it's not really that simple to say "39% stay and 61% fall out." While technically correct, falling isn't equally distributed over the other quintiles. The children of the top quintile are only 9% likely to fall in the bottom quintile and the children of the bottom quintile are only 6% likely to rise to the top quintile.
And really, the top comment was trying to claim the parents migrated income brackets. The numbers here are about children inheriting the incomes of their parents. This data strongly suggests the wealth gains over the past decade are in fact concentrated in the already wealthy. Not only that, but it shows the concentration of wealth has momentum that lasts for generations.
The United States today still has tremendous opportunity for income mobility compared to many other parts of the world and other parts of history. But these articles are showing a disturbing trend that this may not be sustainable.
- learc83 15y agoChildren learn most of their behavior from their parents, 58% of poor children performing better than their parents sounds like a good number when you look at it that way. I only said there was a 58% chance they'd rise out of poverty, by which I meant they'd rise out of the bottom quintile. I think that being born dirt poor, and moving into not dirt poor is a very good goal for the majority of people. Also 6% of people born into poverty eventually make it to the top quintile, that's higher than I would have expected. We shouldn't pretend that wealth doesn't give huge natural advantages, but we also shouldn't pretend that we are going to be able to eliminate those advantages without eliminating wealth.