5 ms·

Excellent! 200 years ago escaping poverty was not possible, 100 years ago it took a couple generations and now a mere 20 years.

millzlane 3y ago
Yea we're pretty privileged compared to our stoneage relatives.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  200 years ago is far beyond stone age.
  - j45 3y ago
    Imagine how storage we will be in 20,100 and 200 years :)
Paul-Craft 3y ago
You realize you're actually not really saying anything here, right? After spending 1/4 of one's life going to school, then (if one is lucky) another 1/4 of one's life working, and another 1/4 of one's life in old age, there's not very much life left to live. Putting it more concretely, the US ranks 27th on the Global Social Mobility Index. That's great, if you're cool with hanging out with Latvia, Spain, Poland, and Cyprus. But, why do that, when you can be Denmark? The benefits are clear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index#Global_Social_Mobility_Index_(2020)_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index#G...) But I guess that just doesn't make enough money for the shareholders or something.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  1) What's the cost of Denmark's social mobility? We already have a fairly progressive tax system in the US, what does Denmark do differently and to whom does it cost? 2) What's the benefit? (Note that although a rising tide floats all boats, it is unfortunately impossible to imagine the world that would result if opportunity was equitable) I'm not arguing against it, I'm just saying it boils down to those things.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    The better question is: what's the cost of the US's lack of social mobility. (A partial answer to this is in the wiki link in my comment, FYI. You should read it.) When you say "cost," it doesn't always mean dollars and cents. Honestly, who cares if shareholders have a few less dollars in their pockets if everyone else is better off as a result? That's the real problem, not realizing that dollars and cents aren't the be all and end all of everything.
    - pmarreck 3y ago
      You're right. Value is measured not just in cash.
- Eumenes 3y ago
  Most of the countries 1-27 are homogeneous nations with populations below 5 million. They all have low wages too. The floor is raised a bit but the ceiling is lowered massively for what you can acheive. I don't want to live in a capped society. The US affords more opportunity; plain and simple. Look at the millions of people trying to get in every day, and the biggest foreign tech work force in the world.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    How are low wages a problem? Affordability is the problem, and in at least the top 20, it seems the affordability situation regarding housing, healthcare, and the other basics of life (see, e.g. the bottom levels of Maslow's heirarchy) are all accessible to everyone. You do also realize that you're saying the US somehow affords more opportunity than the 26 other countries that rank above it on the Global Social Mobility Index? I don't think you've fully understood the concept here.
    - floor2 3y ago
      Limiting opportunity is directly causal to a higher social mobility index though. Preventing people from earning high wages or accumulating wealth will directly increase that metric. A country where everyone is in extreme poverty could have the top score for social mobility.
    - Eumenes 3y ago
      I like my high wage. I would get paid half of what I got paid today if I lived in one of those places, if not less. Why would I want that? I have everything I want here and more. I already pay high taxes too. > Global Social Mobility Index Look at the attributes that make up the index, they aren't objective like you're making them out to be. Also, its from the WEF, an organization that has a contentious reputation.
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Have you consider perhaps that you aren't the center of the universe, and that there are millions of other people who are worse off than you? That if those people were better off, even at your personal expense, then that would be a better society to live in? Your comments are all "me me me," and I don't see any reason why "we we we" should assign any weight to them.
- floor2 3y ago
  "Social Mobility Index" always seems like a particularly weird metric to me. Not just in the usual issues of vanity metrics or gaming the system or whatnot, but also because, I'm not sure that maximizing it is even a desirable outcome. It's a weird measure of like, societal churn. I'd much rather look at quality of life metrics across all citizens than just check if the outcomes of children are uncorrelated to their parents decisions.
xkekjrktllss 3y ago
20 years with nearly nothing going wrong
j45 3y ago
It’s probably different for different areas of the world
jhp123 3y ago
what makes you think so? Andrew Carnegie was born to Scottish laborers 190 years ago, he seemed to escape pretty well.

millzlane 3y ago

Yea we're pretty privileged compared to our stoneage relatives.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
200 years ago is far beyond stone age.
- j45 3y ago
  Imagine how storage we will be in 20,100 and 200 years :)

Paul-Craft 3y ago

You realize you're actually not really saying anything here, right? After spending 1/4 of one's life going to school, then (if one is lucky) another 1/4 of one's life working, and another 1/4 of one's life in old age, there's not very much life left to live. Putting it more concretely, the US ranks 27th on the Global Social Mobility Index. That's great, if you're cool with hanging out with Latvia, Spain, Poland, and Cyprus. But, why do that, when you can be Denmark? The benefits are clear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index#Global_Social_Mobility_Index_(2020)_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index#G...) But I guess that just doesn't make enough money for the shareholders or something.

pmarreck 3y ago
1) What's the cost of Denmark's social mobility? We already have a fairly progressive tax system in the US, what does Denmark do differently and to whom does it cost? 2) What's the benefit? (Note that although a rising tide floats all boats, it is unfortunately impossible to imagine the world that would result if opportunity was equitable) I'm not arguing against it, I'm just saying it boils down to those things.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  The better question is: what's the cost of the US's lack of social mobility. (A partial answer to this is in the wiki link in my comment, FYI. You should read it.) When you say "cost," it doesn't always mean dollars and cents. Honestly, who cares if shareholders have a few less dollars in their pockets if everyone else is better off as a result? That's the real problem, not realizing that dollars and cents aren't the be all and end all of everything.
  - pmarreck 3y ago
    You're right. Value is measured not just in cash.
Eumenes 3y ago
Most of the countries 1-27 are homogeneous nations with populations below 5 million. They all have low wages too. The floor is raised a bit but the ceiling is lowered massively for what you can acheive. I don't want to live in a capped society. The US affords more opportunity; plain and simple. Look at the millions of people trying to get in every day, and the biggest foreign tech work force in the world.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  How are low wages a problem? Affordability is the problem, and in at least the top 20, it seems the affordability situation regarding housing, healthcare, and the other basics of life (see, e.g. the bottom levels of Maslow's heirarchy) are all accessible to everyone. You do also realize that you're saying the US somehow affords more opportunity than the 26 other countries that rank above it on the Global Social Mobility Index? I don't think you've fully understood the concept here.
  - floor2 3y ago
    Limiting opportunity is directly causal to a higher social mobility index though. Preventing people from earning high wages or accumulating wealth will directly increase that metric. A country where everyone is in extreme poverty could have the top score for social mobility.
  - Eumenes 3y ago
    I like my high wage. I would get paid half of what I got paid today if I lived in one of those places, if not less. Why would I want that? I have everything I want here and more. I already pay high taxes too. > Global Social Mobility Index Look at the attributes that make up the index, they aren't objective like you're making them out to be. Also, its from the WEF, an organization that has a contentious reputation.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      Have you consider perhaps that you aren't the center of the universe, and that there are millions of other people who are worse off than you? That if those people were better off, even at your personal expense, then that would be a better society to live in? Your comments are all "me me me," and I don't see any reason why "we we we" should assign any weight to them.
floor2 3y ago
"Social Mobility Index" always seems like a particularly weird metric to me. Not just in the usual issues of vanity metrics or gaming the system or whatnot, but also because, I'm not sure that maximizing it is even a desirable outcome. It's a weird measure of like, societal churn. I'd much rather look at quality of life metrics across all citizens than just check if the outcomes of children are uncorrelated to their parents decisions.

xkekjrktllss 3y ago

20 years with nearly nothing going wrong

j45 3y ago

It’s probably different for different areas of the world

jhp123 3y ago

what makes you think so? Andrew Carnegie was born to Scottish laborers 190 years ago, he seemed to escape pretty well.