9 ms·

The American Dream, RIP?

78 points by soundsop 13y ago

tokenadult 13y ago
I've read various reviews of Tyler Cowen's new book (and I read his blog, very occasionally). I'm not worried about what he is worried about. I have lived overseas, twice. I'm back in the United States because the joint conclusion of my family (including my wife, who grew up in another country) is that the United States still offers us, and millions of other people, a whole lot of opportunity for personal advancement that is hard to find in other countries, even thriving, developed countries that also have representative government, a free press, and broad protection of individual liberties. The death of the middle class in the United States has been predicted for a long time, but middle-class Americans still look like rich people in most other countries. The whole economy has been transformed over the last century (my uncle farms land that was first developed into a farm by my grandfather a century ago, when a large percentage of the United States population were farmers), but people are still mostly employed, and living in larger, more comfortable houses, eating better, and living longer[1] than ever. What is called decline in the United States looks a lot like progress anywhere else in the world. People are still very eager to immigrate to the United States,[2] so what exactly is the problem? [1] An article in a series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past 150 years. Here’s why." http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_... Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout the developed countries of the world. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-why-we-die-global-life-expectancy http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-w... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/232-million-people-left-their-countries-for-new-ones-where-did-they-go/279741/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/232... http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-life.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-drea... AFTER EDIT: I've still got time to edit this comment, so I'll respond to the people who think I am ignoring important trend lines. I respectfully disagree. (Note that I am well known here on Hacker News for saying that United States K-12 education needs improvement, so I am by no means saying that there is nothing left to improve, or nothing to worry about, here.) A funny comment posted on Hacker News about Japan's "lost decade" (posted before I opened my user account here) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=329218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=329218 shows how difficult it is for a developed country to lose ground: It was terrible. People were forced to eat raw fish for sustenance. They couldn't get full-sized electronics, so they were forced to make tiny ones. Unable to afford proper entertainment, folks would make do by taking turns to get up and sing songs. I've grown up in the United States, and I've been hearing predictions of doom here throughout my life. Doom here still looks like heaven to most people in most parts of the world.
- mjn 13y ago
  a whole lot of opportunity for personal advancement that is hard to find in other countries, even thriving, developed countries that also have representative government, a free press, and broad protection of individual liberties. Out of curiosity, what kinds of things? I was born and raised in the U.S. (have lived in Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, and Atlanta), and now live in Copenhagen, and don't feel like I am missing a lot so far, apart from the general experience of foreignness occasionally being strange (might be ameliorated if I were better at learning Danish). If anything the opportunities for personal advancement feel somewhat stronger, due to the social safety net meaning you can start companies or nonprofits or whatever without worrying about ending up homeless or without healthcare. I'll probably move back at some point, but mostly just because it's where I'm from, not out of any particular dissatisfaction with Denmark. And I'll probably only move back if I have a good job with a salary and benefits lined up first...
  - busterarm 13y ago
    The "American Dream" for a lot of my friends nowadays is to relocate to Europe. Copenhagen is a frequently-mentioned destination and my destination of choice as well. I definitely felt like there was more opportunity in Denmark than here. Gotta say, I'm a bit jealous.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      What kind of opportunity are you referring to? Strip it to nuts and bolts as much as you can. I ask because, for instance, it is harder to run a company in Denmark than in the US. Danish employment law requires months of notice before terminating an employee, and allows termination only with cause. It also appears to be somewhat expensive to incorporate there.
      - davedx 13y ago
        Interesting first criteria for judging a country's economic opportunities: the ability to easily terminate your staff. The "Ease of Doing Business Index" actually removed "how easy is it to fire people" from its indicators because of the controversy. Do you think everybody in the USA would agree that being able to fire people at will is a good thing for the US economy?
VLM 13y ago
I had to LOL at the paragraph incorrectly beginning with "It describes a future largely stripped of middling jobs". He's describing the present. The future is already here, just not smoothly distributed.
- aroman 13y ago
  What is the basis for your conclusion? I don't see any evidence of modern America being "largely stripped of middling jobs". There are millions of generic corporate, retail, or otherwise "non-elite" jobs being held by millions of Americans.
  - eropple 13y ago
    The presence of corporate functionaries and so on is decreasing steadily over time as their purpose becomes superfluous through different organization and evolving technologies. And retail jobs are not "middling", retail jobs are low-level and were at one point not too long ago almost completely entry-level. You are making his point for him.
  - VLM 13y ago
    "There are millions of generic corporate, retail, or otherwise "non-elite" jobs being held by millions of Americans." That's the good news. The bad news is there used to be tens of millions of that class of job, and with a smaller population to staff.
cmdkeen 13y ago
I think the final paragraph points out the obvious point - social mobility has never really fully existed. Previously large swathes of the workforce were never expected or enabled to progress - women and ethnic minorities. When they are included I doubt the golden age looks so golden from the point of view of "everyone" suddenly getting rich off the economic returns of work. Now the economy is much more open to merit - the problem with meritocracy (as the article points out) is that once you open it to everyone whole swathes of people lose out. See the trends of successful women marrying successful men thus creating a more closed top tier of society.
- VLM 13y ago
  "Previously large swathes of the workforce were never expected or enabled to progress" The article listed several reasons why little social turmoil was expected... I suspect the old "divide and conqueror" will be applied to the above historical facts. "Sure we're all getting poorer, but the white guys are getting poorer at a faster rate than we are, so its OK". I suspect this will be a popular "calming" strategy.
mmagin 13y ago
Feels like somewhat of an overlap with the kind of trends Nassim Nicholas Talib has been writing about -- extremely non-gaussian curves for the probability of various outcomes including wealth.
cliveowen 13y ago
I don't know, at this point I've read a great deal of similar articles that seem to imply a golden age for software developers and technology entrepreneurs and a dark age for everyone else. Even worse, the implication seems to be that the winner-takes-all mechanism will concentrate wealth in an ever-shrinking elite. I don't think this is completely true, while on one hand we have more automation and ever-lowering operating costs for many kinds of businesses that in the end let relatively few people service even millions of customers (think Instagram for a recent, technology-related example) I think, we're also heading to an even more globalized landscape where every company will try and capture customers in every country. Servicing not millions, but billions of people and offering services in every corner of the world will actually create demand for people with average skills, a new form of middle class will emerge. If the future will get to a point where everything will look really bleak, I think jobs will be created with the sole purpose of keeping the cash flowing. Unemployed, unhappy people aren't customers, are lost sales. A middle class is needed, middle class jobs are needed, if they won't come up naturally, someone will make sure they'll exist somehow.
- VLM 13y ago
  Its hard to test a very large scale theory based on optimism about human nature, but you can downscale it and try it on smaller scales like states and cities. So why didn't your example of Instagram benefit West Virginia or Detroit? If a self organizing phenomena doesn't happen at a small scale in almost all examples, you need a theoretical reason why it doesn't downscale if your claim is some time in the future it'll self organize at a larger scale. The future of the whole country probably resembles WV or Detroit much more than SV. This has certain startup implications; for example, creating a luxury electric car startup in a permanently down-trending country seems unwise, in comparison sharing photos sounds like something poorer people can continue to cheaply do as they gradually become permanently poorer and poorer because even the 3rd world has mobile phones.
  - cliveowen 13y ago
    The conditions for that to happen aren't there yet. There's a growing population of unemployed people but it's not like there's no enough cash flow that companies are struggling to find customers. I think if and when unemployment will be so widespread as to pose a real threat to cash flow we'll see countermeasures to what are now just bleak predictions.
jonnathanson 13y ago
Social mobility and income distribution are not the same thing, and people leap to some intellectually dubious conclusions when they conflate the two. A lot of comparisons are being drawn, for example, between the 1920s and today. While the income distribution curves look startlingly similar, the concentration of wealth is very different. Most of today's 1%+ are "working rich," i.e., they receive the bulk of their income from salaries and bonuses -- not from ownership or direction of capital. Most of the turn-of-the-20th-century rich were actual capitalists/industrialists -- "robber barons" who secured monopolies on commodities, trade routes, new technologies, and so forth. These robber barons built generational fortunes whose relative scale and unshakable concentration are unmatched by anything since, including today. Their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren enjoyed lavish fortunes not of their own merit or creation. Today's income gap appears troubling, and I don't want to downplay it. But the frequent comparisons to the Gilded Age are superficial at best, and they veer us off topic. This is true whether one is looking at the comparison from either side of the politico-economic spectrum: the pro-capitalist side (because the majority of today's elites are not capitalists, per se, but wage earners in highly paid fields like finance), or the egalitarian side (because what, exactly, are we proposing to redistribute? Opportunity? Wealth? Salary? Market demand? And how will we do this?). And that's not even touching on globalization, which seems inevitable, and which has had a major effect on the disappearance of working-class and middle-class jobs. The article touches on the effects of new technologies, access to them, and ability to master them -- but this seems pretty meritocratic unless access is restricted to the children of privileged families. That's where we need to turn our lens. That's where things start to look less meritocratic and more aristocratic. It's time we took a more nuanced view of this issue. For one thing, we should look beyond the present income inequality and toward the future implications. Is social mobility going to suffer for the next generation? Is wealth concentrating in generational amounts? Is the current power-law distribution crystalizing into a caste system? By some indications it is, and by other indications it's not. Let's go there. Let's dissect this. We need less hand-wringing and more investigation. I'd be much more troubled by an uneven playing field than by uneven scores at the end of the game. By many accounts, today's playing field is fairly uneven -- and that's where we should be focusing our attention and effort. At the same time, we need to be comfortable with the probability than a perfectly even playing field will still produce uneven outcomes. It might produce more uneven outcomes, depending upon one's choice of modeling. Nevertheless, we're looking too much at the symptoms and not enough at the underlying sickness in the system.
wffurr 13y ago
"The American Dream" was a myth from its very inception, perpetuated to suppress labor and preserve the capitalist status quo.
- aroman 13y ago
  "suppress labor" and "preserve the capitalist status quo" seem to be completely antithetical goals. And really, I disagree. The American Dream to me is the simple idea that if you work hard, you can climb the social ladder. This is as true now as it ever has been. There are no castes in America, only people born into classes of varying privilege. For some people, therefore, the American Dream is attainable more easily than others — but that doesn't mean it's a myth.
  - EliRivers 13y ago
    This is as true now as it ever has been. Whilst it is true that one can climb the social ladder, it is much harder now than it was. To simply say it is true/false is to ignore that it's significantly harder now than it was. It has always been true that the strongest indicator of success is how rich one's parents are; it's more true now.
    - aroman 13y ago
      That is precisely my point.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    >>And really, I disagree. The American Dream to me is the simple idea that if you work hard, you can climb the social ladder. This is as true now as it ever has been. Not true anymore. The astronomical rise in income inequality has also resulted in a sharp result in social mobility (what you call "climbing the social ladder). http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conference/2013-spring-permanent-inequality-panousi http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conferen...
  - wffurr 13y ago
    That very idea that it's only hard work on an individual level that deteremines one's success is the central myth perpetuated by capitalists to suppress labor and prevent a more equal society. It is not true now, and it has never been true. Circumstance and privilege, here as elsewhere, has always been a major factor in one's success. If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention to the distribution of wealth in America.
frank_boyd 13y ago
This should sound familiar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
- TheLegace 13y ago
  "The owners in this country know the truth, it's called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin.
  - refurb 13y ago
    So says the multi-millionaire comedian who rose to the top complaining about everything and everyone. I'm sure he would have had the same success in a place like China. BTW, George was a comedian, that is, entertainer. He was saying stuff that would sell more tickets.
    - brianmcconnell 13y ago
      George Carlin was IMHO one of the most insightful people America produced. Yes, he was a "comic" because in his time that's how he could follow his calling and make a living. While he was very funny, and he was riotously funny, he was basically the high priest of pull your head out of your ass and think for yourself. R.I.P. George Carlin
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- 1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
  The thing, I think people miss about automation is that it will increase unemployment rates -- forever. The more society is automated the less labor humanity has, the less we need to do to survive. I think, as automation become common place, society will have a larger unemployment rate, continuing into a welfare-based society. It will be a time where art, science, and creative will grow, as basic needs will be supplied easily via automation.
  - a3n 13y ago
    Except in the United States, because we know in the United States that people who don't have a job are lazy. /s
    - lotyrin 13y ago
      Many people I discuss this with leave off the /s and straight-faced assert that income and employment are directly controlled through hard work. These people tend to be employed and well compensated.
  - Apocryphon 13y ago
    Automation is inevitable. The question is whether or not society is ready to redistribute the wealth created by it. http://www.metafilter.com/119592/Distribution-is-the-core-of-the-problem-we-face http://www.metafilter.com/119592/Distribution-is-the-core-of...
eldude 13y ago
So the worst case here is that the poor might move to GASP Texas! And enjoy a better quality of life associated with a smaller government. What a bizarrely narrow-mindedly ignorant perspective, which I imagine will resonant quite well with the anti-Walmart crowd that is equally too narrow-minded to appreciate the impact and empowerment Walmart has on the poor.
- busterarm 13y ago
  How's that small government working out for ya? http://norfolk.legalexaminer.com/medical-malpractice/investigation-reveals-dangerous-inaction-on-the-part-of-state-medical-boards/ http://norfolk.legalexaminer.com/medical-malpractice/investi... http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2013/05/other-shoe-dropping-another-gosnell-emerges-in-texas/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2013/05/other-sho... http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/06/dr_christopher_duntsch_plano_s.php http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/06/dr_christ... I don't consider it a high quality of life when you can't have a reasonable expectation that a surgeon isn't going to kill you on the operating table and has been killing patients for years with complaints about him while the state board does nothing.
  - jejones3141 13y ago
    So a failure of government agencies is an argument for more government? I don't quite see how that follows.
    - busterarm 13y ago
      No, I was implying that what the parent comment meant by "small government" was actually "useless government" and that his supposed higher quality of life was anything but. Texas sucks. Hard.
  - eldude 13y ago
    These are non sequiturs. Corruption or ineffective government are not exclusive to Texas. You're just spouting more ignorance and from your lower comment are clearly bigoted against Texans. My original point stands that the use of exurbs as a pejorative in the OP is easily refuted by the experience of anyone who lives there. I used to live in Frisco, TX, an exurb of Dallas and the mere suggestion that it offered anything inferior is absurd and quite frankly just completely oblivious.
robomartin 13y ago
This is a typical extremist view of the universe. One in which things are always absolutes operating at the ideological limits. A social digital scale, if you will. Nothing in the middle. Everything is either a one or a zero. It is utter nonsense. The real world does not work this way. The United States is still a place where anyone can reach nearly any goal he or she desires. The pre-conditions are simple: You have to be willing to make the effort to reach your goal. It's that simple. Do you want to be somebody? Then be somebody. Don't waste your time playing games and watching TV. Optimize for future success rather than for current comfort and self-satisfaction. Be uncomfortable. Be hungry. Understand that ignorance is not a platform for success and learn something. Learn lots of things. Take risks. Fail. Take more risks. Fail again. Don't give up. You will succeed. And, when you do, you'll get to read an article by someone pointing to the great unfairness and inequality of our society. And the first thought that will pass through your mind is likely to be "clueless". This is my problem with folks who have never touched the real world. If you look at his CV [0] it shows he has lived in academia his entire adult life. This is like the idea of sex without having the experience of sex. It's like watching a bird fly, learning and researching the physics of bird flight and not really understanding what it is to be a bird and fly. There's a huge disconnect between people who operate in these sterilized environments and those who actually touch the real world. I've had mind-blowing conversations with experienced business owners who barely got a high-school diploma. The insight and understanding of the real world some of these people develop is absolutely amazing. And, in most cases, the results parallel their understanding. They are successful, build great businesses and enjoy a fantastic quality of life. I realize I am shooting the messenger. This approach perfectly valid and logical when justified. People who come from a purely academic world view have, through no fault of their own, a view of reality that is utterly distorted. There's a huge difference between talking about the statistics of business and wealth and the act of actually getting out there and devoting ten or twenty years of your life putting it all on the line to create businesses and wealth. That's the perspective their writings lack. And that's why, despite credentials, these messengers are not to be trusted to understand reality. It's like a teenager thinking they understand sex by watching lots of porn. Not the same thing. How many economists warned us of the economic implosion of 2008/9? Not many. The folks who did were actually living in the trenches and neck-deep in the muck of reality. [0] http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/tylervita.pdf http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyle...
JulianMorrison 13y ago
The American dream of meritocracy and working your way up has been a lie from day one. In a pyramidal social structure, even if rising is possible, it's probabilistically unlikely. You should predict that your "merit" is in the normal range and you will remain in the largest class, subsistence workers. To convince people that "anyone can make it" implies "everyone can make it" has been a triumph of political bullshit, and the sooner it unravels the better.
rickjames28 13y ago
Another clown(writer) with an agenda.
anovikov 13y ago
I don't see any problem is what's explained here. One potential thing to worry about is a surge in crime rates, but statistics does not show that: crime rates are falling, and violent crimes especially so, with no sign of reversal. Otherwise why should we worry? Really, worry about mass unwarranted wiretaps. Worry about ever increasing rigging of democracy. Worry about useless wars started by corrupt crooks. Don't worry about income distribution. It was artificially low in second half of 20th century due to the fear of communism. With communist system collapsing and nobody wanting a red revolution anymore, there is no need to redistribute income in favor of the potential revolutionary class.
avty 13y ago
Time to move to Texas.
anovikov 13y ago
>Is the current power-law distribution crystalizing into a caste system? Of course it doesn't. Because the majority of income earned in top 15% and even top 1% is not derived from capital (at least not financial/material capital, to be precise). It is salaries and bonuses. Ability to get these is derived mostly from education (and also social skills which are evenly distributed among income brackets), and education is going free or cheap online. So no reason to worry.
coldtea 13y ago
First Person: Lack of upward mobilty and income inequality is a real problem. Second Person, living in some Silicon Valley or other bubble, only meeting similar people (the worser-off of which are some "ramen enterpreneurs" with upper-middle class parents and university education), ignoring tons of homeless people, millions of minimum wage workers, immigrants, who almost never ventures outside his urban comfort zone, etc: Is there a source supporting this claim? For some reason, for other claims, which the same people have a first person experience with, like sexism and racism, they don't feel the need for a "source" that much. But when there's something they haven't cared about ever, don't see in their circles, and doesn't affect their middle/upper-middle class lives, then suddenly they need citations, which they will then scrutinize.

78 points by soundsop 13y ago

I've read various reviews of Tyler Cowen's new book (and I read his blog, very occasionally). I'm not worried about what he is worried about. I have lived overseas, twice. I'm back in the United States because the joint conclusion of my family (including my wife, who grew up in another country) is that the United States still offers us, and millions of other people, a whole lot of opportunity for personal advancement that is hard to find in other countries, even thriving, developed countries that also have representative government, a free press, and broad protection of individual liberties. The death of the middle class in the United States has been predicted for a long time, but middle-class Americans still look like rich people in most other countries. The whole economy has been transformed over the last century (my uncle farms land that was first developed into a farm by my grandfather a century ago, when a large percentage of the United States population were farmers), but people are still mostly employed, and living in larger, more comfortable houses, eating better, and living longer[1] than ever. What is called decline in the United States looks a lot like progress anywhere else in the world. People are still very eager to immigrate to the United States,[2] so what exactly is the problem? [1] An article in a series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past 150 years. Here’s why." http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_... Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout the developed countries of the world. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-why-we-die-global-life-expectancy http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-w... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/232-million-people-left-their-countries-for-new-ones-where-did-they-go/279741/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/232... http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-life.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-drea... AFTER EDIT: I've still got time to edit this comment, so I'll respond to the people who think I am ignoring important trend lines. I respectfully disagree. (Note that I am well known here on Hacker News for saying that United States K-12 education needs improvement, so I am by no means saying that there is nothing left to improve, or nothing to worry about, here.) A funny comment posted on Hacker News about Japan's "lost decade" (posted before I opened my user account here) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=329218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=329218 shows how difficult it is for a developed country to lose ground: It was terrible. People were forced to eat raw fish for sustenance. They couldn't get full-sized electronics, so they were forced to make tiny ones. Unable to afford proper entertainment, folks would make do by taking turns to get up and sing songs. I've grown up in the United States, and I've been hearing predictions of doom here throughout my life. Doom here still looks like heaven to most people in most parts of the world.

mjn 13y ago
a whole lot of opportunity for personal advancement that is hard to find in other countries, even thriving, developed countries that also have representative government, a free press, and broad protection of individual liberties. Out of curiosity, what kinds of things? I was born and raised in the U.S. (have lived in Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, and Atlanta), and now live in Copenhagen, and don't feel like I am missing a lot so far, apart from the general experience of foreignness occasionally being strange (might be ameliorated if I were better at learning Danish). If anything the opportunities for personal advancement feel somewhat stronger, due to the social safety net meaning you can start companies or nonprofits or whatever without worrying about ending up homeless or without healthcare. I'll probably move back at some point, but mostly just because it's where I'm from, not out of any particular dissatisfaction with Denmark. And I'll probably only move back if I have a good job with a salary and benefits lined up first...
- busterarm 13y ago
  The "American Dream" for a lot of my friends nowadays is to relocate to Europe. Copenhagen is a frequently-mentioned destination and my destination of choice as well. I definitely felt like there was more opportunity in Denmark than here. Gotta say, I'm a bit jealous.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    What kind of opportunity are you referring to? Strip it to nuts and bolts as much as you can. I ask because, for instance, it is harder to run a company in Denmark than in the US. Danish employment law requires months of notice before terminating an employee, and allows termination only with cause. It also appears to be somewhat expensive to incorporate there.
    - davedx 13y ago
      Interesting first criteria for judging a country's economic opportunities: the ability to easily terminate your staff. The "Ease of Doing Business Index" actually removed "how easy is it to fire people" from its indicators because of the controversy. Do you think everybody in the USA would agree that being able to fire people at will is a good thing for the US economy?

VLM 13y ago

I had to LOL at the paragraph incorrectly beginning with "It describes a future largely stripped of middling jobs". He's describing the present. The future is already here, just not smoothly distributed.

aroman 13y ago
What is the basis for your conclusion? I don't see any evidence of modern America being "largely stripped of middling jobs". There are millions of generic corporate, retail, or otherwise "non-elite" jobs being held by millions of Americans.
- eropple 13y ago
  The presence of corporate functionaries and so on is decreasing steadily over time as their purpose becomes superfluous through different organization and evolving technologies. And retail jobs are not "middling", retail jobs are low-level and were at one point not too long ago almost completely entry-level. You are making his point for him.
- VLM 13y ago
  "There are millions of generic corporate, retail, or otherwise "non-elite" jobs being held by millions of Americans." That's the good news. The bad news is there used to be tens of millions of that class of job, and with a smaller population to staff.

cmdkeen 13y ago

I think the final paragraph points out the obvious point - social mobility has never really fully existed. Previously large swathes of the workforce were never expected or enabled to progress - women and ethnic minorities. When they are included I doubt the golden age looks so golden from the point of view of "everyone" suddenly getting rich off the economic returns of work. Now the economy is much more open to merit - the problem with meritocracy (as the article points out) is that once you open it to everyone whole swathes of people lose out. See the trends of successful women marrying successful men thus creating a more closed top tier of society.

VLM 13y ago
"Previously large swathes of the workforce were never expected or enabled to progress" The article listed several reasons why little social turmoil was expected... I suspect the old "divide and conqueror" will be applied to the above historical facts. "Sure we're all getting poorer, but the white guys are getting poorer at a faster rate than we are, so its OK". I suspect this will be a popular "calming" strategy.

mmagin 13y ago

Feels like somewhat of an overlap with the kind of trends Nassim Nicholas Talib has been writing about -- extremely non-gaussian curves for the probability of various outcomes including wealth.

cliveowen 13y ago

I don't know, at this point I've read a great deal of similar articles that seem to imply a golden age for software developers and technology entrepreneurs and a dark age for everyone else. Even worse, the implication seems to be that the winner-takes-all mechanism will concentrate wealth in an ever-shrinking elite. I don't think this is completely true, while on one hand we have more automation and ever-lowering operating costs for many kinds of businesses that in the end let relatively few people service even millions of customers (think Instagram for a recent, technology-related example) I think, we're also heading to an even more globalized landscape where every company will try and capture customers in every country. Servicing not millions, but billions of people and offering services in every corner of the world will actually create demand for people with average skills, a new form of middle class will emerge. If the future will get to a point where everything will look really bleak, I think jobs will be created with the sole purpose of keeping the cash flowing. Unemployed, unhappy people aren't customers, are lost sales. A middle class is needed, middle class jobs are needed, if they won't come up naturally, someone will make sure they'll exist somehow.

VLM 13y ago
Its hard to test a very large scale theory based on optimism about human nature, but you can downscale it and try it on smaller scales like states and cities. So why didn't your example of Instagram benefit West Virginia or Detroit? If a self organizing phenomena doesn't happen at a small scale in almost all examples, you need a theoretical reason why it doesn't downscale if your claim is some time in the future it'll self organize at a larger scale. The future of the whole country probably resembles WV or Detroit much more than SV. This has certain startup implications; for example, creating a luxury electric car startup in a permanently down-trending country seems unwise, in comparison sharing photos sounds like something poorer people can continue to cheaply do as they gradually become permanently poorer and poorer because even the 3rd world has mobile phones.
- cliveowen 13y ago
  The conditions for that to happen aren't there yet. There's a growing population of unemployed people but it's not like there's no enough cash flow that companies are struggling to find customers. I think if and when unemployment will be so widespread as to pose a real threat to cash flow we'll see countermeasures to what are now just bleak predictions.

jonnathanson 13y ago

Social mobility and income distribution are not the same thing, and people leap to some intellectually dubious conclusions when they conflate the two. A lot of comparisons are being drawn, for example, between the 1920s and today. While the income distribution curves look startlingly similar, the concentration of wealth is very different. Most of today's 1%+ are "working rich," i.e., they receive the bulk of their income from salaries and bonuses -- not from ownership or direction of capital. Most of the turn-of-the-20th-century rich were actual capitalists/industrialists -- "robber barons" who secured monopolies on commodities, trade routes, new technologies, and so forth. These robber barons built generational fortunes whose relative scale and unshakable concentration are unmatched by anything since, including today. Their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren enjoyed lavish fortunes not of their own merit or creation. Today's income gap appears troubling, and I don't want to downplay it. But the frequent comparisons to the Gilded Age are superficial at best, and they veer us off topic. This is true whether one is looking at the comparison from either side of the politico-economic spectrum: the pro-capitalist side (because the majority of today's elites are not capitalists, per se, but wage earners in highly paid fields like finance), or the egalitarian side (because what, exactly, are we proposing to redistribute? Opportunity? Wealth? Salary? Market demand? And how will we do this?). And that's not even touching on globalization, which seems inevitable, and which has had a major effect on the disappearance of working-class and middle-class jobs. The article touches on the effects of new technologies, access to them, and ability to master them -- but this seems pretty meritocratic unless access is restricted to the children of privileged families. That's where we need to turn our lens. That's where things start to look less meritocratic and more aristocratic. It's time we took a more nuanced view of this issue. For one thing, we should look beyond the present income inequality and toward the future implications. Is social mobility going to suffer for the next generation? Is wealth concentrating in generational amounts? Is the current power-law distribution crystalizing into a caste system? By some indications it is, and by other indications it's not. Let's go there. Let's dissect this. We need less hand-wringing and more investigation. I'd be much more troubled by an uneven playing field than by uneven scores at the end of the game. By many accounts, today's playing field is fairly uneven -- and that's where we should be focusing our attention and effort. At the same time, we need to be comfortable with the probability than a perfectly even playing field will still produce uneven outcomes. It might produce more uneven outcomes, depending upon one's choice of modeling. Nevertheless, we're looking too much at the symptoms and not enough at the underlying sickness in the system.

wffurr 13y ago

"The American Dream" was a myth from its very inception, perpetuated to suppress labor and preserve the capitalist status quo.

aroman 13y ago
"suppress labor" and "preserve the capitalist status quo" seem to be completely antithetical goals. And really, I disagree. The American Dream to me is the simple idea that if you work hard, you can climb the social ladder. This is as true now as it ever has been. There are no castes in America, only people born into classes of varying privilege. For some people, therefore, the American Dream is attainable more easily than others — but that doesn't mean it's a myth.
- EliRivers 13y ago
  This is as true now as it ever has been. Whilst it is true that one can climb the social ladder, it is much harder now than it was. To simply say it is true/false is to ignore that it's significantly harder now than it was. It has always been true that the strongest indicator of success is how rich one's parents are; it's more true now.
  - aroman 13y ago
    That is precisely my point.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>And really, I disagree. The American Dream to me is the simple idea that if you work hard, you can climb the social ladder. This is as true now as it ever has been. Not true anymore. The astronomical rise in income inequality has also resulted in a sharp result in social mobility (what you call "climbing the social ladder). http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conference/2013-spring-permanent-inequality-panousi http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conferen...
- wffurr 13y ago
  That very idea that it's only hard work on an individual level that deteremines one's success is the central myth perpetuated by capitalists to suppress labor and prevent a more equal society. It is not true now, and it has never been true. Circumstance and privilege, here as elsewhere, has always been a major factor in one's success. If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention to the distribution of wealth in America.

frank_boyd 13y ago

This should sound familiar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

TheLegace 13y ago
"The owners in this country know the truth, it's called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin.
- refurb 13y ago
  So says the multi-millionaire comedian who rose to the top complaining about everything and everyone. I'm sure he would have had the same success in a place like China. BTW, George was a comedian, that is, entertainer. He was saying stuff that would sell more tickets.
  - brianmcconnell 13y ago
    George Carlin was IMHO one of the most insightful people America produced. Yes, he was a "comic" because in his time that's how he could follow his calling and make a living. While he was very funny, and he was riotously funny, he was basically the high priest of pull your head out of your ass and think for yourself. R.I.P. George Carlin

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
The thing, I think people miss about automation is that it will increase unemployment rates -- forever. The more society is automated the less labor humanity has, the less we need to do to survive. I think, as automation become common place, society will have a larger unemployment rate, continuing into a welfare-based society. It will be a time where art, science, and creative will grow, as basic needs will be supplied easily via automation.
- a3n 13y ago
  Except in the United States, because we know in the United States that people who don't have a job are lazy. /s
  - lotyrin 13y ago
    Many people I discuss this with leave off the /s and straight-faced assert that income and employment are directly controlled through hard work. These people tend to be employed and well compensated.
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  Automation is inevitable. The question is whether or not society is ready to redistribute the wealth created by it. http://www.metafilter.com/119592/Distribution-is-the-core-of-the-problem-we-face http://www.metafilter.com/119592/Distribution-is-the-core-of...

eldude 13y ago

So the worst case here is that the poor might move to GASP Texas! And enjoy a better quality of life associated with a smaller government. What a bizarrely narrow-mindedly ignorant perspective, which I imagine will resonant quite well with the anti-Walmart crowd that is equally too narrow-minded to appreciate the impact and empowerment Walmart has on the poor.

busterarm 13y ago
How's that small government working out for ya? http://norfolk.legalexaminer.com/medical-malpractice/investigation-reveals-dangerous-inaction-on-the-part-of-state-medical-boards/ http://norfolk.legalexaminer.com/medical-malpractice/investi... http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2013/05/other-shoe-dropping-another-gosnell-emerges-in-texas/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2013/05/other-sho... http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/06/dr_christopher_duntsch_plano_s.php http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/06/dr_christ... I don't consider it a high quality of life when you can't have a reasonable expectation that a surgeon isn't going to kill you on the operating table and has been killing patients for years with complaints about him while the state board does nothing.
- jejones3141 13y ago
  So a failure of government agencies is an argument for more government? I don't quite see how that follows.
  - busterarm 13y ago
    No, I was implying that what the parent comment meant by "small government" was actually "useless government" and that his supposed higher quality of life was anything but. Texas sucks. Hard.
- eldude 13y ago
  These are non sequiturs. Corruption or ineffective government are not exclusive to Texas. You're just spouting more ignorance and from your lower comment are clearly bigoted against Texans. My original point stands that the use of exurbs as a pejorative in the OP is easily refuted by the experience of anyone who lives there. I used to live in Frisco, TX, an exurb of Dallas and the mere suggestion that it offered anything inferior is absurd and quite frankly just completely oblivious.

robomartin 13y ago

This is a typical extremist view of the universe. One in which things are always absolutes operating at the ideological limits. A social digital scale, if you will. Nothing in the middle. Everything is either a one or a zero. It is utter nonsense. The real world does not work this way. The United States is still a place where anyone can reach nearly any goal he or she desires. The pre-conditions are simple: You have to be willing to make the effort to reach your goal. It's that simple. Do you want to be somebody? Then be somebody. Don't waste your time playing games and watching TV. Optimize for future success rather than for current comfort and self-satisfaction. Be uncomfortable. Be hungry. Understand that ignorance is not a platform for success and learn something. Learn lots of things. Take risks. Fail. Take more risks. Fail again. Don't give up. You will succeed. And, when you do, you'll get to read an article by someone pointing to the great unfairness and inequality of our society. And the first thought that will pass through your mind is likely to be "clueless". This is my problem with folks who have never touched the real world. If you look at his CV [0] it shows he has lived in academia his entire adult life. This is like the idea of sex without having the experience of sex. It's like watching a bird fly, learning and researching the physics of bird flight and not really understanding what it is to be a bird and fly. There's a huge disconnect between people who operate in these sterilized environments and those who actually touch the real world. I've had mind-blowing conversations with experienced business owners who barely got a high-school diploma. The insight and understanding of the real world some of these people develop is absolutely amazing. And, in most cases, the results parallel their understanding. They are successful, build great businesses and enjoy a fantastic quality of life. I realize I am shooting the messenger. This approach perfectly valid and logical when justified. People who come from a purely academic world view have, through no fault of their own, a view of reality that is utterly distorted. There's a huge difference between talking about the statistics of business and wealth and the act of actually getting out there and devoting ten or twenty years of your life putting it all on the line to create businesses and wealth. That's the perspective their writings lack. And that's why, despite credentials, these messengers are not to be trusted to understand reality. It's like a teenager thinking they understand sex by watching lots of porn. Not the same thing. How many economists warned us of the economic implosion of 2008/9? Not many. The folks who did were actually living in the trenches and neck-deep in the muck of reality. [0] http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/tylervita.pdf http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyle...

JulianMorrison 13y ago

The American dream of meritocracy and working your way up has been a lie from day one. In a pyramidal social structure, even if rising is possible, it's probabilistically unlikely. You should predict that your "merit" is in the normal range and you will remain in the largest class, subsistence workers. To convince people that "anyone can make it" implies "everyone can make it" has been a triumph of political bullshit, and the sooner it unravels the better.

rickjames28 13y ago

Another clown(writer) with an agenda.

anovikov 13y ago

I don't see any problem is what's explained here. One potential thing to worry about is a surge in crime rates, but statistics does not show that: crime rates are falling, and violent crimes especially so, with no sign of reversal. Otherwise why should we worry? Really, worry about mass unwarranted wiretaps. Worry about ever increasing rigging of democracy. Worry about useless wars started by corrupt crooks. Don't worry about income distribution. It was artificially low in second half of 20th century due to the fear of communism. With communist system collapsing and nobody wanting a red revolution anymore, there is no need to redistribute income in favor of the potential revolutionary class.

avty 13y ago

Time to move to Texas.

anovikov 13y ago

>Is the current power-law distribution crystalizing into a caste system? Of course it doesn't. Because the majority of income earned in top 15% and even top 1% is not derived from capital (at least not financial/material capital, to be precise). It is salaries and bonuses. Ability to get these is derived mostly from education (and also social skills which are evenly distributed among income brackets), and education is going free or cheap online. So no reason to worry.

coldtea 13y ago

First Person: Lack of upward mobilty and income inequality is a real problem. Second Person, living in some Silicon Valley or other bubble, only meeting similar people (the worser-off of which are some "ramen enterpreneurs" with upper-middle class parents and university education), ignoring tons of homeless people, millions of minimum wage workers, immigrants, who almost never ventures outside his urban comfort zone, etc: Is there a source supporting this claim? For some reason, for other claims, which the same people have a first person experience with, like sexism and racism, they don't feel the need for a "source" that much. But when there's something they haven't cared about ever, don't see in their circles, and doesn't affect their middle/upper-middle class lives, then suddenly they need citations, which they will then scrutinize.