3 ms·

Let me emphasize it again - perhaps by sheer repetition, the main point will become obvious: It's not something relevant to the general population, the middle

Let me emphasize it again - perhaps by sheer repetition, the main point will become obvious: It's not something relevant to the general population, the middle class in general, or the concept of social mobility, IF IT ONLY APPLIES TO 1 PERSON IN 1 MILLION.

klochner 13y ago
The article presents that caveat straightforwardly: The popular view of America's upper class is that of an ossified aristocracy. But research from the National Bureau of Economic Research shakes up this view, at least among America's richest individuals. And elaborates: Over the last 30 years, income inequality has grown and intergenerational mobility has decreased. The rich are getting richer and drawing up the ladder to the upper class with them. The story differs for the members of the Forbes 400 List. So I'd say you're in violent agreement with the author.
- vidarh 13y ago
  The problem is that on one hand the try to talk about "America's upper class", on the other hand they restrict themselves to looking at members of the Forbes 400. In other words: They're seemingly trying to make the story sound more relevant than it is, by framing it as if they have something to say about "America's upper class", when the data they look at consists only of a tiny subset of extreme outliers.
  - comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
    Bingo. Bill Gate entered the upper class based on birth. His own efforts brought him yet higher. But Bill Gates proves exactly nothing about how hard working people move into the upper class, because he never ever did so himself.
pg 13y ago
Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (It's especially unnecessary when replying to someone who already understands the point you're making.)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

klochner 13y ago

The article presents that caveat straightforwardly: The popular view of America's upper class is that of an ossified aristocracy. But research from the National Bureau of Economic Research shakes up this view, at least among America's richest individuals. And elaborates: Over the last 30 years, income inequality has grown and intergenerational mobility has decreased. The rich are getting richer and drawing up the ladder to the upper class with them. The story differs for the members of the Forbes 400 List. So I'd say you're in violent agreement with the author.

vidarh 13y ago
The problem is that on one hand the try to talk about "America's upper class", on the other hand they restrict themselves to looking at members of the Forbes 400. In other words: They're seemingly trying to make the story sound more relevant than it is, by framing it as if they have something to say about "America's upper class", when the data they look at consists only of a tiny subset of extreme outliers.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
  Bingo. Bill Gate entered the upper class based on birth. His own efforts brought him yet higher. But Bill Gates proves exactly nothing about how hard working people move into the upper class, because he never ever did so himself.

pg 13y ago

Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (It's especially unnecessary when replying to someone who already understands the point you're making.)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]