2 ms·

The evidence we have so far points to a higher churn rate the closer to the top you are. According to this [1], the top 1% had a churn rate of > 50% over a deca

by sigil 13y ago

The evidence we have so far points to a higher churn rate the closer to the top you are. According to this [1], the top 1% had a churn rate of > 50% over a decade, while the top .01% had a churn rate of > 75% over the same period. The "Fortunate 400" mentioned by the article is something like the top .0001%, and had a churn rate of 99% over two decades. I'd love to see deeper analysis though. What does the churn rate look like as a function of top percentile size? Do the choice of endpoint years matter significantly? Also, as you ask, what might be the optimal churn rate economically? [1] http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/Income-Mobility-1996to2005-12-07-revised-3-08.pdf http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents...

adamc 13y ago
What percentage of the 1% ever "churn" into the 0.01% at all? Churn makes it sound like it might be random, but I don't think that is demonstrated.
- sigil 13y ago
  If the 1% don't churn into the 0.01% when it loses 75% of its members, then where do the replacements come from? I agree though, longitudinal studies are the most interesting.
jerf 13y ago
I agree, I would love to see more detailed analysis, as well as a fresh, open-minded investigation into the question of what optimal is without very, very large assumptions being made casually. (Perhaps such things exist. Links welcomed.) Step one is always always always identify the problem. As I said, I'm open to the idea that there is something that should be done here, but it is absolutely vital that we first identify the problem carefully, before we start throwing around solutions to non-problems. This is... or at least SHOULD be... a non-ideological statement. We will all most assuredly disagree about what optimal should be, and what actions we should take, but we should all be arguing from the same basis of facts, and this sort of discussion strongly suggests we are not in the possession of the facts we thought we collectively were (and/or that we were told we were, and/or that we collectively just assumed without examining... I know I didn't ask these questions personally, so this is not intended as an attack on anyone else). This is not something to be glossed over casually on the way to espousing the same ideas we would have anyhow... it's a big problem that should be solved first.

by sigil 13y ago

adamc 13y ago

What percentage of the 1% ever "churn" into the 0.01% at all? Churn makes it sound like it might be random, but I don't think that is demonstrated.

sigil 13y ago
If the 1% don't churn into the 0.01% when it loses 75% of its members, then where do the replacements come from? I agree though, longitudinal studies are the most interesting.

jerf 13y ago

I agree, I would love to see more detailed analysis, as well as a fresh, open-minded investigation into the question of what optimal is without very, very large assumptions being made casually. (Perhaps such things exist. Links welcomed.) Step one is always always always identify the problem. As I said, I'm open to the idea that there is something that should be done here, but it is absolutely vital that we first identify the problem carefully, before we start throwing around solutions to non-problems. This is... or at least SHOULD be... a non-ideological statement. We will all most assuredly disagree about what optimal should be, and what actions we should take, but we should all be arguing from the same basis of facts, and this sort of discussion strongly suggests we are not in the possession of the facts we thought we collectively were (and/or that we were told we were, and/or that we collectively just assumed without examining... I know I didn't ask these questions personally, so this is not intended as an attack on anyone else). This is not something to be glossed over casually on the way to espousing the same ideas we would have anyhow... it's a big problem that should be solved first.