I hate when people say america is special because anyone can move up. Its actually relatively tough to move up in this country. We have surprisingly high inequality. 0 would be perfect equality and 1 would be complete inequality. Sad to see we are on the same level as China in this regard and its gotten much worse since this 09 number.

8/13/2011 1:18:41 PM

I fucking knew it: Sweden.

[Edited on August 13, 2011 at 2:33 PM. Reason : fasdf]

8/13/2011 2:33:40 PM

Equality and mobility are 2 different things. Huge fail.

8/13/2011 4:54:02 PM

Not really. The more inequality, the harder it is to move. Conservatives love to use exceptional examples as evidence that anyone can move to the top but although anyone CAN move to the top of a pryamid, only a small few can be there at any given time.

Mobility means you have one continuous shape. (no mobility would be like having two seperate shapes. You love to act as if simply having mobility makes us better than most other places in the world but you can also find several example of people who were born into poverty in countries like China and somehow managed to become rich. That doesn't mean there is good upward mobility.

Inequality is the ratio of width at the bottom of your shape to the width at the top of your shape.

Countries like Sweden are much more cylindrical while countries like China and US are much more pryamdal in shape.

8/13/2011 5:02:23 PM

Yes, and Sweden, to use your example, creates its equality through a heavy dose of socialism. The trade-off to Sweden's 'equality' is heavy taxation, which results in slow economic growth. It's actually somewhat of an ongoing debate with them, because people don't want to give up their bennies, but the economy is comparatively stagnant.

Duke is right, equality and mobility are two separate items. Then again, when you have large swaths of the population who would rather live off government handouts instead of acquiring an education and working to improve their lot in life, I can see why you would attempt to equate the two.

8/13/2011 5:12:57 PM

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf

I would suggest theduke and anyone who agrees with him to rad this article or at least glance at the figures. Parents economic status has more of a correlation with economic status in the united states than it does in any other industrialized nation. Quantitatively, denmark has three times more mobility than we do in the US.



[Edited on August 13, 2011 at 5:27 PM. Reason : inequality and mobility are not the same but they go hand in hand inversely. common sense should te]

8/13/2011 5:25:53 PM

Not only are equality and mobility very different, but so are actual mobility and measured mobility.

When measuring mobility, we look for things like average time spent in poverty, percent of folks born in one income bracket who end up in others, etc.

None of that says anything whatsoever about the difficulty of moving up or down. We can only say, in numbers, whether people do move up or down, not how hard it is.

The best question for determining actual mobility is to say: If you had to be born poor anywhere in the world, and wanted to become rich or upper middle-class, where would you like to be?

8/13/2011 5:28:38 PM

Thats where bias comes in. Most americans answer US by default because they haven't experienced growing up anywhere else and have also been brainwashed to believe in american exceptionalism. Unless you have experienced poverty in multiple countries, you cannot really answer that question legitimately. Nationalism plays a huge role in answering. Inequality means the distance from the top to the bottom is larger so all elese equal that would determine mobility. Other things like %GDP spent on education and welfare will tell you a lot too. Its not too easy to move up without a good education and its not easy to get a good education if you are hungry.

A better question to ask is "If you could be born into wealth in any country in the world, which country would you rather be born rich if you wanted to stay rich and enjoy your wealth?" and the answer would always be US. Goes to show.

[Edited on August 13, 2011 at 5:38 PM. Reason : j]

8/13/2011 5:37:07 PM

You're completely right - getting an answer about actual mobility is nearly impossible and prone to bias. But it's still worthwhile to keep an eye on the right question, whether it's about how easy it is to get wealth from having none, to keeping it once you've got it.

The objective data about the facts of real-life economic movement don't seal the case against anyone, and all should recognize it doesn't have the whole picture.

8/13/2011 5:44:33 PM

Quote :

"The trade-off to Sweden's 'equality' is heavy taxation, which results in slow economic growth."

I'm not so sure I believe that:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:SWE&dl=en&hl=en&q=sweden+gdp#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:SWE:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

Or this one:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:SWE&dl=en&hl=en&q=sweden+gdp#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:SWE:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

I think these charts do not show a relationship between growth and taxation between the two countries in question.

[Edited on August 13, 2011 at 5:52 PM. Reason : ]

8/13/2011 5:49:40 PM

^the funny thing about that is the bottom 80% of the US has stayed pretty flat in income while GDP per capita has been at a constant, stable rise.

8/13/2011 5:54:25 PM

The E Man, America is special because anyone can move up. This is a true statement. Anyone with an idea and willingness to work hard can achieve anything here in the US. Obama is a good example. He had very little experience and has shown himself to be a poor leader, but he is still President of the US. Do you need any more evidence of anyone being able to move up?

Many people CHOOSE not to move up. They sit around and wait for the government checks to roll in. They complain about their situation, but often do little about it. I am happy knowing that if I work hard and do the right things that I can 'move up' in the US. Anyone can.

I would hate to live in a country with perfect equality. What is there to work for after that? What is the motivation to get up and make yourself better? Look at the kids rioting in London. They have all their needs provided for them and they are left not understanding their own value and self worth. They are lashing out against the 'government' and the 'rich people'. Well, no thanks. They can suck it and keep their 'equality'.

Anyone who thinks they can't 'move up' in the US needs to grow a sack and start making their own success. Success does not come from the government. It comes from ourselves.

8/13/2011 6:22:13 PM

Didn't take long before the ole bootstrap argument showed up.

8/13/2011 7:14:15 PM

It doesn't even take bootstraps.

Find the poverty rate for someone who hasn't been to prison, doesn't use drugs, has no kids out of wedlock, stays married to the mom/dad of his/her kids, and keeps his/her jobs for more than a year or two at a time.

The poverty rate for those who successfully make those basic life decisions well is pretty much 0%.

Divorce, prison, drugs, vagrancy, child support, job-hopping and unreliability all give strongly push someone toward poverty. Avoid them, and you've nearly got a guarantee of avoiding poverty over the long haul.

[Edited on August 13, 2011 at 7:58 PM. Reason : d]

8/13/2011 7:48:33 PM

If people in a country are upwardly mobile, then over time, you'd expect that country to have high equality compared to one where people are not upwardly mobile.

High upward mobility converges to equality. And saying that people technically can move up is different than saying people actually do move up.

8/13/2011 8:00:41 PM

is this thread about me being smarter and therefore having more money than most of my peers?

8/13/2011 8:14:02 PM

^^^ lol

avoiding poverty is not the same thing as upward mobility.

Communism could keep people out of poverty.

Not to mention that's an utterly naive point of view you have there.

[Edited on August 13, 2011 at 8:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/13/2011 8:38:01 PM

Quote :

"The poverty rate for those who successfully make those basic life decisions well is pretty much 0%."

Really? REALLY? Thats your claim? That only poor people use drugs and have kids out of wedlock?
You couldn't be more wrong but i'll still bite.

Quote :

"Divorce, prison, drugs, vagrancy, child support, job-hopping and unreliability all give strongly push someone toward poverty. Avoid them, and you've nearly got a guarantee of avoiding poverty over the long haul."

Poverty and irresponsible parents all push someone toward divorce, prison, drugs, vagrancy, child support, job-hopping, and unreliability. Avoid having bad parents and you'll stand more of a fair chance.

8/13/2011 9:11:59 PM

Quote :

"Really? REALLY? Thats your claim? That only poor people use drugs and have kids out of wedlock?"

You completely reversed my claim, though I don't think you realized it.

No, it's not just poor people who do those things. But it pretty much is just people who do those things who are poor.

I work with kids programs in inner-city housing projects, and with some health care programs targeted at the rural poor. I've been doing it for a few years. And I'm genuinely coming up blank as I'm trying to think of someone I've met in those communities who meets my criteria. There really isn't such a thing as never-been-in-prison, married mom and dad with their biological, in-wedlock kids under the same roof, with a stable work history, who are in poverty.

[Edited on August 13, 2011 at 9:21 PM. Reason : a]

8/13/2011 9:20:24 PM

Quote :

"Divorce, prison, drugs, vagrancy, child support, job-hopping and unreliability all give strongly push someone toward poverty."

I think you've got your cause and effect backwards, chief.

8/13/2011 9:29:27 PM

^^So the fact that poor people can't get divorced like the rest of normal society without guaranteeing themselves to stay in poverty doesn't scream lack of mobility to you? You're saying they have to live perfect. That is not much mobility.

[Edited on August 13, 2011 at 9:30 PM. Reason : dont give me that]

8/13/2011 9:29:44 PM

Quote :

"You're saying they have to live perfect. That is not much mobility."

It speaks volumes if you believe the conditions I listed amount to being perfect.

Don't do drugs. Don't quit a job unless it's for a better opportunity. Try to do your job well, but at least be there every day. Love your spouse if you have one, and raise your kids in a 2-parent home. Get married before you have kids. Don't commit crimes.

These are not standards of perfection. They barely count as minimums to be considered as a generally responsible adult.

Yet, only going that far (in this country, at least) makes you nearly bullet-proof when it comes to poverty. I am dead serious when I say you could knock on every door in 10 housing projects, or interview all the rural poor in line for medicaid assistance, and not find a single person who meets even most of those. People like that simply are not poor, except in the rarest of circumstances, and usually they will find their way out of it fairly quickly.

Does that mean we have the best upward mobility? No, but it at least means that I don't have any problem with the mobility we have.

8/13/2011 11:10:25 PM

8/14/2011 2:15:29 AM

^^many of the things you cite are as much symptoms of being poor as they are causes. Education and access to basic necessities like healthcare are going to give people a much better at becoming upwardly mobile.

8/14/2011 9:52:41 AM

8/14/2011 11:52:28 AM

TULIPlovr

LOL at your logic and good sense. why should anyone's choices affect their lot in life! it is the fault of george bush and rich people. dont you know that?

we should all get a trophy for trying.

8/14/2011 5:04:13 PM

As the inequality spread is far less in, say, Sweden, it is a non-event when a citizen moves from one stratus to another. Receiving a raise or taking time off for an extended unpaid vacation looks like mobility. Meanwhile, in America where a sizable chunk of out population is represented by the super-wealthy and another chunk consists of illegal immigrants struggling under economic persecution, to change stratus often requires doubling your salary, a rare feat in any country, including Sweden.

8/15/2011 9:12:38 AM

Sweden is a place where everyone is just fine with 'getting by' in life. Their government provides them with enough to not be in poverty. America is a place where fortunes are made or lost. You won't see the kind of business risks needed to succeed taken in Sweden like you would in America. You won't find that self starting entrepreneurial spirit in Sweden.

8/15/2011 9:21:56 AM

No, but you will find a relatively stable economy and a political environment that's not dedicated to poor-fucking at literally ANY cost

8/15/2011 9:42:11 AM

Haha, it really is a stretch to say anything bad about Sweden.

I'd hate to be in a place completely without poverty! How would I empty out my car's coin pocket without street beggars? Let those crazy socialists give up their coin pockets for the sake of eliminating poverty. Not in my country, no thank you

[Edited on August 15, 2011 at 10:32 AM. Reason : tags]

8/15/2011 10:31:52 AM

yeah you're right, it is hard to move up in this country. You actually have to fucking put some work into it.

8/15/2011 10:50:26 AM

You're right. It takes a lot of work to be born into a white middle class family in a relatively affluent and educated part of the country.

Too bad most people are too lazy to put in that effort.

8/15/2011 12:10:02 PM

^ I guess your point is we should be more like Sweden and only have citizens born into white middle-class families. I guess your plan is to exterminate all the minorities in America, perhaps by wishing them away.

8/15/2011 2:59:01 PM

^^ that kind of attitude will do great things for holding you back. About all i qualified for in that statement was the white part, but some how I've managed to do very well for myself while most of my cousins are dirty poor and will stay that way due almost entirely to poor personal life choices. (kids, drugs, drop outs, not taking their jobs seriously, etc)

8/15/2011 3:24:16 PM

I mean, we could try to give minority communities a chance by eliminating laws that prevent strong families from taking root. Black communities are among the hardest hit by drug prohibition. Boy has poor upbringing, gets someone pregnant, has no way to provide for the child except to sell drugs, gets arrested/killed selling drugs, his kid grows up without a father and a poor single mother. Wonder how the kid will turn out?

End prohibition now.

8/15/2011 3:24:19 PM

^^^^godammit my college roommates said this EXACT same fucking thing.

YOU are not going to do ANYTHING to help ANYBODY except COMPLAIN that SOMEBODY should do SOMETHING.

so quit with the fucking condescending attitude and dont kid yourself-

look at the kinds of people that say things like this in college- theyre the kind of twats that are only banking on the fact that hopefully they receive some kind of charity in the future.

youre going to need it-

(move to sweden)



[Edited on August 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM. Reason : sweden- that bastion of world power and everything... nordic]

8/15/2011 3:37:19 PM

Quote :

"I guess your point is we should be more like Sweden and only have citizens born into white middle-class families. I guess your plan is to exterminate all the minorities in America, perhaps by wishing them away."

I guess your point is there's something about being white that makes you able to be successful, which surprises me considering I don't usually pick you for a racist.

Quote :

"I mean, we could try to give minority communities a chance by eliminating laws that prevent strong families from taking root. Black communities are among the hardest hit by drug prohibition. Boy has poor upbringing, gets someone pregnant, has no way to provide for the child except to sell drugs, gets arrested/killed selling drugs, his kid grows up without a father and a poor single mother. Wonder how the kid will turn out?"

What a retarded argument. First off, if we allowed him to sell drugs, you're creating the same problem 100 times over for the people using those drugs. Secondly, selling drugs is the only option available to him DUE TO THE VERY FACT THAT THEY ARE ILLEGAL. If you legalized them it wouldn't be poor people selling them anymore, it would be large corporations through grocery stores and such. The poor person would have to resort to something else illegal, like murder or theft.

Quote :

"Sweden is a place where everyone is just fine with 'getting by' in life."

I disagree, look at Ikea, Ericsson, Skype, or the many pharmaceutical companies there.




I think everyone would agree that you often have to take risks to make it in America. That may seem like a platitude, but let me give you an example, at a point in my life I had to choose between paying for school and paying for health care, took the risk and paid for school, but I could have easily gotten ill and lost it all. In a place like Sweden I wouldn't have to do that.

8/15/2011 6:13:07 PM

Quote :

"What a retarded argument. First off, if we allowed him to sell drugs, you're creating the same problem 100 times over for the people using those drugs. Secondly, selling drugs is the only option available to him DUE TO THE VERY FACT THAT THEY ARE ILLEGAL. If you legalized them it wouldn't be poor people selling them anymore, it would be large corporations through grocery stores and such. The poor person would have to resort to something else illegal, like murder or theft."

Do you not understand the damage caused by prohibition to these communities? The problem is not just the drugs themselves. The problem is that prohibition drives up prices, and people tend towards drugs like crack rather than, say, marijuana.

The issue here is cultural. Bad upbringing result in bad upbringing and a seemingly inescapable cycle of poverty. We can't make the kids give a shit if their parents don't give a shit. We can't make their parents give a shit if they're in jail.

Your argument that people would resort to murder and theft if it were not for the drug trade is beyond absurd. Many murders and thefts happen now in relation to drug trade. We can eliminate those murders and thefts.

[Edited on August 15, 2011 at 6:20 PM. Reason : ]

8/15/2011 6:19:23 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that prohibition drives up prices, and people tend towards drugs like crack rather than, say, marijuana."

People tend towards cocaine instead of marijuana because of the difference in highs, not because of cost, although if they were legalized, they would both cost about as much as broccoli or tomatoes.

Quote :

"Your argument that people would resort to murder and theft if it were not for the drug trade is beyond absurd. Many murders and thefts happen now in relation to drug trade. We can eliminate those murders and thefts."

People will still murder and steal.

8/15/2011 7:17:34 PM

Quote :

"People tend towards cocaine instead of marijuana because of the difference in highs, not because of cost, although if they were legalized, they would both cost about as much as broccoli or tomatoes."

Cocaine and crack are not the same thing. Crack is the result of drug prohibition; hardly anyone would do crack if pure cocaine were available. Similarly, no one would do crystal meth.

Quote :

"People will still murder and steal."

Yes. That does not mean that all drug offenders would become murderers or thieves if drugs were legalized.

8/15/2011 7:21:57 PM

The "but they have no innovation and creativity" argument is old. Research shows that people actually perform better creatively when there isn't a cash prize in sight. This is why a lot of artists make their best work BEFORE they become famous.

8/15/2011 7:27:17 PM

Quote :

"hardly anyone would do crack if pure cocaine were available."

Unlikely, smokable cocaine would likely become even more popular. It might be made a different way, but smokable cocaine and smokable amphetamines would still exist with similar effects and similar dangers.

8/15/2011 8:40:51 PM

Sweden's population-9,302,123

USA Population-307,006,550

Let's go for it guys. Let's tax those mega rich 1% until they're equal, then let's tax them again. They only need to cover 307,006,550 people.

8/15/2011 8:59:55 PM

Granted it's written by the ULTRASOCIALISTANTIAMERICANTERROISTHATEROFCAPITALISMDESTROYEROFWORLDS Sage of Omaha, but I'll post his terrorist message anyways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all

Yes it's the same thing you've probably already read.

[Edited on August 15, 2011 at 9:17 PM. Reason : I forgot Liberal=Socialist.. oh and appeal to authority and all that]

8/15/2011 9:07:04 PM

We have about the same gdp per capita so this post

Quote :

"Sweden's population-9,302,123 USA Population-307,006,550 Let's go for it guys. Let's tax those mega rich 1% until they're equal, then let's tax them again. They only need to cover 307,006,550 people."

is pointless

8/15/2011 9:26:39 PM

Quote :

"I guess your point is we should be more like Sweden..."

Quote :

"that kind of attitude will do great things for holding you back..."

Quote :

"YOU are not going to do ANYTHING to help ANYBODY except COMPLAIN..."

lol, bootstrappers never disappoint.

I didn't say you shouldn't be rewarded for hard work. You should.

I didn't say you shouldn't feel the consequences for poor decisions. You should.

Unfortunately, hard work and poor decisions aren't exclusive determinants of success.

8/15/2011 9:43:35 PM

Why advocate a system where everybody makes 47k? It just seems like a shitty end game. ABBA sucks. I don't think we have to worry about upward mobility for the next decade.

8/15/2011 10:18:05 PM

Quote :

"Why advocate a system where everybody makes 47k?"

Quote :

"Reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence."

Quote :

"Where such an argument is premised on a false dichotomy, the ostensible proof is a logical fallacy."

8/16/2011 12:45:53 AM

Quote :

"We have about the same gdp per capita"

But how long will we have the same GDP per capita if those who generate the top 1% no longer have reason to generate as much profit? How is anyone proposing exactly we reform this system, because to be honest, this thread just looks like a giant socialism equality circle jerk. It's like y0willy0 said:

Quote :

"YOU are not going to do ANYTHING to help ANYBODY except COMPLAIN that SOMEBODY should do SOMETHING."

Classic rabblerabbleSocialismrabbleEqualityrabblerabbleTaxtheRichrabble if you ask me.

8/16/2011 1:45:56 AM

Your implication seems to be that the top 1% will see no reason to generate profit unless it's exorbitant, Kingly profit.

"WHAT? No fleet of gold-plated, disposable jets? Well fuck this hedge fund I started, I'm just gonna take that job at Giant Eagle, why bother?"

Also, believe it or not, regular people can turn a profit and create jobs too, much more easily when 1%ers they compete with actually are held to account for what they pocket.

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 9:41 AM. Reason : .]

8/16/2011 9:37:13 AM