New study indicates class mobility in the US is worse then was expected (Reagan, Clinton)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet, at the end of the day, every single american has the opportunity to better themselves. But they have to choose to do so. I see that as the main problem. At that end of the day people are too content to take their federal aid money, or play video games, or smoke their pot rather better themselves.
Do they? OK I have a friend R, wealthy parents, etc. R went from high school directly to college, graduated, and bought a duplex with money help from his parents.
Me? Poor parents, I went from high school.....to the military, got injured, then went to work. I worked in a variety of jobs for the next 7 years, and began going to college-part time. Finally a decade after R I entered my professional career. (We do the same work). R is a decade ahead of me. His housing is effectively free due the gift from his parents. I am paying a mortgage.
The last 10 years of our careers should be the highest paid. Except......the last 10 of mine, will look like his prior 10.
I have: a better work ethic, am better at the work, and in the end.....R will be far better off. As will his children.
We don't even remotely have equal opportunity in this country. And my example? Thats a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country.
Do they? OK I have a friend R, wealthy parents, etc. R went from high school directly to college, graduated, and bought a duplex with money help from his parents.
Me? Poor parents, I went from high school.....to the military, got injured, then went to work. I worked in a variety of jobs for the next 7 years, and began going to college-part time. Finally a decade after R I entered my professional career. (We do the same work). R is a decade ahead of me. His housing is effectively free due the gift from his parents. I am paying a mortgage.
The last 10 years of our careers should be the highest paid. Except......the last 10 of mine, will look like his prior 10.
I have: a better work ethic, am better at the work, and in the end.....R will be far better off. As will his children.
We don't even remotely have equal opportunity in this country. And my example? Thats a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country.
You do have equal opportunity, but you don't start at the same place and you won't end up at the same place.
I admire that you sweated to get where you are, and you served the nation. Kudos to veterans like you and we will always remember that a safe America is because of servicemen like you.
But equal opportunity isn't and shouldn't be judged by results. Imagine this. If A person in your situation wastes half of what you have, the results would look like you had better opportunities than him, even though he may have had the same things. Would it make sense to subsidize them to artificially bring them to your level, only to watch bad decisions made and excused over and over again? No. It doesn't make sense. Even if two people are of the exact same financial situation, give them some years, and they could end up like one stole all the other persons wealth.
Your story is common. I don't doubt it. But you downplay the personal responsibility part, when it is indeed one of the most important factors. I know, I know. There is racism. I'm a person of color. Tell me about it. I fight racism when I can, but I don't sit here and cry about white peoples "microaggression." I do not have the time. I can better use my time and resources to better my life. I'm also not straight. I fight sexual orientation discrimination when I can, but I don't sit here and scream at straight religious people. I know what I can change and what I can't. I just find better value in my time, and life is short to waste on philosophical talk of a world without religion, nations, and just love left for each and everyone of us. We aren't getting there. We were never meant to get there.
For your service to this nation alone, I would support military benefits to you when you get old. You earned it. You got injured.
Last edited by Costaexpress; 07-23-2015 at 06:41 PM..
You do have equal opportunity, but you don't start at the same place and you won't end up at the same place.
I admire that you sweated to get where you are, and you served the nation. Kudos to veterans like you and we will always remember that a safe America is because of servicemen like you.
But equal opportunity isn't and shouldn't be judged by results. Imagine this. If A person in your situation wastes half of what you have, the results would look like you had better opportunities than him, even though he may have had the same things. Would it make sense to subsidize them to artificially bring them to your level, only to watch bad decisions made and excused over and over again? No. It doesn't make sense. Even if two people are of the exact same financial situation, give them some years, and they could end up like one stole all the other persons wealth.
Your story is common. I don't doubt it. But you downplay the personal responsibility part, when it is indeed one of the most important factors. I know, I know. There is racism. I'm a person of color. Tell me about it. I fight racism when I can, but I don't sit here and cry about white peoples "microaggression." I do not have the time. I can better use my time and resources to better my life. I'm also not straight. I fight sexual orientation discrimination when I can, but I don't sit here and scream at straight religious people. I know what I can change and what I can't. I just find better value in my time, and life is short to waste on philosophical talk of a world without religion, nations, and just love left for each and everyone of us. We aren't getting there. We were never meant to get there.
For your service to this nation alone, I would support military benefits to you when you get old. You earned it. You got injured.
Don't get me started on that micro aggression nonsense. ugh! So much nonsense. LOL.
You do get the point though. We don't start out at the same place, and we don't end at the same place. But its not a linear relationship-if it was it would be fine. I started out literally 250K poorer, and we're ending 1.5 million (or more) poorer-despite my better work ethic and abilities. Thats kind of the point. And I am doing better then average by far! The inequality grows despite equal efforts, or even better efforts.
We see this for example as the difference between graduating with debt, or without it. It sounds minor in the grand scheme of things, but its a HUGE difference in the end. Its why this is a problem.
And then from there we look at how this effects a consumer driven economy. When consumers run low on money, the economy slows. This is bad for EVERYONE. And while it may have been hoped that exports would drive our economy even if our average consumers fell behind, thats clearly not going to be the case. so this is a serious economic issue as well for ALL of us, even those at the top eventually(I'm not a huge SJW despite what the original post may have led you to believe)
The bottom line is that economic mobility between classes is worse then expected. Looking at the data the correlation becomes even higher as you go up in income.
The question is, what to do about it? I dont think we as a society can afford for it to get worse and worse over time. It removes merit from where you end up, and replaces it with the wealth of your parents. And it damages our economy, as the ownership of the economy becomes ever more concentrated at the top, and is not correlated with ability.
Don't worry, when Obama leaves office the economy will explode and of course Obama minions will claim it only happened because of Obama's stimulus and shovel ready jobs.
The money is waiting for obama to leave. See what happens, baring the election of Elizabeth Warren.
That study is typical socialist pap with pretend facts and theoretical predictions to fit an agenda.
Sit on your hands and you'll stay where you are. Wake up tomorrow am and get to work on your life. Stop being a victim.
Well, given the study's data.... "marrying up" would be a surefire way to beat the stats, for both male and female. So if I were counseling someone based on this data, I'd tell them to do their best to "look" like they're in a higher class so you can date people in that class and hopefully bamboozle them long enough to get them to marry you. Invest in elocution classes, wear nice clothes, drive a late-model car and do your best to not tell your partner where you came from. Put that stuff on a credit card if you have to because that marriage will be crucial.
As for public policy... this would not be politically palatable, but 1) busing in the public schools and 2) affirmative action for colleges would appear to be an option. Of course we tried that in the 70s and people fought it like hell.
What this study's showing us is that environment matters - so you need to get the poor people into the "rich" environment so they start making better choices. We can do that without changing the tax structure and falling back on the "liberal tax and spend" policy that's so easy for conservatives to criticize. If what really matters are the families - well then we need to get the poor people rubbing up on the affluent people as much as possible.
Short of switching babies out at birth and short of full-on socialism or communism that deals with the actual ownership of wealth which is behind the disparity, I think busing would be the way to do it and it wouldn't really cost us any money or require many societal changes. Other than that - invest in things like libraries, health centers, etc.. in poorer neighborhoods and have them staffed with security that kicked out deadbeats.
We could also look to other countries that have higher class mobility. This is where affirmative action comes in - you make the best colleges choose on merit only but control for systemic disadvantages - money has no impact whatsoever on acceptance. Then you'd have people from poor backgrounds have access to the best jobs. We'd need to base it on class and not race, although race and class do converge to some extent.
I didn't know what an advantage going to a top college was until I had family members actually go to them - my uncle went to Princeton and majored in economics. He had jobs thrown in his lap before he even graduated, and not just any jobs - literally he had a choice of an entry level job at an NYC investment firm or entry level staffer in a U.S. Senator's office - both of those came from internships he'd gotten. He also had a choice of law school at Stanford or Harvard. Most of his peers were well-connected people and he was going to become a well-connected person as a result of getting accepted into their club and making it through their gauntlet. He still had to work for it.....but he had to be accepted into their club first before he was allowed to run the race.
Last edited by redguard57; 07-23-2015 at 08:59 PM..
I moved up a bit compared to my parents. I was a delinquent in HS and it took flunking out of college with my parents paying for it before I got my act together. Went to tech school, turns out I have a knack for programming, bounced between a few decent jobs early and have been on an amazingly long contract job that pays very well for several years. The secret to my success? I got enough education have enough aptitude to do okay; I did way better than okay because of luck. I will retire in 6 or 8 years with a 401k bigger than well over 90% of the general public because someone convinced me back in the 80s that I had to treat it like a tax and always contribute, considering it one more item above the take home line. I am a terrible saver outside of that though house and cars (when they are new) are only debts. I have friends that were coworkers at previous jobs who are not doing as well (doing fine, but only getting about half what I do) because they didn't stumble into a gold mine. People like me show up in the numbers as if I did something special when a lot of it was luck.
I'm very surprised you don't think educational achievement is a primary dterminant of economic success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
The idea that its a transmission of values is playing the "blame the victim" game. Its too convenient. Its like saying the rich are rich because they morally deserve it.
This is a red herring argument. Whether you like it or not, people are responsible for their actions. Call it blame if you choose to, but the overwhelming reluctance in our society to hold people responsible for their actions is a major contributor to our decline.
Most rich people deserve to be rich because they have talent and worked hard to maximize that talent. Sure, there are exceptions, the obvious one the dolt that inherits money from wealthy parents, but that doesn't describe most wealthy people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
But lets talk about family values. Compare:
Family A, 200K income, father works, mom stays at home. Values are easy. Mom helps with homework, family life is often pretty good.
Family B, 40K income, father and mother work, kid is raised by childcare, and rarely see's parents, no one helps with homework. Family life is pretty barren.
The values are there because the cash is there.
Can some poor folks manage it? Sure! But its 100X harder.
A couple in which both parents are working a job that pays $9.60/hour (that's $40k/year) should not be having children. These are barely above minimum wage jobs, which are intended for unskilled inexperienced labor. They should focus on building some skills and experience so they can earn more before they start having a family. And if they don't wait, yes they will have challenges. But those challenges are brought on themselves by their own actions.
I'd also observe that you need to look back a generation, or more, as well. How were these people raised? What sort of values did their parents inculcate in them? What sort of educational background do they have that they only can earn $9.60 per hour?
I also don't buy into the argument that the scenario you descibe makes it impossible to transmit to their children a good work ethic, to make them understand the value of education, and so forth. There are plenty of examples througout our history of people who rose from these sorts of humble beginings to acheive great things in life.
In our rush to avoid placing personal responsibility on people we have created an environment where people get a free pass. Drop out of high school? Have children out of wedlock? Don't have a strong work ethic? No problem, the government will be there to take care of you.
Pew is a horribly biased organization. This study reeks of someone who decided what answer they wanted and then went and looked for the data to back it up. The premise of their study from the beginning was that the cause of limited economic mobility is inequality, so that's the correlation the looked for. They didn't consider any other factors that also are correlated with lower economic status such as educational achievement, single parent households (also the result of choices made by the parents), and so forth.
I'm very surprised you don't think educational achievement is a primary dterminant of economic success.
While education is, I think that wether you receive that education is not as much of a "values" thing is it is a economic and ability related item. I know lots of people who don't attend college because they do not see it as being affordable-many have values that say never be in debt.
Quote:
This is a red herring argument. Whether you like it or not, people are responsible for their actions. Call it blame if you choose to, but the overwhelming reluctance in our society to hold people responsible for their actions is a major contributor to our decline.
It is also a red herring argument to say people are responsible for their initial starting conditions, which have a massive amount to do with their success later in life. I think this study indicates that, but I acknowledge that your argument of values is not completely wrong either.
Quote:
Most rich people deserve to be rich because they have talent and worked hard to maximize that talent. Sure, there are exceptions, the obvious one the dolt that inherits money from wealthy parents, but that doesn't describe most wealthy people.
I've interacted with a TON of rich people, from multi millionaires, to billionaires. And while anecdotal It has influenced my view on them.
the 1%. These are the millionaires. I'd say about 50-75% were above average, and worked hard both. The remainder? Knew someone, inherited money, and were a joke. Overall not too unreasonable. Its when you get up to the 100's of millions, and billions that you see it drop dramatically. 5% of them were not just above average, but totally brilliant, and obsessed. Amazing folks. The remainder? They should be asking if you want fries with that. Yeah they have a different world view, but they're either average, or occasionally lazy, and ignorant. You need to define wealth.
Quote:
A couple in which both parents are working a job that pays $9.60/hour (that's $40k/year) should not be having children. These are barely above minimum wage jobs, which are intended for unskilled inexperienced labor. They should focus on building some skills and experience so they can earn more before they start having a family. And if they don't wait, yes they will have challenges. But those challenges are brought on themselves by their own actions.
In other words, the majority of people should never have children. median pay is what? 56K? A lot of thats later in life. Think about that. Why is our country so much poorer now then in the past? This attitude is a damning side effect of inequality, and if it continues we can have issues like Japan's greying population.
Quote:
I'd also observe that you need to look back a generation, or more, as well. How were these people raised? What sort of values did their parents inculcate in them? What sort of educational background do they have that they only can earn $9.60 per hour?
LOL. Probably grew up in a household where they were told if you worked hard you would succeed......and they work really hard. College education as a % of our population has been steadily rising, its more likely for people to have gone to college then it was for their parents.
Quote:
I also don't buy into the argument that the scenario you descibe makes it impossible to transmit to their children a good work ethic, to make them understand the value of education, and so forth. There are plenty of examples througout our history of people who rose from these sorts of humble beginings to acheive great things in life.
You really are into education. Fun fact, in 2013 their were 260,000 college educated people earning minimum wage. The number making between minimum and the $9.60 you mentioned is incredibly higher. In 2009 there were approx 130,000.
Quote:
In our rush to avoid placing personal responsibility on people we have created an environment where people get a free pass. Drop out of high school? Have children out of wedlock? Don't have a strong work ethic? No problem, the government will be there to take care of you.
high school graduation is at a all time high, Children are being born later in life, and Americans work more hours then the vast majority of the world. The facts basically say that according to you things should be far better. (The children being born later in life is a recent study so its forgivable that you don't know that one, but the other two you should have known). The government is there to take care of people because our businesses are paying less and less-the median income started dropping 15 years ago.
Quote:
Pew is a horribly biased organization. This study reeks of someone who decided what answer they wanted and then went and looked for the data to back it up. The premise of their study from the beginning was that the cause of limited economic mobility is inequality, so that's the correlation the looked for. They didn't consider any other factors that also are correlated with lower economic status such as educational achievement, single parent households (also the result of choices made by the parents), and so forth.
Dave
Pew is one of many reviews on this topic, the only difference is that they've presented evidence that the range of it is at the high end, whereas many others rated it from bad to extremely bad. Your argument is akin to "Well that dr is very biased, the leg isn't busted in 5 places, its only in 4"
And you still want to correlate values like "single parent household" assuming that that occurs because of poor values, and not poor income. Reality-those people with "poor values" that get divorced? When studies have been done, divorce drops when income goes up. In the end it really does come down to wealth for most things. money makes everything possible, especially good values.
While education is, I think that wether you receive that education is not as much of a "values" thing is it is a economic and ability related item. I know lots of people who don't attend college because they do not see it as being affordable-many have values that say never be in debt.
My original education comment related to high school education, which has nothing to do wtih ability to pay. In the category for low income, less than 50% graduate from high school. These people are going to be completely unequipped to function effectively in our economy, and it has nothing to do with their parents income level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
It is also a red herring argument to say people are responsible for their initial starting conditions, which have a massive amount to do with their success later in life. I think this study indicates that, but I acknowledge that your argument of values is not completely wrong either.
I agree they aren't responsible for their starting conditions, and some dispensation for that may be needed in some cases. However, we sweep the root casue under the carpet if we ignore the issue that if you go back a generation or two you may likely find that someone's personal decisions where the root cause of a family's economic challenges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
I've interacted with a TON of rich people, from multi millionaires, to billionaires. And while anecdotal It has influenced my view on them.
the 1%. These are the millionaires. I'd say about 50-75% were above average, and worked hard both. The remainder? Knew someone, inherited money, and were a joke. Overall not too unreasonable. Its when you get up to the 100's of millions, and billions that you see it drop dramatically. 5% of them were not just above average, but totally brilliant, and obsessed. Amazing folks. The remainder? They should be asking if you want fries with that. Yeah they have a different world view, but they're either average, or occasionally lazy, and ignorant. You need to define wealth.
My experience differs from yours, and I am also not so quick to jump to the top fraction of 1%. The number of people there is so small as to be inconsequential. Thinking about successful middle class people that by and large raise children that are equipped for success, I think the overwhelming majority of them deserve their achievements due to their work ethic and talent. I'd say the same for upper middle class folks who are generally professional people who typically wind up their working careers with a net worth in the low 7-figure range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
In other words, the majority of people should never have children. median pay is what? 56K? A lot of thats later in life. Think about that. Why is our country so much poorer now then in the past? This attitude is a damning side effect of inequality, and if it continues we can have issues like Japan's greying population.
The $56k median cuts across all age groups, so in some ways it can be interpreted as a median across one's working career. One really needs to decompose the data into age and income bands for it to be useful. I don't think a single median income level is of much use.
In any event, If it takes two people to earn $40k, and they are stagant at that level for their entire lives, and if they can't do justice to the challenge of having children, then you bet, they shouldn't have kids. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
I state it that way to highlight some of the ways in which your scenario was poorly constructed. Does your hypothetical couple remain stuck at the $40k income level, or is that what they earn when they are 21, and it grows from there? Does it really always take two incomes to earn $40k? Is it really not possible for a family with two working parents to do a decent job raising children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
You really are into education. Fun fact, in 2013 their were 260,000 college educated people earning minimum wage. The number making between minimum and the $9.60 you mentioned is incredibly higher. In 2009 there were approx 130,000.
Well, unfortunately, in 2013 we were still (and still are) suffering under the Obama economy, which is a big part of the reason why so many are underemployed. I'd also guess that many have degrees in subjects that left them ill prepared to compete in today's job market. There's that personal choice at work again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Pew is one of many reviews on this topic, the only difference is that they've presented evidence that the range of it is at the high end, whereas many others rated it from bad to extremely bad. Your argument is akin to "Well that dr is very biased, the leg isn't busted in 5 places, its only in 4"
There are also studies that show that we still have a great deal of economic mobility, so don't think there is universal agreement on that point. Here is one study that concludes that economic mobility in the United States has not changed in the past 50 years. BTW, I note that one of the conclusions of the Pew study is that mobility has not changed much over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
And you still want to correlate values like "single parent household" assuming that that occurs because of poor values, and not poor income. Reality-those people with "poor values" that get divorced? When studies have been done, divorce drops when income goes up.
I agree divorce is a factor, and it sometimes leads to challenges raising children. But, divorce is the result of personal choices. Who you choose to marry matters. How seriously you work at a marriage matters. The larger issue is that almost half of all children are born out of wedlock in the United States. This is a tragedy that is directly the result of individual decisions, and is wholly unrelated to economic status. The evidence is overwhelming that the two primary determinants of poverty are being raised in a two parent household, and getting at least a high school education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
In the end it really does come down to wealth for most things. money makes everything possible, especially good values.
Money does not lead to good values - there are many examples that disprove that notion. And it is very possible to instill good values - a strong work ethic, treating others with respect, the ability to defer self gratification, and so forth - in low income homes. As just one example, people from my parent's generation were raised during and just after the depression, and most of them had those values. Somewhere along the line - I'll point to the 1960's - there was a discontinuity in our culture that has led to it being much less likely to see children being raised in that manner. I don't think the root casue is money. In fact, easy money is more likley to be part of the problem.
While education is, I think that wether you receive that education is not as much of a "values" thing is it is a economic and ability related item. I know lots of people who don't attend college because they do not see it as being affordable-many have values that say never be in debt.
It is also a red herring argument to say people are responsible for their initial starting conditions, which have a massive amount to do with their success later in life. I think this study indicates that, but I acknowledge that your argument of values is not completely wrong either.
I've interacted with a TON of rich people, from multi millionaires, to billionaires. And while anecdotal It has influenced my view on them.
the 1%. These are the millionaires. I'd say about 50-75% were above average, and worked hard both. The remainder? Knew someone, inherited money, and were a joke. Overall not too unreasonable. Its when you get up to the 100's of millions, and billions that you see it drop dramatically. 5% of them were not just above average, but totally brilliant, and obsessed. Amazing folks. The remainder? They should be asking if you want fries with that. Yeah they have a different world view, but they're either average, or occasionally lazy, and ignorant. You need to define wealth.
In other words, the majority of people should never have children. median pay is what? 56K? A lot of thats later in life. Think about that. Why is our country so much poorer now then in the past? This attitude is a damning side effect of inequality, and if it continues we can have issues like Japan's greying population.
LOL. Probably grew up in a household where they were told if you worked hard you would succeed......and they work really hard. College education as a % of our population has been steadily rising, its more likely for people to have gone to college then it was for their parents.
You really are into education. Fun fact, in 2013 their were 260,000 college educated people earning minimum wage. The number making between minimum and the $9.60 you mentioned is incredibly higher. In 2009 there were approx 130,000.
high school graduation is at a all time high, Children are being born later in life, and Americans work more hours then the vast majority of the world. The facts basically say that according to you things should be far better. (The children being born later in life is a recent study so its forgivable that you don't know that one, but the other two you should have known). The government is there to take care of people because our businesses are paying less and less-the median income started dropping 15 years ago.
Pew is one of many reviews on this topic, the only difference is that they've presented evidence that the range of it is at the high end, whereas many others rated it from bad to extremely bad. Your argument is akin to "Well that dr is very biased, the leg isn't busted in 5 places, its only in 4"
And you still want to correlate values like "single parent household" assuming that that occurs because of poor values, and not poor income. Reality-those people with "poor values" that get divorced? When studies have been done, divorce drops when income goes up. In the end it really does come down to wealth for most things. money makes everything possible, especially good values.
Let me take on your single parenthood argument. In many other countries, marriages were stable over many of those poor and struggling years. But when prosperity comes and temptation is here, many marriages failed and people changed. Poverty shouldn't be the reason for divorce, even though couples fight over money the most. Many couples stayed focused, cared for each other, during the accumulative years. That is due to their value system and the value they place on monogamy, loyalty, and family. Amazing huh.
The single parent household pandemic in the U.S. Is the result of tempting alternative government support, encouraged and excused irresponsibility, and failure to teach personal finance and life planning. f you want children to grow up in successful marriages, you have to make marriages better, not by providing an alternative. You also should educate young people how to plan for their life and not screw up their own life.
Here you have people screaming and throwing things, knocking people up, and all the mainstream liberals do is to say "they need more government money to help them". It is just misguided and blind. This approach comes from guilt and yet guilt is never the right foundation for economic policies.
Mainstream liberalism has reduced itself to sheer excuse making. the entire discourse is not about enabling success, but blaming for failures. It is not about how you can succeed, but who made you fail(not yourself). It's not about going after your dreams and ambitions. It's about going after those perceived to have caused all your suffering, through existing class structures and small things like microaggression.
This approach doesn't help the poor and disadvantaged. What it does help is the liberal elite class and their guilt therapy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So much nonsense. LOL.
