Only in America – the flip side of N_Fiddledodog's Rant
Psudo @ Sun May 12, 2013 9:55 pm
Andyt: I didn't ask about social mobility in general. I asked about intergenerational income elasticity specifically. You brought it up, presenting it as meaningful. I demonstrated willingness to google for it when I added links to those you provided. I did not, however, manage to find anything that included a mathematical definition of intergenerational income elasticity. Without such a definition (or one equally detailed) of what is being measured, there's no reason for me to believe that measuring it proves anything, much less that America is no longer a "land of opportunity." Even if the definition does uphold such a thing, you haven't provided enough data to prove that the USA is in the bottom half of developed nations, let alone ranking badly across the globe in general. Is the data complete enough to prove what you claim it does?
You haven't even defined any threshold that distinguishes a land of opportunity from a land that is not. Is it only the top nation in the world that gets the title? The top 10 nations? The top 10% of nations? And, whatever standard you choose, why did you choose it?
You started making an argument. Finish making it.
andyt @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:01 pm
The standard I choose is that only the US crows about being the land of opportunity. By various approaches, people have determined that it's nowhere near the top country for it, and that specifically the Scandinavian states and Canada rank well in those measures.
I guess only in America would somebody twist and turn to avoid facing the awful truth that you're not number one.
Intergenerational income elasticity is used interchangeably with intergenerational income mobility or social mobility.
Here's a definition for you (sad that you need it):
$1:
Social mobility is the movement of individuals or groups in social standing social position [1][2] It may refer to classes, ethnic groups, or entire nations, and may measure health status, literacy, or education — but more commonly it refers to individuals or families, and their change in income.
$1:
Belief in strong social and economic mobility—that Americans can and do rise from humble origins to riches—has been called a "civil religion",[4] "the bedrock upon which the American story has been anchored",[5] and part of the American identity (the American Dream[6]), celebrated in the lives of famous Americans such as Benjamin Franklin and Henry Ford,[4] and in popular culture (from the books of Horatio Alger and Norman Vincent Peale to the song "Movin' on Up"[7]). Opinion polls show this belief to be both stronger now in America than in years past, and stronger than in other developed countries.[8] However, in recent years several large studies have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower, not higher, in America than in those countries.[4]...
Several large studies of mobility in developed countries in recent years have found that the US among the lowest in mobility.[4][8] One study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?")[8][10][13] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. The four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children. (see graph)[8]
According to journalist Jason DeParle
At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.[14] Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes. Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.[4][15]
The Economist also stated that "evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much `stickier` than most Americans assume. ... would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society."[11][16]
In 2012, a graph plotting the relationship between income inequality and intergenerational social mobility in the United States and twelve other developed countries -- dubbed "The Great Gatsby Curve"[17]—showed "a clear negative relationship" between inequality and social mobility.[18] Countries with low levels of inequality such as Denmark, Norway and Finland had some of the greatest mobility, while the two countries with the high level of inequality -- Chile and Brazil—had some of the lowest mobility. The curve was introduced in a speech by chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Alan Krueger,[18] and the President’s Economic Report to Congress.[19]
Capture.PNG [ 39.77 KiB | Viewed 417 times ]
Several large studies of mobility in developed countries in recent years have found that the US among the lowest in mobility.[4][8] One study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?")[8][10][13] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. The four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children. (see graph)[8]
According to journalist Jason DeParle
At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.[14] Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes. Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.[4][15]
The Economist also stated that "evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much `stickier` than most Americans assume. ... would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society."[11][16]
In 2012, a graph plotting the relationship between income inequality and intergenerational social mobility in the United States and twelve other developed countries -- dubbed "The Great Gatsby Curve"[17]—showed "a clear negative relationship" between inequality and social mobility.[18] Countries with low levels of inequality such as Denmark, Norway and Finland had some of the greatest mobility, while the two countries with the high level of inequality -- Chile and Brazil—had some of the lowest mobility. The curve was introduced in a speech by chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Alan Krueger,[18] and the President’s Economic Report to Congress.[19]
Capture.PNG [ 39.77 KiB | Viewed 417 times ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-econ ... ted_States
Psudo @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:03 pm
By intergovernmental income elasticity, I've only seen evidence of 14 better nations out of the 200+ nations in the world. Is the 90th percentile "nowhere near the top"?
No American in this thread has claimed America is the "number one" nation in the world for upward class mobility; that's a straw-man argument.
andyt @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:10 pm
Read my post just above yours.
Psudo @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:13 pm
Yeah, I read that page during my googling. Notice how it puts the USA at 15th place by intergenerational income elasticity, just as I've been saying. Also notice that it doesn't define or explain how to calculate intergenerational income elasticity. It doesn't answer the question, "Is the 92nd percentile 'nowhere near the top'?" Once again, you're ignoring the specifics of my argument and just answering randomly, as if saying whatever comes to mind is just as meaningful as actually responding to the questions you are asked.
andyt @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:19 pm
You're just clutching at straws. As the quotes say, the US is under the illusion that it's exceptional in providing opportunity for people, when that's far from the case. Just as y'all like to yourself your health care system is the best in the world, when it's not. That was my point. You'll have to quibble on your own if you want.
Psudo @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:20 pm
My last try: how is intergenerational income elasticity actually calculated? Can you prove that the USA is anything lower than 15th in the world by its measure? Do you think that 15th out of 200+ (top 8% in the world) is a ranking to be ashamed of?
Or, failing that, why do you deem these questions to be irrelevant?
Canadian_Mind @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:23 pm
The Nordic countries we really have to emulate. We're doing well for ourselves, but we can always improve, and they set a good example of what we should strive for.
Lemmy @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:29 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
The Nordic countries we really have to emulate. We're doing well for ourselves, but we can always improve, and they set a good example of what we should strive for.
Yeah, but their heavy metal scares the shit out of me.
andyt @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:35 pm
Psudo Psudo:
My last try: how is intergenerational income elasticity actually calculated? Can you prove that the USA is anything lower than 15th in the world by its measure? Do you think that 15th out of 200+ (top 8% in the world) is a ranking to be ashamed of?
Or, failing that, why do you deem these questions to be irrelevant?
Or, failing that, why do you deem these questions to be irrelevant?
You want to compare the US to Afghanistan, feel free. What matters is the comparison with other developed countries. Not doing very well there, despite the myth y'all tell yourselves.
andyt @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:37 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
The Nordic countries we really have to emulate. We're doing well for ourselves, but we can always improve, and they set a good example of what we should strive for.
Always room for improvement, but I was surprised how well Canada did no this measure. The thing to look out for is our rising inequality, supposedly rising faster than the US. Not higher, they have more inequality, but if we keep going we may catch up to them. Inequality breeds lack of social mobility, as the people at the top keep all the goodies for themselves and their children.
Canadian_Mind @ Sun May 12, 2013 10:37 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
The Nordic countries we really have to emulate. We're doing well for ourselves, but we can always improve, and they set a good example of what we should strive for.
Yeah, but their heavy metal scares the shit out of me.
You mean lack of?
If that's the worst you have to fear then I think we have something to emulate.
andyt andyt:
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
The Nordic countries we really have to emulate. We're doing well for ourselves, but we can always improve, and they set a good example of what we should strive for.
Always room for improvement, but I was surprised how well Canada did no this measure. The thing to look out for is our rising inequality, supposedly rising faster than the US. Not higher, they have more inequality, but if we keep going we may catch up to them. Inequality breeds lack of social mobility, as the people at the top keep all the goodies for themselves and their children.
I always thought social mobility was a hallmark of Canadian society. It is very easy to go from being dirt poor to filthy rich, and filthy rich to dirt poor. I've seen the cycle happen in my family 5 times, and I've only been around for 23 years.
Public_Domain @ Sun May 12, 2013 11:23 pm
Public_Domain @ Sun May 12, 2013 11:29 pm
Canadian_Mind @ Mon May 13, 2013 12:00 am
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
You mean lack of?
Yeah.... You're going to need to look some of that up and then you should get an idea of what Lemmy means.
Heard some psycho stuff called "Triphop" or something that sounded like Nazism funnelled through a blender.
Not understanding a damn word just adds to the concern that fills your chest.
Sounds a lot like Rammstein. TBH, the only artist from Sweden I'm actively aware of is Basshunter, and that is Techno/trance, not Metal. I suppose Finland has Loki, but they never really took off. Norway Just has hot bitches and oil. Denmark has... Nothing I'm aware of?
