- Joined
- Mar 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,671
- Reaction score
- 1,059
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
- Understanding Mobility in America, Tom Hertz, American UniversityChildren from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents as they did of moving to a higher quintile . Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.
The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.
By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
The most current version of the American Dream is that of 'upward mobility'... always room at the top, each generation doing better than the one before it.
Unfortunately, it is not true and never really has been. The supposed phenomenon has been reported on many times but manages to persist against all evidence to the contrary.The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor and those in the middle move very little. What movement does occur may go in either direction. The Center For American Progress provided a nice summary of the facts a few years ago:
- Understanding Mobility in America, Tom Hertz, American University
and we are spending more and more to stay the same. 30 years ago, you could start a fine career with a HS diploma... not even a B.A. might lead to McDonalds.
An interesting table on social mobility:
Someone born to a parent in the poorest 25% has a 60% chance of moving out of that quartile, including a 15% chance of making it into the richest quartile. Someone born to a parent in the richest 25% has a 58% chance of dropping out of that quartile, including a 12% chance of falling to the poorest quartile.
wealth disparity is a defining aspect of unrestrained capitalism. Note the "socialist" nations that exceed our own mobility.
The most current version of the American Dream is that of 'upward mobility'... always room at the top, each generation doing better than the one before it.
Unfortunately, it is not true and never really has been. The supposed phenomenon has been reported on many times but manages to persist against all evidence to the contrary.The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor and those in the middle move very little. What movement does occur may go in either direction. The Center For American Progress provided a nice summary of the facts a few years ago:
- Understanding Mobility in America, Tom Hertz, American University
and we are spending more and more to stay the same. 30 years ago, you could start a fine career with a HS diploma... not even a B.A. might lead to McDonalds.
wealth disparity is a defining aspect of unrestrained capitalism. Note the "socialist" nations that exceed our own mobility.
geo.
So you're arguing that a higher percentage of people changing quartiles is better?
where did you get that? I noted that those nations that staunch capitalists condmen as 'socialist' because they do not allow their citizens to starve to death appear to realize the American Dream more than do Americans.
geo.
I don't agree with you at all. The American Dream is alive and well. Many a blue-collor worker earns a good enough living to send his kids to college to become doctors and lawyers. And, WOW! WHAT A COUNTRY! Don't have enough to pay for your kids' college educations? There's plenty of help. Immigrants come to the USA by the droves to pursue it. And a great many of them attain it. The poor only stay poor if they want to, pure and simple.
well, of coursr you do not agree... you are a true believer!
but this is another case where faith and fact do not come very close to looking much alike.
geo.
I'm asking you what you think is the ideal amount of social mobility.
as much upward mobility as reasonable for the poor, as much downward as necessary for the rich.
reasonable here defined as "allowing for enough of what we all need as we all need".
geo.
60% of the people born to the poorest quartile make their way into a higher quartile, including 33% who make it into the upper half. The facts and the faith seem pretty close from where I sit.
Why am I not surprised that CAP chooses to highlight a study that focuses on the chances of making into the richest 5%?
(sorry, you must be a subscriber to read the report itself.)the pattern of annual earnings inequality is very close to the pattern of inequality of longer term earnings. Mobility at the top has also been very stable and has not mitigated the dramatic increase in annual earnings concentration since the 1970s. .. . The decrease in the gender earnings gap and the substantial increase in upward mobility over a career for women is the driving force behind the relative stability of overall mobility measures which mask declines in mobility among men.
If you don't have any idea of what the numbers should be, then how do you know that the US figures aren't spot on? Why aren't you criticizing those European countries for having too much?
It's pretty ridiculous to criticize one set of numbers when you have no idea of what the numbers should be.
If you don't have any idea of what the numbers should be, then how do you know that the US figures aren't spot on? Why aren't you criticizing those European countries for having too much?
It's pretty ridiculous to criticize one set of numbers when you have no idea of what the numbers should be.
firstly, CAP discusses the report... they did not write it.
again, it was written by Tom Hertz, American University. if you wanted to, you could read the report itself... a link is included on the CAP page...
oh, hell... here it is.
secondly, as i say, that was ONE report. there are lots that come to the same conclusion.
A report prepared by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon for the National Bureau of Economic Research in December 2005 shows that those in the top 10 percent income bracket received 49 percent of the growth in wages and salaries in the period between 1997 and 2001, while the bottom 50 percent received less than 13 percent.
The National Bureau of Economic Research confirms Dew-Becker:
(sorry, you must be a subscriber to read the report itself.)
in other words.... the only ones moving up are women. and THAT has to do with an entirely different social paradigm.
and thirdly, that 5% bit was ONE point... a more salient one would be that middle class (middle quintile) has no better a chance of moving UP then they did of moving DOWN.
here is another: The median household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04, a year when GDP grew strongly, than it was it was during the recession of 1990-91.
think about that for a bit. another myth is that of 'creating wealth'. this is almost impossible. the resources of the planet are fixed and all of it is owned. Most of it has been exploited and is only recylcling. the amount of real wealth is fixed. wealth moves. for one to get richer almost certainly involves someone else getting poorer.
Personally, I think if we are looking at quintiles, ideally it should all be 25%. Each generation should have a chance at their own success and what their parents did should have no bearing. I just know of not equitable way to achieve that.
Also, your chart is horribly outdated.
oh, please!
that is simply dumb.
geo.
I don't know any way to achieve that, much less an equitable way. Unless you plan on taking all children from their parents at birth and redistributing them by lottery, it's not possible to even come close to minimizing the differences.
It's the only one I found that put it in such an informative format. Also, if you read the link in geopatric's OP, the underlying numbers haven't changed dramatically over the past decade.
Compelling response.
i'm sorry, but it was. Aside from the fact that I am not a noble prize in economics recipient nor a dictator, there is no "right balance" of material wealth aside from ensuring that we do not have people who do without what they need. whatever numbers produce THAT result are good numbers.
geo.
You started a thread that criticized the US for its lack of social mobility based on a particular set of numbers. If you don't have any idea of what those numbers should be, then how can you know that our current numbers are too low?
there HAS been increase in middle quintile median income as a result of the economic boom of the 90's - of course, that is largely offset by CoL increases. And of course, much of that has been lost over the last few years.As adults, 42 percent of children born into the bottom quintile, and 39 percent born into the top quintile end up in the same quintile as their parents. This is referred to as “stickiness at the ends.”
Median family income in the top quintile grew by 52 percent over the last generation, compared to 18 percent in the bottom quintile. (
More than 50 percent of individuals who start in the bottom income quintile remain there 10 years later, and 70 percent remain below middle-income status. Despite notable changes in the U.S. economy, this immobility at the bottom has remained unchanged since the 1980s.
The probability of working oneself into an elevated economic class is little better than depending on the lottery.
geo.
Reeeedickalus.
you are playing games. you are, again, trying to stifle the discussion by nullifying it.
those numbers are generated by professional economists over years of time. here is another - The PEW Center's Economic Mobility Project report says:
there HAS been increase in middle quintile median income as a result of the economic boom of the 90's - of course, that is largely offset by CoL increases. And of course, much of that has been lost over the last few years.
what should be asked is not "is it true?", of course its true. what should be asked is "WHY is this important"?
the pretense that anyone can get rich with a little hard work is what supports the persistant inequality. THAT is the myth. Worse, it is a lie propagated to maintain the status quo. The probability of working oneself into an elevated economic class is little better than depending on the lottery.
I don't agree with you at all. The American Dream is alive and well. Many a blue-collor worker earns a good enough living to send his kids to college to become doctors and lawyers. And, WOW! WHAT A COUNTRY! Don't have enough to pay for your kids' college educations? There's plenty of help. Immigrants come to the USA by the droves to pursue it. And a great many of them attain it. The poor only stay poor if they want to, pure and simple.
You started a thread that criticized the US for its lack of social mobility based on a particular set of numbers. If you don't have any idea of what those numbers should be, then how can you know that our current numbers are too low?
The 12 guys on my dorm floor freshman year at Yale included
1) the son of a disabled NY firefighter
2) a son of a milk farmer from NH an "acadian" the first person in his family to go to college
3) a Jamaican guy from Queens who didn't have a father and his mother worked in a diner
4) two Mexican American guys-don't recall much about their backgrounds but they weren't rolling in bucks-they were good guys and I recall picking up their bar tab a bunch of times
The rest were fairly affluent-one guy was the son of an Episcopal Bishop and had gone to Groton-another had 1600 SATs-#1 in one of the top 4 prep schools in the USA-dropped out from too much coke-now referees HS Soccer games.
That my friend is upward and downward mobility
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?