Deflating the American Myth

[TurtleDude]

as i say, don't let a few facts get in the way of yer firm beliefs.

geo.

you pretty much have to believe your claims in order to justify the massive intervention of the government that you crave.

The dems have to tell people they cannot make it without government help. SO the dems discourage people making it on their own to justify the dem solutions to a "problem"

 

[TurtleDude]

just wondering. Was the prep school Hopkins which is also in New Haven.

no-but my father went there and I almost did but they didn't have a squash team at the time. I don't want to cause someone to ID the guy but it wasn't one of the two phillips academies which along with it and Hotchkiss were generally considered the cream of the crop with the also rans being Choate, Middlesex, Deerfield Academy and Kent. (Groton is an interesting school and hard to place)

 

[TurtleDude]

no-but my father went there and I almost did but they didn't have a squash team at the time. I don't want to cause someone to ID the guy but it wasn't one of the two phillips academies which along with it and Hotchkiss were generally considered the cream of the crop with the also rans being Choate, Middlesex, Deerfield Academy and Kent. (Groton is an interesting school and hard to place)

Edit-I misread your post as Hopkins which is a day school IIRC. No but Yale was full of kids from that school

 

[dontworrybehappy]

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.

Bro, after your op it became quite clear that you don't have a degree in econ, and I seriously doubt you spent any time on a college campus that wasn't just driving through and looking at the women. (which is a legit reason to "go to college" but this doesn't quite count.)

The fact remains that you can't say what the numbers "should" be so your thread is pointless. What should they be? Why? And show me links for both or I'm going to have to call BS on this thread.

 

[Johnny]

The poor only stay poor if they want to, pure and simple.

It's not that simple. In fact this is a lie. Nobody wants to be poor. They may or may not have responsibility for their situation due to their action or inaction but they don't want to be poor. Trust me.
Plus it's impossible for everyone in the world to be rich and if it were to happen the world would stop functioning. That means no more cashiers, laborers, and other low payed workers that keep the "machine" going.
Entrepreneurs are also born with certain personality traits the average person doesn't have which makes them successful.
There's also a whole lot of luck involved in of you're rich or poor.
If we got rid of the Federal Reserve, lowered taxes for everyone, closed bases overseas, stopped the Kenyesan economics we'd have money with more buying power and more of a chance.

The poor only stay poor if they want to, pure and simple.

It's not that simple. In fact this is a lie. Nobody wants to be poor. They may or may not have responsibility for their situation due to their action or inaction but they don't want to be poor. Trust me.
Plus it's impossible for everyone in the world to be rich and if it were to happen the world would stop functioning. That means no more cashiers, laborers, and other low payed workers that keep the "machine" going.

 

[Johnny]

I'm typing from my phone on the bus right now. I can't edit that post.

 

[TurtleDude]

It's not that simple. In fact this is a lie. Nobody wants to be poor. They may or may not have responsibility for their situation due to their action or inaction but they don't want to be poor. Trust me.
Plus it's impossible for everyone in the world to be rich and if it were to happen the world would stop functioning. That means no more cashiers, laborers, and other low payed workers that keep the "machine" going.
Entrepreneurs are also born with certain personality traits the average person doesn't have which makes them successful.
There's also a whole lot of luck involved in of you're rich or poor.
If we got rid of the Federal Reserve, lowered taxes for everyone, closed bases overseas, stopped the Kenyesan economics we'd have money with more buying power and more of a chance.




It's not that simple. In fact this is a lie. Nobody wants to be poor. They may or may not have responsibility for their situation due to their action or inaction but they don't want to be poor. Trust me.
Plus it's impossible for everyone in the world to be rich and if it were to happen the world would stop functioning. That means no more cashiers, laborers, and other low payed workers that keep the "machine" going.

Its lke saying no one wants to be the class dunce but if you cut classes and don't do your homework its a fair assumption that those actions are intentional and the result of such actions is clearly predictable.

No one wants to die of a drug overdose (well most people who have didn't want to ) but if you shoot smack constantly I have to state that you are at least accepting of that possibility even if you don't actually crave such a result

 

[Geo Patric]

Again, you're complaining that we don't have enough social mobility because the percentage of people who move between groups is low.

that is an assumption that has no basis in fact. there was no 'complaint'.

I'm asking you what constitutes "low" and what would be enough.

and i told you.

If you don't know what the numbers should be, it's foolish to say that you think the numbers are too low or high.

i never said that the numbers were high, low or in between. i did not offer an opinion on the validity of the numbers nor did i offer an opinion on what the numbers mean aside from that fact that they demonstrate that significant change in economic status is a myth. they do.

Do you realize that those numbers are essentially identical to the numbers I posted in my initial response?

Seriously. Look at your numbers, then look at the chart I posted.

sorry, i do not see that. nothing that i posted, that i can see, nor anything that i have read suggests that "60% of the people born to the poorest quartile make their way into a higher quartile". that is simply not true, in fact, that is preposterous.

but the point is that ever increasing level of wealth is not only not true, it is not possible. Adam Smith was wrong - there is not an infinite amount of wealth to be had - infinite growth is not possible. The notion defies a central premise of thermo dynamics in a universe of finite resources.... a fixed amount of "stuff".

i am not arguing the merits of relative wealth (though i would be glad to do so), i am arguing against the validity of the myth.

Once again, you're confusing social mobility (the movement of people from one group to another) with income growth within each group.

no, i do not believe that i am. i made no claim of social mobility, i talked about actual increases of real wealth. joe's paycheck is bigger than his daddy's when his daddy was the same age but joe is no wealthier than his daddy was. he may be less wealthy, in fact.

No, the probability of working oneself into an elevated economic class is 6/10 for those born in the poorest quartile.

what the heck are you smoking?

siddown... think a minute.

each generation, there are 60% fewer poor than the prior generation. you are familiar with achilles and the tortoise, yes? infinitely decreasing decreases without the difference ever being eliminated? i can't do the math, but i can tell you... it is illusion. and if you believe it true, you are accepting a myth. eventually that lowest quintile would be empty and EVERYONE would be in the upper.

if you see changes, you see 'economic displacement'. there are only enough riches for so many rich folk. if I get rich, i do so by acquiring someone else's riches. That poor sap falls as i rise, he is displaced. You have your choice between leveling and displacement.... just like buckets of water and sand.

geo.

 

[Johnny]

That's different though.

There are people who work hard 40 plus hours a week all their lives but will stay poor.

They say when you're a kid "you can be anything you want" but it's not true.

Not everyone is capable.

But that's just the way it is. It's a natural cycle. Some animals and people do better than others.

 

[Geo Patric]

Bro, after your op it became quite clear that you don't have a degree in econ, and I seriously doubt you spent any time on a college campus that wasn't just driving through and looking at the women. (which is a legit reason to "go to college" but this doesn't quite count.)

The fact remains that you can't say what the numbers "should" be so your thread is pointless. What should they be? Why? And show me links for both or I'm going to have to call BS on this thread.

you are right about econ... i believe i mentioned that myself.

you are wrong about college... i spend every day on a college campus. and, yeah, i like scoping the skirts too.

mostly, though, you are wrong about the role of 'the numbers'. the actual numbers have not much to do with my argument - they are merely the qualification of the assertion that an perpetual betterment of economic status at all levels is myth. it is. and if you have had any familiarity with a college campus within the last 50 years or so you will have heard that before.

read. think. don't assume my intents.
geo.

 

[RightinNYC]

that is an assumption that has no basis in fact. there was no 'complaint'.

and i told you.

i never said that the numbers were high, low or in between..

No, you just started a thread arguing that the american dream doesn't really exist, that there's little social mobility, and that we do worse than european countries. Forgive me for interpreting that as you complaining about it.

sorry, i do not see that. nothing that i posted, that i can see, nor anything that i have read suggests that "60% of the people born to the poorest quartile make their way into a higher quartile". that is simply not true, in fact, that is preposterous.

Then I submit you are having some serious difficulties in reading the words in front of you and understanding what they mean.

From my first post:

This graph shows that 60% of people born into the poorest quartile end up in a higher quartile.

From your own post:

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.

Now, I wasn't a math major, but if 42% of people born into the bottom quintile end up there, then that means that 58% of people move into a higher quintile.

no, i do not believe that i am. i made no claim of social mobility, i talked about actual increases of real wealth.

What on earth are you talking about? Your entire OP is about social mobility, which is wealth relative to others. Nowhere do you mention intragroup changes in wealth.

what the heck are you smoking?

siddown... think a minute.

each generation, there are 60% fewer poor than the prior generation. you are familiar with achilles and the tortoise, yes? infinitely decreasing decreases without the difference ever being eliminated? i can't do the math, but i can tell you... it is illusion. and if you believe it true, you are accepting a myth. eventually that lowest quintile would be empty and EVERYONE would be in the upper.

Wow. Just...wow. You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Think about your argument for a second. If I go from being in the poorest half of the country to being in the richest half, does that mean that the poorest half has one fewer person?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Regarding income mobility it would be difficult to assign a number that is either good or bad, but comparing to other countries of a similar economic status would be reasonable to gauge income mobility and whether a particular country is good or bad in comparison

When comparing to other similar economic status countries the US is near the bottom of the pack along with the UK. Scandanavian (sp) countries do far better, Canada does better, even Germany and France do better

 

[RightinNYC]

Regarding income mobility it would be difficult to assign a number that is either good or bad, but comparing to other countries of a similar economic status would be reasonable to gauge income mobility and whether a particular country is good or bad in comparison

When comparing to other similar economic status countries the US is near the bottom of the pack along with the UK. Scandanavian (sp) countries do far better, Canada does better, even Germany and France do better

Again, where are you getting the idea that an increased number of people changing classes is necessarily a good thing? Presumably there are numbers on either extreme that would be bad, so it's pointless to say that a number is "bad" or "good" simply because it's higher or lower than another nation's.

As it is, we know that 60% of people born to the poorest quartile/quintile end up in a higher quartile/quintile. If you think it should be higher, why not offer a number that would be acceptable?

 

[TurtleDude]

That's different though.

There are people who work hard 40 plus hours a week all their lives but will stay poor.

They say when you're a kid "you can be anything you want" but it's not true.

Not everyone is capable.

But that's just the way it is. It's a natural cycle. Some animals and people do better than others.

true, I tried to join the FBI before LASIK was available. I had the grades, I had the education, I had the security clearance, and I was a world class shot but I wore glasses which was a disqualifying feature. Never tried to fly either but I wouldn't have been able to make it into a fighter jet's seat due to that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Regarding income mobility it would be difficult to assign a number that is either good or bad, but comparing to other countries of a similar economic status would be reasonable to gauge income mobility and whether a particular country is good or bad in comparison

When comparing to other similar economic status countries the US is near the bottom of the pack along with the UK. Scandanavian (sp) countries do far better, Canada does better, even Germany and France do better

did those once far more homogeneous populations have a permanent welfare class or a class that was dealing with the history of oppression

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Again, where are you getting the idea that an increased number of people changing classes is necessarily a good thing? Presumably there are numbers on either extreme that would be bad, so it's pointless to say that a number is "bad" or "good" simply because it's higher or lower than another nation's.

As it is, we know that 60% of people born to the poorest quartile/quintile end up in a higher quartile/quintile. If you think it should be higher, why not offer a number that would be acceptable?

I would suggest moving down in income mobility is a bad thing, but that would typically be done through a persons illness or general incompetence, rather then due to a lack of opportunities from poor resources.

Moving up in income mobility is I would think a good thing, it certainly has been a hallmark of what the US has stated it stands for. That it is behind other countries is a suprise to me when I first read a report on this issue.

 

[washunut]

no-but my father went there and I almost did but they didn't have a squash team at the time. I don't want to cause someone to ID the guy but it wasn't one of the two phillips academies which along with it and Hotchkiss were generally considered the cream of the crop with the also rans being Choate, Middlesex, Deerfield Academy and Kent. (Groton is an interesting school and hard to place)

They have a squash team now. I thought that Hopkins was up there when it came to placements, SAT scores etc.

 

[UtahBill]

Reeeedickalus.

You are correct...using just me and my siblings, the odds of going from poor to well off are 1 in 3....
2 of us live very well, 2 are still poor, and 2 are somewhere in the lower middle economically...

 

[TurtleDude]

They have a squash team now. I thought that Hopkins was up there when it came to placements, SAT scores etc.

True as to Hotchkiss. Back in the day Exeter and St Pauls had the best of the boarding schools, Episcopal the best of the mainly day schools. I don't know about Hopkins now, my 30th reunion is not all that far away in New Haven. I was referring to the boarding schools as "prep schools" vs "day schools" like Hopkins or in my neck of the woods, Seven Hills, or CCDS or Columbus Academy

 

[washunut]

True as to Hotchkiss. Back in the day Exeter and St Pauls had the best of the boarding schools, Episcopal the best of the mainly day schools. I don't know about Hopkins now, my 30th reunion is not all that far away in New Haven. I was referring to the boarding schools as "prep schools" vs "day schools" like Hopkins or in my neck of the woods, Seven Hills, or CCDS or Columbus Academy

Full disclosure, my son went to Hopkins and was on their first squash team. They did not have courts had to practice over at Yale.

 

[TurtleDude]

Full disclosure, my son went to Hopkins and was on their first squash team. They did not have courts had to practice over at Yale.

I coach some local kids-its been a while since one played for Yale-currently have one at USNA and one on stanford's team. I know Dave Talbott pretty well since he's from nearby Dayton Ohio and his father and my dad used to play in the Court Dr Talbott had built in the basement of his home. I also know Mark who know is the HC at Stanford (which is a main reason that girl went there rather than Princeton). The head coach at Penn is a kid I worked with too-I still play some with his parents-his brother was the last kid from the area who played for Yale

 

[Grim17]

Yeah, its an ideal, where everyone gets a fair shake at success and we have a true meritocracy instead of what we have now.

Instead of blaming the American system, have you ever for a moment considered a persons upbringing? Families in the poorest bracket most often are there for a reason. Lack of education, bad work ethics and laziness are a few of the reasons, and don't for a minute think those traits aren't passed on to their children.

Stop blaming America and the government for social inequality, because there's nothing they can do to change how a person is raised or the quality of person they become. That's a parents responsibility.... something that even the left understood not too many years ago.

 

[washunut]

I coach some local kids-its been a while since one played for Yale-currently have one at USNA and one on stanford's team. I know Dave Talbott pretty well since he's from nearby Dayton Ohio and his father and my dad used to play in the Court Dr Talbott had built in the basement of his home. I also know Mark who know is the HC at Stanford (which is a main reason that girl went there rather than Princeton). The head coach at Penn is a kid I worked with too-I still play some with his parents-his brother was the last kid from the area who played for Yale

Wow, my son is not in that league. He first took up the game while at Hopkins. He just plays for fun at college now.

 

[TurtleDude]

Wow, my son is not in that league. He first took up the game while at Hopkins. He just plays for fun at college now.

great game-wish I still had good knees-mostly play doubles now. I sort of learned in colllege and had the misfortune of being the 5th or 6th best player in what was the best recruiting class in a ten year period. ended up being an asst coach for the ladies' head coach and she taught me how to really play. coached while in Law school and when I left there I was playing at a pretty high standard. of course that was hardball which fit my attacking-shot making style far better than the grind it out softball game (though my first big title was in softball because I was playing it long before most people since my training partner in grad school was an Indian International)

 

[mpg]

I would suggest moving down in income mobility is a bad thing, but that would typically be done through a persons illness or general incompetence, rather then due to a lack of opportunities from poor resources.

Moving up in income mobility is I would think a good thing, it certainly has been a hallmark of what the US has stated it stands for. That it is behind other countries is a suprise to me when I first read a report on this issue.

No one can move up without someone else moving down, so if moving down is bad, then moving up also has to be bad.