(10-08-2019 08:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (10-08-2019 07:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (10-08-2019 06:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (10-08-2019 06:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (10-08-2019 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: No one said it is non-existent. Thought that I said we were lagging behind other countries.
Weird.
The results for intragenerational mobility in the US far exceed that for intergenerational mobility --- the ones you are fixated on there.
Weird indeed.
Kind of falls in line with my observations alluded to above, doesnt it?
Weird indeed, again.
So you’re arguing that economic mobility between more than 1 generation difference is the best in the world without providing data, and only providing an anecdote of intergenerational change like I provided. Gotcha.
I don’t doubt that economic mobility in the US between two plus generations is high, just not sure it is the highest in the world.
'Intra' means within one there, lad. Everything I spoke of is 'intra'. At least get the basic nomenclature correct before charging down the snide direction lock stock and two smoking barrels.
I always get those inter and intra prefixes mixed up.
But now I’m even more confused - the links I provided referenced intragenerational changes (comparing changes between a single generation), which would match the same generational span as your anecdote of peers who went from being raised my poor parents in a lower economic class to themselves being in a higher economic class.
So are you trying to argue that the studies are wrong because you have a single anecdote? Regardless, I never said that economic mobility doesn’t exist, in the US, I just pushed back on your incorrect statement that economic mobility is the best in the US. The US is certainly a land of opportunity that provides a lot of chances for people willing to work hard, but other countries are more successful at increasing that mobility.
First, your redefinition bolded and italicized above I dont believe is correct --- any study that compares *between* generations is by definition 'intergenerational'. The difference I am opining about is change *within* a generation.
Second, as to the bolded portion:
EPI study you provided only the cover to
Quote:The figure below, from The State of Working America, 12th Edition, measures the relationship between earnings of fathers and sons in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with similar incomes to the United States and for which data are available. An elasticity of zero would mean there is no relationship, and thus complete intergenerational mobility, with poor children just as likely as rich children to end up as rich adults.
--- intergenerational.
Brookings link --
Quote:In the United States and the United Kingdom, about half (50 percent) of parental earnings advantages are passed onto sons.
Quote: there is growing evidence of less intergenerational economic mobility in the United States than in many other rich industrialized countries,
Again --- intergenerational study.
Forbes link --
Quote:Using data from a new Global Database of Intergenerational Mobility
Once again -- intergenerational study.
So contrary to your original assertion, none of them referred to intragenerational mobility, and instead only focused on the correlation of wage (not wealth) to that of a parent.
I dont think any of the three cited items are on point to what I am referring.
Quote:I don’t get why you try to poo poo me providing data that counters your claim.
Because your data does not counter the claim re: intragenerational mobility. That is seemingly a good reason to poo poo them in my opinion.
Quote:Perhaps Tanq will endear us with his deep, personal musings on why we shouldn’t use empirical data to inform our opinions
Perhaps because I am not trying to shoehorn a study on giraffes as proof of some issue about gazelles.
Lastly, let's do an 'analysis session' on and think critically on the cited studies and the finding.
In that vein how about this: 'Intergenerational mobility' is approximately stiff in the US, that is the correlation of one person's real income to their parents. It wasnt to long ago that you were crying a storm up about the lack increase in real wage. Well.... intergenerational mobility as a definition carries that real wage increase embedded within it.
And perhaps you would note this from the Forbes *article* (not study as you claimed) that
Quote: We know from work done by Raj Chetty and others using income to measure mobility, that absolute upward economic mobility has been declining since the 1940s. For children born in the 1940s, more than 90 percent were earning more than their parents. Today, that number has dropped to 50 percent. The figure below documents that decline.
That is the real wage story in the US from the 1960s to today you might note.
Secondly, looking at the EPI report one notes the lowest ratios are in the countries of Denmark, Norway, Finland, Canada, and Australia. Again, these countries fit the profile of countries with an economic predisposition for good real wage growth -- that is they are far from the apex predator economy style that naturally inhibits real wage growth (as we discussed in that thread when discussion the stagnation of the US in the last 50 years).
The Brookings study rehashes the EPI findings in *intergenerational* wage mobility.
None of them have any bearing on the issue of intragenerational mobility.
In my experience, nowhere else even comes close to the United States in the last 50 years for the ability of any one person to dramatically increase their own wealth and/or wage within the space of their own lifetime, or even within 20 years.
Again excepting drug lords.
I am of the opinion that China in the next ten years may come close --- simply because the China Way has only been in existence for somewhat less than a generation. But, there is a natural limit in the form of the clash between real capitalism and real process of law on one hand and the autocracy of the Beijing regime on the other for that to compete with the United States.