Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
Author Message
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #261
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-07-2019 12:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I think you're right that some of the wealth distribution could be attributed to many people in the younger generations deciding to make decisions that aren't solely motivated by financial gain.

Could you give some examples of that, and contrast them to the decisions that apparently my generation made solely on financial gain?

As usual, when i ask a leftist for specifics, I get ignored.

Speaking for myself, I made decisions primarily for the benefit of my family.

I only know of one leftist who has deliberately made decisions adverse to his financial gain on principle - and he is my age.
10-08-2019 09:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #262
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
As usual, I have to wonder what the goal is. As Owl69 says, if you don't know where you are going, any path with get you there.

Is inequality bad? Did the existence of Astors and Rockefellers and Fords and Heinzs somehow set this country back?

It seems to me the great thing about this country is that anybody can get rich, anybody can move up, and many have. Our poor are better off than the poor of most other countries. Most of them have cars and AC and cell phones with internet access.

The goal of the left seems to be to eliminate the distance between the top and the bottom, which is appropriate, since that is the goal of Marxism.

It is bad enough when the left imposes taxes because they want the money and the rich have it. But now we drifting into the realm of taxing the rich because they have too much.

So, any leftist here, what is the goal? what is the optimum spread between very rich and much less rich?
10-08-2019 09:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #263
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As usual, I have to wonder what the goal is. As Owl69 says, if you don't know where you are going, any path with get you there.

Is inequality bad? Did the existence of Astors and Rockefellers and Fords and Heinzs somehow set this country back?

It seems to me the great thing about this country is that anybody can get rich, anybody can move up, and many have. Our poor are better off than the poor of most other countries. Most of them have cars and AC and cell phones with internet access.

The goal of the left seems to be to eliminate the distance between the top and the bottom, which is appropriate, since that is the goal of Marxism.

It is bad enough when the left imposes taxes because they want the money and the rich have it. But now we drifting into the realm of taxing the rich because they have too much.

So, any leftist here, what is the goal? what is the optimum spread between very rich and much less rich?

We know what their real goal is: power, pure and simple. The fundamental motive of leftism is that leftists (from Robespierre to Peron to Lenin to Ocasio-Cortez) imagine themselves, or people like themselves, exerting power over others, and they delight in the prospect. Everything else flows from there; there's no mystery to it at all.

What is a mystery is why, with all the historical evidence to the contrary, they believe that the concentration of power over others is a good thing for mankind. Disraeli charitably referred to such ahistorical delusion as "the triumph of hope over experience"; others have referred to it as the definition of insanity.

In contrast to the leftist minority, for centuries the fundamental motive of most free people has been simply to be left alone. Those centuries have proven that policies flowing from this motive are much, much, much, much, MUCH less dangerous than policies flowing from the motives of leftists.
10-08-2019 09:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #264
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 06:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 02:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The humorous thing is embedded in another facet that the progressives studiously ignore:

the 'velocity' of entry into the (pick your percentile) in this country is the fastest of any other developed country.

That is it is *far* easier (and quicker and more prevalent) for someone to change their their economic status.

But apparently that is too slow....

Luckily there is a constitutional fight embedded into the fabric of this dumb*** idea.....

Economic mobility (the velocity that I assume you’re talking about) is not nearly as great as you suggest. Lots of research shows us lagging peer, developed countries.

https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags...-mobility/

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/upl...ll_ch3.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes....ility/amp/

I guess my graduating class from EPHS from the barrios missed that letter. Bummer for them.
10-08-2019 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #265
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As usual, I have to wonder what the goal is. As Owl69 says, if you don't know where you are going, any path with get you there.

Is inequality bad? Did the existence of Astors and Rockefellers and Fords and Heinzs somehow set this country back?

It seems to me the great thing about this country is that anybody can get rich, anybody can move up, and many have. Our poor are better off than the poor of most other countries. Most of them have cars and AC and cell phones with internet access.

The goal of the left seems to be to eliminate the distance between the top and the bottom, which is appropriate, since that is the goal of Marxism.

It is bad enough when the left imposes taxes because they want the money and the rich have it. But now we drifting into the realm of taxing the rich because they have too much.

So, any leftist here, what is the goal? what is the optimum spread between very rich and much less rich?

The goal of the modern US progressive is crystal clear on this.

No need for specifics when the true goal is to use the wird 'fair' ad infinitum to stoke envy ---- and thus grab votes.

Democrats have used this 'cleaving' method for 50 years. Yet the funny thing is that they squawk like the victimhood they extol when a single Repub counterpunches in the exact same manner that they have developed into an art form.
10-08-2019 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #266
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Democrats have used this 'cleaving' method for 50 years. Yet the funny thing is that they squawk like the victimhood they extol when a single Repub counterpunches in the exact same manner that they have developed into an art form.

Didn't we just have a discussion on Hypocrisy?

Personally, I think couching their goals in "more" or "less: terms leaves the door open to continue once "more" or "less" has been obtained.

Perpetual election issues is the goal, IMO.
10-08-2019 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #267
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 08:48 AM)ausowl Wrote:  You won't agree with the author's conclusions, but the imbedded graphics should help the rich sleep well:
Income tax rate over time

The problem with this analysis, as with the stuff done by Piketty and Saez at UCLA, is that they don't consider the changes in the definition of taxable income over time. In the 1950s, when the top rate was 90%, the "rich" only paid taxes on about 35-40% of their income. The rest was not taxed as a result of deductions, exclusions, and quite frankly loopholes. So the effective rate was somewhere between 30-35%. When Reagan, Bill Bradley, and Dick Gephardt basically rewrote the tax code in 1986, they lowered rates drastically and redefined taxable income equally drastically, so that the taxes paid by the "wealthy" actually went up, not down.

So if you use tax return information for your source (and that is the only source that has the data with sufficient granularity to make analyses), you have a distinct apples and oranges situation comparing 1986 and prior to 1987 and subsequently. Of course, the share of income going to the "rich" increased, because all of a sudden those "rich" people had to start reporting all--or nearly all--of their income, whereas before they had only reported part of it. The effective tax rate paid by the "rich" dropped significantly when JFK/LBJ lowered the top rate from 90% to 70%, but subsequent rate reductions have been essential neutral because they have been accompanied by significant redefinitions of Gross Income, Adjusted Gross Income, and Taxable Income.

If I make a million dollars and my effective tax rate is 25%, then I pay $250,000 in taxes. If I make that same million dollars, but I get to exclude 65% from taxable income, and my effective rate is 70%, then I pay $245,000 in taxes ($350,000 x 70%). That's basically the 1960s versus today.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2019 05:07 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
10-08-2019 05:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #268
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 10:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 06:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 02:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The humorous thing is embedded in another facet that the progressives studiously ignore:

the 'velocity' of entry into the (pick your percentile) in this country is the fastest of any other developed country.

That is it is *far* easier (and quicker and more prevalent) for someone to change their their economic status.

But apparently that is too slow....

Luckily there is a constitutional fight embedded into the fabric of this dumb*** idea.....

Economic mobility (the velocity that I assume you’re talking about) is not nearly as great as you suggest. Lots of research shows us lagging peer, developed countries.

https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags...-mobility/

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/upl...ll_ch3.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes....ility/amp/

I guess my graduating class from EPHS from the barrios missed that letter. Bummer for them.

No one said it is non-existent. Thought that I said we were lagging behind other countries.

Weird.
10-08-2019 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #269
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 09:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 12:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-07-2019 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I think you're right that some of the wealth distribution could be attributed to many people in the younger generations deciding to make decisions that aren't solely motivated by financial gain.

Could you give some examples of that, and contrast them to the decisions that apparently my generation made solely on financial gain?

As usual, when i ask a leftist for specifics, I get ignored.

Speaking for myself, I made decisions primarily for the benefit of my family.

I only know of one leftist who has deliberately made decisions adverse to his financial gain on principle - and he is my age.

I guess some of the decisions I made that would be characterized as for financial gain would include going to college, taking a job, leaving that job for another, starting a business, investing for the future, etc.

sorry to hear, but not surprised, that young people are not planning for the future so much these days.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2019 05:32 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
10-08-2019 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #270
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
To get back to basics, I object to the term, "wealth distribution." That implies that the wealth just sits there or happens, and the only trick is to distribute it properly. The proper term, and the one I use, is "wealth dispersion," along with its buddy, "income dispersion." Wealth and income are both unequal because different people produce different outputs that are worth different amounts. The beauty of capitalism is that the way is open for anyone to rise to the top. Look at the super-wealthy today, like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerburg, Elon Musk. How many of them started out anywhere near that wealthy? Buffet came from some money, but nothing like now, and the rest are pretty much self-made. Yes they are worth a lot of money, but who really benefitted from what they created? How about their customers as a prime example? How about their employees as another? Nobody took wealth and "distributed" it to any of them.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2019 05:44 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
10-08-2019 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #271
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 10:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 06:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 02:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The humorous thing is embedded in another facet that the progressives studiously ignore:

the 'velocity' of entry into the (pick your percentile) in this country is the fastest of any other developed country.

That is it is *far* easier (and quicker and more prevalent) for someone to change their their economic status.

But apparently that is too slow....

Luckily there is a constitutional fight embedded into the fabric of this dumb*** idea.....

Economic mobility (the velocity that I assume you’re talking about) is not nearly as great as you suggest. Lots of research shows us lagging peer, developed countries.

https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags...-mobility/

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/upl...ll_ch3.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes....ility/amp/

I guess my graduating class from EPHS from the barrios missed that letter. Bummer for them.

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.
10-08-2019 06:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #272
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 05:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To get back to basics, I object to the term, "wealth distribution." That implies that the wealth just sits there or happens, and the only trick is to distribute it properly. The proper term, and the one I use, is "wealth dispersion," along with its buddy, "income dispersion." Wealth and income are both unequal because different people produce different outputs that are worth different amounts. The beauty of capitalism is that the way is open for anyone to rise to the top. Look at the super-wealthy today, like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerburg, Elon Musk. How many of them started out anywhere near that wealthy? Buffet came from some money, but nothing like now, and the rest are pretty much self-made. Yes they are worth a lot of money, but who really benefitted from what they created? How about their customers as a prime example? How about their employees as another? Nobody took wealth and "distributed" it to any of them.

Again, all massive examples of intragenerational change. Just like a crap ton of my barrio infused high school class. Just like a crap ton of more than a handful of clients.

The freedom to start at *any* level and still be able to achieve the topmost level is absolutely unsurpassed within the US. Excluding some sub-populations of Mexicans with surnames of Guzman, Arellana, and Leyva, and Venezualans with surnames of Escobar and Lehder.

But I am sure lad will vehemently disagree.

Everywhere I have ever been in business (a *lot* of places, mind you) I am astonished at how few top-level corporate or business people local to those countries state 'I started middle class or worse' and ended up near the top of the heap.

And last yesterday, flying in from an extended business and personal trip, and thinking about that issue based on this sub-thread, I am also equally astonished about how common that attribute is in the United States.

But again, I am sure lad will disagree.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2019 06:17 PM by tanqtonic.)
10-08-2019 06:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #273
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 06:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 10:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 06:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 02:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The humorous thing is embedded in another facet that the progressives studiously ignore:

the 'velocity' of entry into the (pick your percentile) in this country is the fastest of any other developed country.

That is it is *far* easier (and quicker and more prevalent) for someone to change their their economic status.

But apparently that is too slow....

Luckily there is a constitutional fight embedded into the fabric of this dumb*** idea.....

Economic mobility (the velocity that I assume you’re talking about) is not nearly as great as you suggest. Lots of research shows us lagging peer, developed countries.

https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags...-mobility/

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/upl...ll_ch3.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes....ility/amp/

I guess my graduating class from EPHS from the barrios missed that letter. Bummer for them.

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.
10-08-2019 06:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #274
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 06:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 06:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 10:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2019 06:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Economic mobility (the velocity that I assume you’re talking about) is not nearly as great as you suggest. Lots of research shows us lagging peer, developed countries.

https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags...-mobility/

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/upl...ll_ch3.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes....ility/amp/

I guess my graduating class from EPHS from the barrios missed that letter. Bummer for them.

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.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2019 07:12 PM by tanqtonic.)
10-08-2019 07:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #275
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
Perhaps lad will endear us with his deep personal observations of intragenerational differences of economic mobility in the cultures he has experienced for his lifetime.
10-08-2019 07:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #276
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(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:  
(10-08-2019 10:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess my graduating class from EPHS from the barrios missed that letter. Bummer for them.

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.
10-08-2019 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #277
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-08-2019 07:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps lad will endear us with his deep personal observations of intragenerational differences of economic mobility in the cultures he has experienced for his lifetime.

I don’t get why you try to poo poo me providing data that counters your claim.

Again, not saying that economic mobility doesn’t exist here, but rather data shows that there are peer countries that do it better.

Perhaps Tanq will endear us with his deep, personal musings on why we shouldn’t use empirical data to inform our opinions, and rely solely on anecdotal evidence.
10-08-2019 08:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fountains of Wayne Graham Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 288
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #278
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
Tanq is wrong on this one.
10-08-2019 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #279
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(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.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2019 05:31 AM by tanqtonic.)
10-09-2019 04:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #280
RE: For discussion: wealth distribution in the US
(10-09-2019 04:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(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:  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.

Maybe it’s your use of the barrio example that is confusing. Because seemingly pointing out that your peers started at the bottom, because of where their parents started, is a comment on how they increased their personal wealth as compared to their parents. Inherently, the Intragenerational wealth gain of your barrio peers is also an intergenerational wealth gain, and I would argue that would extend out past just your peer example, since every single person is heavily influenced by where they start, which is directly correlated to their parents.

That’s why I had assumed your intragenerational change was considering the parents in this situation - I’m not sure how one disconnects the two.
10-09-2019 05:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.