This Pew study looked at the odds of current working Americans either climbing into a higher economic class than their parents, or falling into a lower one (it's an easy read):
http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/ ... _Dream.pdf
For me personally, the degree to which I believe people have the opportunity to change their own economic state greatly affects my political stance on things like welfare, unemployment and Social Security. If I believe people (read: healthy able-bodied people) CAN do for themselves, I am less inclined to lend an economic hand. If people literally can't improve their own situation, for whatever reason, then I feel a moral obligation to share my own resources.
Piggybacking on the recent inheritance thread: I care far more about busting up dynastic wealth transfers if I believe it's not possible for others to go build their own through hard work, sacrifice and frugality.
US class mobility over generations
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
There are a lot of qualitative issues that are not taken into account here. I think on the east coast and in particular when it comes to banking, there is a pretty low ceiling for anyone without the money to go to an Ivy League school.
However, I think it's pretty easy to go from a family that makes 30k/yr. to heading a family that makes 60-80k/yr. with an inexpensive degree in a marketable skill from a state school. A degree in accounting or nursing from a state school can easily get someone raised in poverty into the middle class.
That leads to two fundamental questions:
1. Can the poor afford a university education? When I went to university a long time ago, the biggest problem is securing financial aid. You had to have your parents sign the documents, and abusive parents will not necessarily do that. If they refused to sign the documents, you would have to emancipate--a very complicated bureaucratic process--or wait until you were old enough to apply without parents. I think that age was 23.
2. Do people raised in poverty grow up to value education and do they understand its potential economic benefits? This is a cultural issue and a very major one. I was raised in a poor area where the smartest kid in the class was made fun of for being smart. It just wasn't cool to be smart.
The government should focus on policies that will encourage education and lower the barriers to financial aid for the poor. I don't know if they have worked hard on both fronts--I haven't followed this issue that closely--but I think they need to be addressed more earnestly than issues of welfare. The unending fascination with welfare queens in America is really a throwback to Reagan, and it's time we moved past that towards a more nuanced cultural discussion.
However, I think it's pretty easy to go from a family that makes 30k/yr. to heading a family that makes 60-80k/yr. with an inexpensive degree in a marketable skill from a state school. A degree in accounting or nursing from a state school can easily get someone raised in poverty into the middle class.
That leads to two fundamental questions:
1. Can the poor afford a university education? When I went to university a long time ago, the biggest problem is securing financial aid. You had to have your parents sign the documents, and abusive parents will not necessarily do that. If they refused to sign the documents, you would have to emancipate--a very complicated bureaucratic process--or wait until you were old enough to apply without parents. I think that age was 23.
2. Do people raised in poverty grow up to value education and do they understand its potential economic benefits? This is a cultural issue and a very major one. I was raised in a poor area where the smartest kid in the class was made fun of for being smart. It just wasn't cool to be smart.
The government should focus on policies that will encourage education and lower the barriers to financial aid for the poor. I don't know if they have worked hard on both fronts--I haven't followed this issue that closely--but I think they need to be addressed more earnestly than issues of welfare. The unending fascination with welfare queens in America is really a throwback to Reagan, and it's time we moved past that towards a more nuanced cultural discussion.
I agree with a lot of what Secretwealth said. It's not terribly hard to not be dirt poor, but it gets exponentially harder as you go up the ladder. Some of this increased difficulty is because not everyone can be rich. However, some of it is because of unearned advantages.
Bush II is a prime example. Obviously, the guy wasn't smart enough to earn a spot at Yale on his own merit, but he got in. Now in saying that, my cousin went to Harvard for his MBA and his father was a small town plumber. My beef with the unearned advantage is that there is someone exactly like my cousin, who deserved to go to an Ivy, but their slot was filled by a Bush, Kennedy, or some other legacy who didn't earn it. This makes it artificially more difficult for the cream to rise to the top.
Bush II is a prime example. Obviously, the guy wasn't smart enough to earn a spot at Yale on his own merit, but he got in. Now in saying that, my cousin went to Harvard for his MBA and his father was a small town plumber. My beef with the unearned advantage is that there is someone exactly like my cousin, who deserved to go to an Ivy, but their slot was filled by a Bush, Kennedy, or some other legacy who didn't earn it. This makes it artificially more difficult for the cream to rise to the top.
@Chad
Would you be in favor of making it more difficult for your cousin's child to get into Harvard than others so that the opportunity can be spread around to families which have yet to enjoy an Ivy League education? After all, genetics might provide him/her with a superior intellect, and that might provide the basis for several generations to attend such a prestigious school. And we can't have that and remain a fair, upwardly mobile society.
Would you be in favor of making it more difficult for your cousin's child to get into Harvard than others so that the opportunity can be spread around to families which have yet to enjoy an Ivy League education? After all, genetics might provide him/her with a superior intellect, and that might provide the basis for several generations to attend such a prestigious school. And we can't have that and remain a fair, upwardly mobile society.
@ddrem
That's not what I'm saying at all. I specifically state, in my previous comment, that everyone who goes to those tier one schools must get there by merit or earn it. So, I'm fine if my cousin's kids go there, as long as they earn it. I'm fine if Buffett's, Gates', Ellison's, etc. kids go to those schools as long as they earn it (grades, accomplishments, etc.). And, based on the few people I know who went to those schools a majority do earn it.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I specifically state, in my previous comment, that everyone who goes to those tier one schools must get there by merit or earn it. So, I'm fine if my cousin's kids go there, as long as they earn it. I'm fine if Buffett's, Gates', Ellison's, etc. kids go to those schools as long as they earn it (grades, accomplishments, etc.). And, based on the few people I know who went to those schools a majority do earn it.
@Chad
But only a small percentage of people have the intelligence required to get into an Ivy League school. After all, if one is a lot smarter than the average person, that is not earned - it's either the result of inherited traits or a fluke. That's like winning the lottery, and it should be held against that person to maintain the upward mobility of our society.
And yes, I'm laying on the sarcasm pretty thick now, but I think it's a valid point: both superior intelligence and legacy are the result of winning the genetic lottery, and yet you want to punish one and reward the other. I don't see the consistency in that.
But only a small percentage of people have the intelligence required to get into an Ivy League school. After all, if one is a lot smarter than the average person, that is not earned - it's either the result of inherited traits or a fluke. That's like winning the lottery, and it should be held against that person to maintain the upward mobility of our society.
And yes, I'm laying on the sarcasm pretty thick now, but I think it's a valid point: both superior intelligence and legacy are the result of winning the genetic lottery, and yet you want to punish one and reward the other. I don't see the consistency in that.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
Ditto @Chad: "And, based on the few people I know who went to those schools a majority do earn it."
But @ddrem's comments raise another question: how far is it acceptable to go in order to level the proverbial playing field?
Or, put another way: to what degree is equality of opportunity a human right, and to what degree is equality of end results a human right?
But @ddrem's comments raise another question: how far is it acceptable to go in order to level the proverbial playing field?
Or, put another way: to what degree is equality of opportunity a human right, and to what degree is equality of end results a human right?
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
Intelligence is also a result of nutrition & health, not just genetics. Stubborness/drive/commitment can be mistaken for intelligence and is often worth more... not sure what factors drive that!
Hmm... preparedness is another aspect of getting into the Ivy league. Brazil, as I recall, is finding out how this works in their national universities, as the wealthy kids have gone to schools which prepare the kids better than the poor, so even when the intelligence is the same or better in the poor, the wealthy kids have a distinct advantage. From a whole continent away, I think Brazil is managing that predicament pretty well.
Hmm... preparedness is another aspect of getting into the Ivy league. Brazil, as I recall, is finding out how this works in their national universities, as the wealthy kids have gone to schools which prepare the kids better than the poor, so even when the intelligence is the same or better in the poor, the wealthy kids have a distinct advantage. From a whole continent away, I think Brazil is managing that predicament pretty well.
@secretwealth
This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's a significant difference: an intelligent person will always be smart. He may lack some of the advantages of others but that won't make him a dolt. I'm sure we're all familiar with successful people who had little in the way of formal education.
This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's a significant difference: an intelligent person will always be smart. He may lack some of the advantages of others but that won't make him a dolt. I'm sure we're all familiar with successful people who had little in the way of formal education.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
@ddrem, "both superior intelligence and legacy are the result of winning the genetic lottery, and yet you want to punish one and reward the other. I don't see the consistency in that."
There is a difference. Legacy permits a weaker student in over a stronger/smarter one. While both legacy and intelligence may be the result of a genetic lottery, only legacy weakens the overall system by artificially advancing the weaker over the stronger.
There is a difference. Legacy permits a weaker student in over a stronger/smarter one. While both legacy and intelligence may be the result of a genetic lottery, only legacy weakens the overall system by artificially advancing the weaker over the stronger.
There're two major ways to earn money in this world:
1. Investment(stock, business ownership, real estate etc)
2. Earned income through a job.
The reason why richer get richer and poor getting poor as a class is that most people chase after #2 and IGNORE #1!
Many failed to see that they can work a minimum wage job and can still convert some of their earning into investment income. As investment grows at a faster rate than their job income, they'll gradually reduce the dependence on earned income.
1. Investment(stock, business ownership, real estate etc)
2. Earned income through a job.
The reason why richer get richer and poor getting poor as a class is that most people chase after #2 and IGNORE #1!
Many failed to see that they can work a minimum wage job and can still convert some of their earning into investment income. As investment grows at a faster rate than their job income, they'll gradually reduce the dependence on earned income.
You forgot the old-fashioned way for the very wealthy -- inheritance. If you have that working for you, you never have to stoop to #2. Just ask the Waltons.
But I agree with the basic premise -- that a penny saved is a penny earned, and that the idea that one should live on less than one earns is a foreign concept to most workers.
I also think that the data in the study is probably too generalized to be of much guidance to the individual. While it has been long known that people with college degrees earn more on average than those without, many are sadly discovering that spending too much for a degree that is not very valuable can cause its own set of financial problems. Frankly, not all degrees and educational institutions are worth paying for, even in the sciences. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html
But I agree with the basic premise -- that a penny saved is a penny earned, and that the idea that one should live on less than one earns is a foreign concept to most workers.
I also think that the data in the study is probably too generalized to be of much guidance to the individual. While it has been long known that people with college degrees earn more on average than those without, many are sadly discovering that spending too much for a degree that is not very valuable can cause its own set of financial problems. Frankly, not all degrees and educational institutions are worth paying for, even in the sciences. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17128
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
"Stephan, the Georgia State economist, calls the post-doc system a “pyramid scheme” that enriches — in prestige, scientific publications and federal grant dollars — a few senior scientists at the expense of a large pool of young, cheap ones."
This!
And what does a pyramid scheme like this need to keep going? More freshly minted scientists.... so here we go.
(In particular, riddle me this ... if postdocing is a form of training, how come that fields like economics and engineering only require a postdoc period of 0-12 months before landing a professorship, while in fields like physics and math, it requires 36-72 months? Supply and demand is probably the better explanation.)
http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
I note that out of the two most idealistic "I'm not in it for the money. I do it because it's interesting"-physicists I know/knew (I consider myself one of those two), both are now working on Wall Street. (Also see "Disciplined Minds"). I suspect we ignored academic politics/salesmanship at our peril.
Back on topic...
There are in my mind two factors when it comes to class mobility:
Vertical transmission, mostly from parents but also from local friends, etc. The same factors which are mostly responsible for transmitting things like religion, values, expectations, ...
Horizontal transmission, mostly from society, school, far-away friends.
I think college is valuable for the latter transmission. It's not that college makes people "more smarter" because I'd argue in most cases it does not (take away the relatively useless knowledge or rather information acquired and little remains) but that it sets a different set of values at a stage where people are still in a transformative stage.
I posit that a country where the school or similar (e.g. organized sports or clubs) system has more influence than the parents will likely see the highest levels of social mobility.
This!
And what does a pyramid scheme like this need to keep going? More freshly minted scientists.... so here we go.
(In particular, riddle me this ... if postdocing is a form of training, how come that fields like economics and engineering only require a postdoc period of 0-12 months before landing a professorship, while in fields like physics and math, it requires 36-72 months? Supply and demand is probably the better explanation.)
http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
I note that out of the two most idealistic "I'm not in it for the money. I do it because it's interesting"-physicists I know/knew (I consider myself one of those two), both are now working on Wall Street. (Also see "Disciplined Minds"). I suspect we ignored academic politics/salesmanship at our peril.
Back on topic...
There are in my mind two factors when it comes to class mobility:
Vertical transmission, mostly from parents but also from local friends, etc. The same factors which are mostly responsible for transmitting things like religion, values, expectations, ...
Horizontal transmission, mostly from society, school, far-away friends.
I think college is valuable for the latter transmission. It's not that college makes people "more smarter" because I'd argue in most cases it does not (take away the relatively useless knowledge or rather information acquired and little remains) but that it sets a different set of values at a stage where people are still in a transformative stage.
I posit that a country where the school or similar (e.g. organized sports or clubs) system has more influence than the parents will likely see the highest levels of social mobility.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
One thing about the politicking of post-docs: it's endemic to academia, and a symptom of a dysfunctional industry. I have had deans tell me in all seriousness why offering tenured professorships to wives of desirable candidates was necessary for the good of the university.
Universities are some of the most un-meritocratic places I have seen. I like the discipline of the open market much more--and I think Jacob and the other ex-academics on this forum would probably agree with me.
The problem with allowing this kind of cronyism, whether it is the son of an alum or a husband of a desired professor or just the PhD candidate with the nice ass, is that it weakens the system overall, which is why you just cannot compare judging on intelligence and judging on pedigree.
Creative destruction is one of capitalism's strongest points, and it's a shame that that principle cannot be translated to academia more readily.
Universities are some of the most un-meritocratic places I have seen. I like the discipline of the open market much more--and I think Jacob and the other ex-academics on this forum would probably agree with me.
The problem with allowing this kind of cronyism, whether it is the son of an alum or a husband of a desired professor or just the PhD candidate with the nice ass, is that it weakens the system overall, which is why you just cannot compare judging on intelligence and judging on pedigree.
Creative destruction is one of capitalism's strongest points, and it's a shame that that principle cannot be translated to academia more readily.
Supply and demand is probably a big factor in the 36-72 month physics/math postdoc. I would think economists and Phd level engineers would be more inclined to go to the private sector than Phd level physics or math postdocs, as they are probably more idealistic than the prior two. Thus, less supply in academia. (I have nothing but "feelings" to base this on, so I could easily be wrong.)
"not that college makes people "more smarter"....but that it sets a different set of values at a stage where people are still in a transformative stage."
Agreed competely. It creates more like minded people and lets them socialize.
"I posit that a country where the school or similar (e.g. organized sports or clubs) system has more influence than the parents will likely see the highest levels of social mobility."
Highly likely. I think this was demonstrated during the strong public education run in the U.S. Of course, this is slowly being torn apart now, with what seems to be a desire to purposefully create bad schools.
@secretwealth
At one point in history tenure, unions, etc. were all a good ideas and beneficial for society as a whole. Obviously, those systems, like any system implemented, get co-opted, corrupted, gamed, etc. and eventually becomes a negative to society and merit based advancement.
While, I agree free markets and competition is ideal, it like any other system always gets co-opted, corrupted, gamed, etc. So, while I agree that at this point in time tenure might need to be mitigated or removed for more of a free market, we can never just implement a free market and walk away. It will always need to be tweaked because it will always get corrupted and gamed, which means the rules always have to change after a certain amount of time passes. (This is what bothers me about the "free market is always the answer and we can walk away" people.)
"Creative destruction is one of capitalism's strongest points"
I agree completely, but some times capitalism needs guidance in how and what to destroy (Recent financial melt down is a prime example). This is also why ddrem's earlier argument fails. Merit based admissions (intelligence, etc.) are part of the creative destruction, while just pure legacies are part of stagnation.
"not that college makes people "more smarter"....but that it sets a different set of values at a stage where people are still in a transformative stage."
Agreed competely. It creates more like minded people and lets them socialize.
"I posit that a country where the school or similar (e.g. organized sports or clubs) system has more influence than the parents will likely see the highest levels of social mobility."
Highly likely. I think this was demonstrated during the strong public education run in the U.S. Of course, this is slowly being torn apart now, with what seems to be a desire to purposefully create bad schools.
@secretwealth
At one point in history tenure, unions, etc. were all a good ideas and beneficial for society as a whole. Obviously, those systems, like any system implemented, get co-opted, corrupted, gamed, etc. and eventually becomes a negative to society and merit based advancement.
While, I agree free markets and competition is ideal, it like any other system always gets co-opted, corrupted, gamed, etc. So, while I agree that at this point in time tenure might need to be mitigated or removed for more of a free market, we can never just implement a free market and walk away. It will always need to be tweaked because it will always get corrupted and gamed, which means the rules always have to change after a certain amount of time passes. (This is what bothers me about the "free market is always the answer and we can walk away" people.)
"Creative destruction is one of capitalism's strongest points"
I agree completely, but some times capitalism needs guidance in how and what to destroy (Recent financial melt down is a prime example). This is also why ddrem's earlier argument fails. Merit based admissions (intelligence, etc.) are part of the creative destruction, while just pure legacies are part of stagnation.
@Chad: "I agree completely, but some times capitalism needs guidance in how and what to destroy (Recent financial melt down is a prime example)."
This line of thinking has done more damage to our country than any of your "free market is always the answer" people. If politicians hadn't pushed banks to relax lending standards, if the Federal Reserve hadn't kept rates artificially low in the years after the Dot Com Bubble burst, if Fannie and Freddie hadn't been ready buyers for all of those mortgages Wall Street was producing, and if the SEC hadn't turned a blind eye, this financial crisis never could have happened. But that's the end result of people in power providing "guidance" to the market. And you'd rather them keep at it than give the free market a chance?
This line of thinking has done more damage to our country than any of your "free market is always the answer" people. If politicians hadn't pushed banks to relax lending standards, if the Federal Reserve hadn't kept rates artificially low in the years after the Dot Com Bubble burst, if Fannie and Freddie hadn't been ready buyers for all of those mortgages Wall Street was producing, and if the SEC hadn't turned a blind eye, this financial crisis never could have happened. But that's the end result of people in power providing "guidance" to the market. And you'd rather them keep at it than give the free market a chance?
@ddrem
Actually, if the politicians had just kept Glass Steagall we would have dodged the vast majority of the problems even if everything you said were true. Which, would have been "guidance" from outside the free market.
Also, just because I tire of this meme:
"If politicians hadn't pushed banks to relax lending standards"
Coompletely untrue. Even at the height of all the bad loans only 15% of the ones facing foreclosure or almost in foreclosure were from the incentivized low income program. That's hardly a main cause.
Actually, if the politicians had just kept Glass Steagall we would have dodged the vast majority of the problems even if everything you said were true. Which, would have been "guidance" from outside the free market.
Also, just because I tire of this meme:
"If politicians hadn't pushed banks to relax lending standards"
Coompletely untrue. Even at the height of all the bad loans only 15% of the ones facing foreclosure or almost in foreclosure were from the incentivized low income program. That's hardly a main cause.