Social mobility higher in Europe??

[DrZoidberg]

Hmm... that's mostly magic with numbers.

The stats represent actual incomes, actual wealth and actual growing disparity between those at the top of the heap and the rest of us.

There's different levels of income so people have differently big slices of the cake. [/QWhat has happened is that industrialization made the cake much bigger.

I don't think that anyone is complaining about higher pay for higher qualifications and responsibility, lawyers, surgeons, managers, etc.

The problem is the ratio and the gap between on the highest incomes has been growing ever wider in recent decades. The stats show that incomes of CEO"s for example have risen by multiples over average wages....which was not the case a few decades ago.

I'm no libertarian. But even I feel the need to call leftist bullshit when I see it. The fact that people are rich isn't the problem. The problem is that it tends to lead to other stuff. It's that tendency we use policy to fix.

Whatever the solution, the growing disparity between the very wealthy and ordinary workers has to be addressed at some point in the near future.

US figures for example;

Federal income data over the past 20 years show a growing divide in income among all age groups. Bankrate's analysis of the data reveals that the 65-plus age group has the widest income gap. But the income gap is growing fastest among 35- to 44-year-olds.

Average incomes in the U.S.
The yawning divide shows one-fifth of American households earning $11,490 annually on average; the next fifth earning $29,696; the middle tier earning $51,179; the next rung up, $82,098; and the top tier, $181,905. Top 5 percent of American households earn $318,052 on average.

The bigger the income gap in a group, the greater the disparity between rich and poor. The gap can grow if there's an increase in population of high earners, for example, and it can grow if there's a rise in the number of poor people. It can also be a combination of both.

''Labor unions have been eviscerated. Fifty years ago, when General Motors was the largest employer in America, the typical GM worker, backed by a strong union, earned $35 an hour in today’s dollars.

Now America’s largest employer is Wal-Mart, and the typical entry-level Wal-Mart worker, without a union, earns about $9 an hour.

More states have adopted so-called “right-to-work” laws, designed to bust unions. The National Labor Relations Board, understaffed and overburdened, has barely enforced collective bargaining.

All of these changes have resulted in higher corporate profits, higher returns for shareholders and higher pay for top corporate executives and Wall Street bankers – and lower pay and higher prices for most other Americans.

They amount to a giant pre-distribution upward to the rich. But we’re not aware of them because they’re hidden inside the market.''

You've said yourself that wages have been kept constant, ie not falling. USA has chosen, through political policies that those best deserving of the increase in wealth that industrialization and computerization is the wealthiest Americans. I don't get why USA thinks these people need more money. Who am I to judge? But it is democracy.

 

[DBT]

You've said yourself that wages have been kept constant, ie not falling. .

I don't remember saying that, but generally speaking, it is true. The problem being that our pay increases tend not keep up with inflation, inflation eats away at buying power and in effect we have lower wages in terms of income to living cost ratio, especially house prices.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You've said yourself that wages have been kept constant, ie not falling. .

I don't remember saying that, but generally speaking, it is true. The problem being that our pay increases tend not keep up with inflation, inflation eats away at buying power and in effect we have lower wages in terms of income to living cost ratio, especially house prices.

But then they are sinking. Are they? Did a Google. They've just been kept constant. Not falling. It's hard to win arguments if you distort the facts.

 

[DBT]

I don't remember saying that, but generally speaking, it is true. The problem being that our pay increases tend not keep up with inflation, inflation eats away at buying power and in effect we have lower wages in terms of income to living cost ratio, especially house prices.

But then they are sinking. Are they? Did a Google. They've just been kept constant. Not falling. It's hard to win arguments if you distort the facts.

I'm not distorting anything.

Look the stats country by country and picture is similar:

Falling real wages

''Figure 1 shows that median real wages grew consistently by around 2 per cent per year from 1980 to the early 2000s. There was then something of a slowdown, after which real wages fell dramatically when the economic downturn started in 2008. Since then, real wages of the median worker have fallen by around 8-10 per cent (depending on which measure of inflation is used as a deflator – the consumer price index, CPI, or the housing cost augmented version CPIH). This corresponds to almost a 20 per cent drop relative to the trend in real wage growth from 1980 to the early 2000s.''

America;
For Most Americans, Wages Aren’t Just Stagnating — They’re Falling

''Overall, real wages — meaning adjusted for inflation — dropped since 2009, so no sector is doing spectacularly well. Indeed, we’ve suffered from stagnating wages in America since at least the year 2000, and with the exception of a small boost in the late 1990s, going all the way back to 1979.

Australia;
Weak real wages growth sends workers backwards

Workers’ living standards have gone backwards over the past three years, as wages have failed to keep pace with increases in the cost of living and the economy struggles to gain momentum in the wake of the resource boom.

''In what will also be seen as a harbinger of further budget revenue* shortfalls, growth in wages — which total about $800 billion a year — has fallen to an 18-year low of 2.3 per cent, with growth of only 1.5 pent in Western Australia, the lowest of any state.
Overall, real wages — meaning adjusted for inflation — dropped since 2009, so no sector is doing spectacularly well. Indeed, we’ve suffered from stagnating wages in America since at least the year 2000, and with the exception of a small boost in the late 1990s, going all the way back to 1979.''

 

[DrZoidberg]

But then they are sinking. Are they? Did a Google. They've just been kept constant. Not falling. It's hard to win arguments if you distort the facts.

I'm not distorting anything.

Look the stats country by country and picture is similar:

Falling real wages

''Figure 1 shows that median real wages grew consistently by around 2 per cent per year from 1980 to the early 2000s. There was then something of a slowdown, after which real wages fell dramatically when the economic downturn started in 2008. Since then, real wages of the median worker have fallen by around 8-10 per cent (depending on which measure of inflation is used as a deflator – the consumer price index, CPI, or the housing cost augmented version CPIH). This corresponds to almost a 20 per cent drop relative to the trend in real wage growth from 1980 to the early 2000s.''

America;
For Most Americans, Wages Aren’t Just Stagnating — They’re Falling

''Overall, real wages — meaning adjusted for inflation — dropped since 2009, so no sector is doing spectacularly well. Indeed, we’ve suffered from stagnating wages in America since at least the year 2000, and with the exception of a small boost in the late 1990s, going all the way back to 1979.

Australia;
Weak real wages growth sends workers backwards

Workers’ living standards have gone backwards over the past three years, as wages have failed to keep pace with increases in the cost of living and the economy struggles to gain momentum in the wake of the resource boom.

''In what will also be seen as a harbinger of further budget revenue* shortfalls, growth in wages — which total about $800 billion a year — has fallen to an 18-year low of 2.3 per cent, with growth of only 1.5 pent in Western Australia, the lowest of any state.
Overall, real wages — meaning adjusted for inflation — dropped since 2009, so no sector is doing spectacularly well. Indeed, we’ve suffered from stagnating wages in America since at least the year 2000, and with the exception of a small boost in the late 1990s, going all the way back to 1979.''

I'm going with statistical variance. These numbers are since 2008. Not that long ago. If you take a 20, 40, 70 or 100 year perspective it's a straight line up. So it's magic with numbers.

If that number keeps falling, then it's cause for worry. But I haven't seen any indication it's game over.

One note though. We have already seen how the IT industry effectively shuts out stupid/uneducatable people. These people are today struggling to get by today. Just not that many jobs for them left. When the robot revolution gets in full swing these people will lose their jobs. Which will be a major problem for democracy when these people make up 75-95% of the population. They will be angry and uneducated. Bad mix.

I think this is a realistic scenario. With that in mind these guys have a point. I'm convinced the future will be bright for communism. I think there'll be a communist revival. In a world where there just isn't jobs for most people (while we're also richer than ever) communism is perfect. But we're not their yet. I think liberalism has a couple of decades to go yet.

 

[DBT]

I'm not talking about communism, just a fairer system of remuneration for services rendered and productive work performed, higher rates of pay for those at the bottom and reducing the astronomical salaries and perks those on top currently enjoy, but still allowing for the added responsibilities and skills of management. A fairer system.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not talking about communism, just a fairer system of remuneration for services rendered and productive work performed, higher rates of pay for those at the bottom and reducing the astronomical salaries and perks those on top currently enjoy, but still allowing for the added responsibilities and skills of management. A fairer system.

You do agree that "fairness" is a vague term? I'm pretty sure everybody is for fairness. The rates of pay for the poorest has constantly been rising for 350 years. So you're saying, more? The rates of pay for the poorest aren't rising fast enough? it's not a zero sum game. If you take from the rich, the poor don't get more money.

 

[DBT]

I'm not talking about communism, just a fairer system of remuneration for services rendered and productive work performed, higher rates of pay for those at the bottom and reducing the astronomical salaries and perks those on top currently enjoy, but still allowing for the added responsibilities and skills of management. A fairer system.

You do agree that "fairness" is a vague term? I'm pretty sure everybody is for fairness. The rates of pay for the poorest has constantly been rising for 350 years. So you're saying, more? The rates of pay for the poorest aren't rising fast enough? it's not a zero sum game. If you take from the rich, the poor don't get more money.

Fairness isn't all that vague when some people get millions a year, living the high life, mansion, yacht, private jet, while there are many people who work full time yet struggle to make ends meet on their grand minimum wage of $8.25 ph.

The rates of pay have been rising, but so has inflation...as I pointed out with the quotes and links. Nor was it necessarily fair in the past. And what was gained was gained through unions, negotiation and strikes...the benefits of now being eroded away by apathy and inaction.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You do agree that "fairness" is a vague term? I'm pretty sure everybody is for fairness. The rates of pay for the poorest has constantly been rising for 350 years. So you're saying, more? The rates of pay for the poorest aren't rising fast enough? it's not a zero sum game. If you take from the rich, the poor don't get more money.

Fairness isn't all that vague when some people get millions a year, living the high life, mansion, yacht, private jet, while there are many people who work full time yet struggle to make ends meet on their grand minimum wage of $8.25 ph.

The rates of pay have been rising, but so has inflation...as I pointed out with the quotes and links. Nor was it necessarily fair in the past. And what was gained was gained through unions, negotiation and strikes...the benefits of now being eroded away by apathy and inaction.

You're just so locked into your way of viewing fairness that you are unable to see how others might view it. Here's two articles on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(economics)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201108/economic-fairness-what-is-it

I've taken inflation into account as well.

BTW. I'm pretty sure we're on the same side here. I just don't like to vilify my opponent. I always strive to understand the perspective of my opponent. To empathize with him/her. I think we can all agree that Reagan's trickle down economy hypothesis has not borne fruit.

 

[DBT]

Fairness isn't all that vague when some people get millions a year, living the high life, mansion, yacht, private jet, while there are many people who work full time yet struggle to make ends meet on their grand minimum wage of $8.25 ph.

The rates of pay have been rising, but so has inflation...as I pointed out with the quotes and links. Nor was it necessarily fair in the past. And what was gained was gained through unions, negotiation and strikes...the benefits of now being eroded away by apathy and inaction.

You're just so locked into your way of viewing fairness that you are unable to see how others might view it. Here's two articles on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(economics)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201108/economic-fairness-what-is-it

I've taken inflation into account as well.

BTW. I'm pretty sure we're on the same side here. I just don't like to vilify my opponent. I always strive to understand the perspective of my opponent. To empathize with him/her. I think we can all agree that Reagan's trickle down economy hypothesis has not borne fruit.

I don't think that I am 'locked' into 'my' way of viewing fairness. I stay within the bounds of the accepted definitions. Nor do I see anything in your links that contradicts what I said:


From your article;
''But let's get back to the question of whether the rich have acquired their wealth fairly in the first place. Do our current laws about inheritance, political donations and lobbying, and permissible financial transactions really reflect fairness? My suspicion is that they do not...''

So I think that we all have a reasonable idea of the nature of fairness;

1. treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

adverb: fair 1. without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage.

eq·ui·ta·ble (ĕk′wĭ-tə-bəl)
adj.
1. Showing or characterized by equity; just and fair. See Synonyms at fair1.


If a significant percentage of the population is struggling to make ends meet in spite of working long hours, while those at the top are able to get away with mismanaging a business yet continue to receive astronomically high incomes and bonuses to boot, how does this fit into any conceivable definition of fairness?

Never mind what I happen to think, look at the issue itself. What we have now hardly fits any given definition of fairness.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're just so locked into your way of viewing fairness that you are unable to see how others might view it. Here's two articles on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(economics)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201108/economic-fairness-what-is-it

I've taken inflation into account as well.

BTW. I'm pretty sure we're on the same side here. I just don't like to vilify my opponent. I always strive to understand the perspective of my opponent. To empathize with him/her. I think we can all agree that Reagan's trickle down economy hypothesis has not borne fruit.

I don't think that I am 'locked' into 'my' way of viewing fairness. I stay within the bounds of the accepted definitions. Nor do I see anything in your links that contradicts what I said:


From your article;
''But let's get back to the question of whether the rich have acquired their wealth fairly in the first place. Do our current laws about inheritance, political donations and lobbying, and permissible financial transactions really reflect fairness? My suspicion is that they do not...''

So I think that we all have a reasonable idea of the nature of fairness;

1. treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

adverb: fair 1. without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage.

eq·ui·ta·ble (ĕk′wĭ-tə-bəl)
adj.
1. Showing or characterized by equity; just and fair. See Synonyms at fair1.


If a significant percentage of the population is struggling to make ends meet in spite of working long hours, while those at the top are able to get away with mismanaging a business yet continue to receive astronomically high incomes and bonuses to boot, how does this fit into any conceivable definition of fairness?

Never mind what I happen to think, look at the issue itself. What we have now hardly fits any given definition of fairness.

Well.. I tried. Good luck with that. If preaching to the choir is your favorite thing to do, I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun. But you won't learn anything or convince anybody of anything.

 

[DBT]

I didn't think I was preaching. Or trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out that the ever growing gulf between the very rich and the rest of the Worlds population is not sustainable in the medium or long term...that real wages for ordinary workers have been stagnating while incomes, salaries and bonuses for the very rich have risen in leaps and bounds.

Now this is either true, false or mistaken, but nothing has been provided to show that what I said was false or mistaken. I have provided stats to support everything that I said.

 

[Canard DuJour]

It's not a zero sum game.

Correct, it's arguably negative sum. Productivity growth and capacity utilisation (the ultimate size of the pie) are negatively correlated with inequality.

Inequality is also negatively correlated with a host of well-being and health indicators, i.e. it's harmful in and of itself.

If you take from the rich, the poor don't get more money.

Yeah they do.

The fact that people are rich isn't the problem. The problem is that it tends to lead to other stuff. It's that tendency we use policy to fix.

A subset of the rich have been buying policies which increase inequality. They are part of the problem

 

[Canard DuJour]

If I understand this study correctly they only look at education. Ie whether or not the parents pass on their level of degree to their kids. He didn't actually look at income.

No, they admit that there is more social mobility in terms of income in Denmark, but say that it's only because of the flatter income distribution. If this is supposed to be a counterargument to the idea that more egalitarian societies have more social mobility, then it's hard to imagine a worse one. They further claim that Denmark's greater social mobility is down to redistributive taxation, though I don't see where their evidence supports this extraordinary claim, which implies taxation reversing rather than merely compressing income differentials.

Re education, they admit that the Danish system produces far better results (than the US) in terms of cognitive ability among low income groups, but not college attendance. Fair enough, but they further claim that this is because the redistributive welfare state disincentivises college attendance. In which case one wonders why college attendance among Americans from low income families isn't actually greater.

It's almost as if the authors have some king of agenda..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I understand this study correctly they only look at education. Ie whether or not the parents pass on their level of degree to their kids. He didn't actually look at income.

No, they admit that there is more social mobility in terms of income in Denmark, but say that it's only because of the flatter income distribution. If this is supposed to be a counterargument to the idea that more egalitarian societies have more social mobility, then it's hard to imagine a worse one. They further claim that Denmark's greater social mobility is down to redistributive taxation, though I don't see where their evidence supports this extraordinary claim, which implies taxation reversing rather than merely compressing income differentials.

Re education, they admit that the Danish system produces far better results (than the US) in terms of cognitive ability among low income groups, but not college attendance. Fair enough, but they further claim that this is because the redistributive welfare state disincentivises college attendance. In which case one wonders why college attendance among Americans from low income families isn't actually greater.

It's almost as if the authors have some king of agenda..

What you are missing is that the point of the article is that that "more" social mobility is bad data. There's little more social mobility in terms of going to college or gross income, it's just the high taxes make the noise in the data mask this.

 

[Canard DuJour]

No, they admit that there is more social mobility in terms of income in Denmark, but say that it's only because of the flatter income distribution. If this is supposed to be a counterargument to the idea that more egalitarian societies have more social mobility, then it's hard to imagine a worse one. They further claim that Denmark's greater social mobility is down to redistributive taxation, though I don't see where their evidence supports this extraordinary claim, which implies taxation reversing rather than merely compressing income differentials.

Re education, they admit that the Danish system produces far better results (than the US) in terms of cognitive ability among low income groups, but not college attendance. Fair enough, but they further claim that this is because the redistributive welfare state disincentivises college attendance. In which case one wonders why college attendance among Americans from low income families isn't actually greater.

It's almost as if the authors have some king of agenda..

What you are missing is that the point of the article is that that "more" social mobility is bad data. There's little more social mobility in terms of going to college or gross income, it's just the high taxes make the noise in the data mask this.

I believe the comments to which you're ostensibly replying stand in response.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

College Is for Coolies

Civilization will continue to decay unless we abolish the privileges of inheritance, trust funds, and living off an allowance in college.

Inheritance is rarely a factor in how one turns out economically for the simple reason that most people have already cast their economic dice before inheriting a penny. And the rest of your list is a matter of how easy or hard it is to pay for college, not whether it's possible to go to college.

You've been manipulated into supporting the overwhelming advantage of unearned birth privileges, so your opinion is just mindless parroting The plutocrats better give the few who belong in college the same high allowance and paid-up tuition that they give their sons there or we have a democratic duty to make sure those brats never graduate. For all the no-talent class-climbers who submit to that insulting indentured servitude, college is just proof that they lived like young-adult slackers afraid to grow up.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's the Preppies Turn to Have Their Complaints Ignored

I'm not talking about communism, just a fairer system of remuneration for services rendered and productive work performed, higher rates of pay for those at the bottom and reducing the astronomical salaries and perks those on top currently enjoy, but still allowing for the added responsibilities and skills of management. A fairer system.

If we have to do it on our own, so must the children of the rich once they reach 18. They and their Diploma Dumbo bootlickers don't belong in their responsible positions, so the system cannot absorb reform as long as such incompetents are in charge. Nothing will happen until we outlaw their privileges and their ability to make laws benefiting only themselves. We far outnumber them and can crush them like grapes. It's time to quit whining and start making wine.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Getting a Job Just Because You Can Go 4 Years Without a Job?

If I understand this study correctly they only look at education. Ie whether or not the parents pass on their level of degree to their kids. He didn't actually look at income.

No, they admit that there is more social mobility in terms of income in Denmark, but say that it's only because of the flatter income distribution. If this is supposed to be a counterargument to the idea that more egalitarian societies have more social mobility, then it's hard to imagine a worse one. They further claim that Denmark's greater social mobility is down to redistributive taxation, though I don't see where their evidence supports this extraordinary claim, which implies taxation reversing rather than merely compressing income differentials.

Re education, they admit that the Danish system produces far better results (than the US) in terms of cognitive ability among low income groups, but not college attendance. Fair enough, but they further claim that this is because the redistributive welfare state disincentivises college attendance. In which case one wonders why college attendance among Americans from low income families isn't actually greater.

It's almost as if the authors have some king of agenda..

College students must be paid a higher salary as students than they can expect to make at that age on a job. Otherwise, as it is now, they are amateurs, ambitious wannabes who aren't worth anything to the economy. Such class-climbers are the hidden reason economies become unfair and collapse. Notice that the fascist educationists' slogan is not "To do a good job, get a good education."

The results indicate that students aren't paid a salary in Denmark, either, especially since young adults who never got much money from their parents will be desperate to earn a living starting at age 18. Preparation is the most important part of production. Paying college students to learn their future jobs will produce twice as much wealth in the long run. The fact that the rich employers, who mandate this system, pay their sons a high allowance in college proves that they know what is the natural way to live in college, even though those pampered aristocrats are not paid because they are talented, which should be the only reason to pay anybody.

All the smartest students should refuse to study under the present conditions because it benefits such an insulting and ungrateful society. There should be a brain drain to any country that treats its talent like America treats young athletic talent. At age 18, Derek Jeter got almost a million dollars to put himself through baseball's equivalent of college education. Should the Yankees have told him to get a loan to pay the minor league clubs to train him and live off low-paying off-season jobs for four years? Those who answer yes really have contempt for athletes.

 

[untermensche]

European capitalism stifles mobility as well as US capitalism.

Yeah!!!!