Post: #1

At the risk of coming off as privilege troll (as I've talked about before), I thought this article was interesting. It details a 'new' method to measure social mobility taking into account surnames and other measures of social standing, as opposed to the more traditional method of quantifying income differences between parents and their offspring.

What's in a Name? Everything.

Some choice quotes:

Quote:According to the World Values Survey, while 60 percent of Europeans say they think “the poor are trapped in poverty,” only 29 percent of Americans think so. Instead, 60 percent of Americans think “the poor are lazy,” compared with just 26 percent of Europeans.

Quote:Mobility is hard to measure, however, turning not just on who earns what today but on how what people earn—and what they have—relates to their parents’ income and wealth, and their grandparents’ and prior generations’ too. Economists, to their credit, are increasingly stepping up to this difficult empirical challenge. Some are tackling the politically touchy question of whether mobility is greater in America than in western-European countries. (Our traditional civic myth notwithstanding, the answer is no.) Others are investigating whether mobility in America has declined in recent years. (Contrary to President Obama’s recent statements, it apparently hasn’t.)

Gregory Clark, an economic historian at the University of California at Davis, has looked at these questions through a different lens. Clark, too, finds that mobility here is no greater than in Europe, and that U.S. mobility hasn’t declined. But he comes to a more fundamental, far more powerful conclusion. Clark argues that mobility is always the same—in all societies, and in every era. Mobility, he claims, is “a universal constant”; over time we thrive or not according to a “social law of motion,” a “social physics of intergenerational mobility.” And to make matters worse, the universal speed at which families and groups change their social position is slow—a lot slower than everyone thinks on the basis of previous research.

The implications are profound. If mobility is constant, then the ability of social institutions to affect it must be negligible. Clark points to such changes as the movement from feudalism to democracy and then the expansion of the franchise, as well as free public education and redistributive taxation. But if modern America and modern Sweden have the same rate of mobility, and that rate is the same as what prevailed in medieval England and in 19th-century China, then none of those changes mattered. And if the journey from unusually high or low status to the middle can, as Clark claims, “take ten or fifteen generations (300–450 years),” the mobility-based defense of inequality becomes strained, here and everywhere else.

Quote:“By and large, social mobility has characteristics that do not rule out genetics as the dominant connection between the generations.” And elsewhere: “This is not to say that social status is determined genetically. But whatever drives it is, on the tests performed here, indistinguishable from genetic inheritance.” As the book moves on, however, it becomes ever clearer that Clark has our genes in mind.

This genetic perspective leads him to a further ambiguity. Clark concludes that pervasive economic inequality in America and elsewhere is the outcome of fair competition: what’s being rewarded in life—with income, wealth, good jobs, social prestige—is no more than the talent and energy that each individual brings to the contest. “The social world,” he writes, “is much fairer than many would expect.”

But it’s hard to see the fairness in having not just every person’s position but every person’s chances of moving up or down so dominated by whatever subcellular makeup he or she simply happens to inherit. Clark himself steps forward to acknowledge just that:

"An important corollary to the finding that social outcomes are the product of a lineage lottery is that we should not create social structures that magnify the rewards of a high social position … If social position is largely a product of the blind inheritance of talent, combined with a dose of pure chance, why would we want to multiply the rewards to the lottery winners?"

At the very least, interesting that the notion that the US as the land of opportunity may be incorrect, despite its attempts at constructing a social structure that, on the surface, would seem to make social mobility easier than it really is.

Post: #2

In discussions of this, many red pillers basically resort to NAWALT as a defense. Find a few isolated rags to riches stories and dismiss the whole issue because Bill Clinton was brought up poor.

Its like when you criticize women who have cats as crazy and someone says "No because I know someone with a cat who isnt crazy" Ok, the exception proves the rule, yknow...

Post: #3

Interesting theory. What happens when you've got a huge older population lording their status over everyone else? No mobility.

The only way to have fast mobility is through war and conquest.

Post: #4

(07-26-2014 02:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Interesting theory. What happens when you've got a huge older population lording their status over everyone else? No mobility.

The only way to have fast mobility is through war and conquest.

Or planetary colonization, which could happen if so much money wasn't spent on wars.

Post: #5

The thing is that poor people CAN move up in society. The tools are out there. Poor people scholarships, free internet at the library, free books at the library, financial aid at colleges, etc.

The only reason that poor people don't move up is because their parents aren't teaching them about money well. People who are rich know how to stay rich, and therefore teach their children how to manage and make money to stay rich. Poor kids don't know anyone rich to essentially teach them to be rich. Middle class families teach their kids middle class values with money.

A book that goes over this idea is Rich Dad Poor Dad. A great book in other regards too.

But how many poor people do you see living in $400/month government assisted apartment, driving a $4000 car, but then that car has a $2000 spoiler on the back and custom rims. They also have a $2000 HD TV and the whole family has iPhones with $60/month plans.

Those are poor values. The kids learn those values. The live for the moment without regard for the future.

So say you're a poor kid. How hard does it sound to get a 3.8 GPA in high school, go to community college basically for free for 2 years, then transfer to a 4 year uni and still pay almost nothing. They could take out loans if they have to. Then they get a degree in something useful like finance or engineering, they graduate, and get a job. Boom, middle to upper middle class guaranteed.

Now how many poor parents are going to encourage their kids down that path?

I'd be very interested in seeing studies on mean IQs of people at different income levels.

Post: #6

So if socio-economic status is mostly distributed fairly, then what is the problem with low social mobility?

As an aside, I've seen this exact same research used to jus.tify the argument that social mobility is higher than many people assume

Post: #7

Quote:But he comes to a more fundamental, far more powerful conclusion. Clark argues that mobility is always the same—in all societies, and in every era. Mobility, he claims, is “a universal constant”; over time we thrive or not according to a “social law of motion,” a “social physics of intergenerational mobility.” And to make matters worse, the universal speed at which families and groups change their social position is slow—a lot slower than everyone thinks on the basis of previous research.

I'm no researcher so I'm obviously talking out of my ass, but this has the ring of truth. Social mobility is always the same because human nature is always the same. Regardless if the opportunity for social mobility rises(and it has) the proportion between the "will do" and "won't do" segments of the population is always the same. Something like the 80/20 rule.

Hundreds or thousands of years ago a lowborn with high aspirations might have had to distinguish himself in battle, or scheme his way up the ladder at court, or form a mercenary company or something. Today that same lowborn can become a politician or work on Wall Street or be an entrepreneur. Only the means have changed, but the segment of the lowborn pupulation who will move up is probably the same.

Quote:The implications are profound. If mobility is constant, then the ability of social institutions to affect it must be negligible.

This also has the ring of truth. In his book Propaganda Edward Bernays makes this important observation:

Quote:Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought.

Can anyone think of something else that fits this description? The internet! Exactly.

More than a century later, nothing has changed. The internet offers access to virtually limitless information. For the lowborn who are inclined to educate and better themselves the internet is an incredible resource. I know it has been for me, and probably for many of us here. Yet, just like a century ago, the other lowborns spend their time on Facebook, following the Kardashians and still falling for advertising slogans. Still sedated, still "innocent of original thought".

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Post: #8

(07-26-2014 02:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Interesting theory. What happens when you've got a huge older population lording their status over everyone else? No mobility.

The only way to have fast mobility is through war and conquest.

The civil service tests of China also appear to created mobility, at least for the bureaucratic group immediately surrounding the Emperor.

Some of the trading-based societies of the late Middle Ages seemed to allow for fast status changes, admittedly only for those willing to travel and "launder" their old social status at home. Depending on what sources you go by, Columbus used this method to "launder" his social status as the son of a cheese merchant and billed himself as a distant son of a noble line.

Post: #9

(07-26-2014 03:51 AM)Switch Wrote:  I'd be very interested in seeing studies on mean IQs of people at different income levels.

http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelli...684824299/

Post: #10

The poor ARE lazy. I understand that people lose jobs. But markets shift and new types of jobs become "hot".
And you have to be somewhat flexible and attempt to learn and adapt in order to survive or make money.

I'm not even talking about jobs that require degrees or tech jobs where technology changes every year. If you're
a laborer you can just as easily be a mason, plumber, carpenter, electrician or any other job that requires basic
use of hand tools. You can always find work and make money. You just have to know where to look and be willing
to commute if needed.

Post: #11

Quote:The poor ARE lazy. I understand that people lose jobs. But markets shift and new types of jobs become "hot".
And you have to be somewhat flexible and attempt to learn and adapt in order to survive or make money.

'Western Poor are Lazy' I agree, there will always be money, the flow just changes and you have to do a little paddling to get to it but if you are willing to adapt and try new things then you too can follow the money trail. People need to take this word out of their vocabulary --> "Degrading". One thing I have learned is that degrading yourself in front of others, especially 'rich' others, actually generates huge amounts of $$$. If you can't figure out how to be rich then figure out how to SERVE the rich and soon you too will be wealthy. Learning how to provide GREAT service to others, makes you a very bright star in a dark sky.

I'll give you a personal example: My wife learned how to provide the best service in her company and now most teachers request her by name. I learned how to 'butter up people' and suddenly had offers coming in all over the place for classes $30, $50 and sometimes $100 per class. I was so booked up I would hand off jobs to my friends. I'm not smart enough to do business but I know how to make people feel good and rich people have no problems paying for those feelings.

Learn how to make people feel good around you and your halfway there, no matter who you are.


My friend disagrees with me, he says I always pick jobs where I'm 'someone's bitch'. I've got a decent amount of money in the bank and he's broke, coincidence?

Post: #12

(07-26-2014 06:48 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  The poor ARE lazy. I understand that people lose jobs. But markets shift and new types of jobs become "hot".
And you have to be somewhat flexible and attempt to learn and adapt in order to survive or make money.

I'm not even talking about jobs that require degrees or tech jobs where technology changes every year. If you're
a laborer you can just as easily be a mason, plumber, carpenter, electrician or any other job that requires basic
use of hand tools. You can always find work and make money. You just have to know where to look and be willing
to commute if needed.

everything above basic laborer requires some sort of investment, either time or money or a combination of the two. A trade is going to be tuition at a tech school + time spent in an apprenticeship + the money you aren't earning while taking classes. if you dont have any money to weather a temporary drop in income, these aren't possibilities

Post: #13

[/quote]
So say you're a poor kid. How hard does it sound to get a 3.8 GPA in high school,
[/quote]

considering american public school suck and lots of low income schools arent even accredited, harder than it sounds

[/quote]
go to community college basically for free for 2 years, then transfer to a 4 year uni and still pay almost nothing. They could take out loans if they have to. Then they get a degree in something useful like finance or engineering, they graduate, and get a job. Boom, middle to upper middle class guaranteed.
[/quote]

except its not. a lot of people with degrees still struggle to find stable jobs that would put them into the upper class. an engineering degree from a good school would go a lot farther than a finance degree because most poor students have weaker networks to get into financial areas


[/quote]
I'd be very interested in seeing studies on mean IQs of people at different income levels.
[/quote]

they exist, generally with higher IQs equating higher income, but IQs are not considered overly important in psychology, and its unclear if people make more money because they have a higher IQ or if the benfits of having money will result in a higher IQ score

EDIT: I don't know how to quote individual blocks of text. fuck it

Post: #14

You don't need to go to a trade school to be a plumber, electrician, carpenter, mason or whatever where I come from. Look in the paper. They're always looking for help. You learn on the job. There's plenty of work if you're motivated.

Post: #15

in this state, all electricians, plumbers, and certain kinds of contractors must be licensed by the state. in the case of electrician, you need 144 hours of classroom time and 2000 hours of apprenticeship to be eligible to take the licensing test

Post: #16

I think difficulty of social mobility is largely perspective dependent. You know which "group" has had the most success in "upward mobility" in the US during the last quater century? Eastern Europeans. Coming from behind the iron curtain after the collapse of the Soviet Union to the US they've found it relatively easy to get ahead here. "You mean all I have to do is work 12-14 a day, 6-7 days a week, not waste my money on stupid shit and eventually I can own stuff including a house and my own business? Piece of cake"

Post: #17

You guys need to watch the TV show Shameless. While fiction, I know similar people who live in situations like that making bad decisions with all around bad luck. The poor will always be with us.

When there are low skilled factory jobs that pay 10-15$ an hour where you just show up and they start you doing something really meaningless before you get promoted then they have no excuse.

On a side note, couldn't a smart kid go to an inner city school, get straight As and the like, and then apply to an ivy league school with some sob story essay about going to a difficult school? Colleges love minorities. If more applied, I bet they'd stop affirmative action!

Post: #18

For some reason I thought of this quote from the Bible, Matthew 3:12 specifically:

"His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

I guess I was thinking in terms of how life (God, fate, whatever you believe in), hard-work, failures, opportunities, etc separates men between leaders/followers, alpha/beta, strong/weak.