|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It absolutely does.
No, it shows income disparity and the likelihood of a change in relative income. that's it. The information that I provided demonstrates the likelihood of a change in relative income AND how much, AND in which direction. So comparing my numbers, to this chart, and then saying X country is "better" than USA is a leap not supported by the data.
For one person to go up a step, another person has to come down
Garbage. Where did you get this "zero sum game" theory??? It's absolutly a myth that the rich get rich at the expense of the poor. It's a popular liberal myth, but it's not true.
The first thing you say about the rungs being further apart would be a reasonable argument if you didn't have countries like Brazil and Chile near the top of the line with the USA. It's difficult to argue you have further to go in those relatively poor countries than you do in Denmark or Sweden.
What???? No! That's EXACTLY what the chart says. Brazil and Chile have the biggest gaps of income inequality....their rungs are the furthest apart. It's not 'difficult to argue' that you are further to go in those countries at all. That's exactly what the analysis is telling you.
Moreover, in most countries upward mobility comes through access to education and other opportunities. Where there's more of that, there's more income mobility; where's there's less, there's less
Ok, so there's this....
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/27/...ed-country-is/
And this
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ries/15460733/
and this..
http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/54
What in the world has led you to believe that the USA doesn't rank extremely high in access to education??
As the rest of the above is based on your initial misinterpretation of what income mobility means, it's similarly wrong to what you said earlier.
Uhhh, no it isn't. And it's pretty dubious for you to come in here and talk about the definition of "income mobility" since neither you, nor anyone in this thread had even used the term until I did. Until this....it was just "waaah inequality". Finally, if you're arguments are just gonna be data-less, fact-less, information-less moans of "you don't know what X means", you should rightly go fuck yourself.
Also based on a misinterpretation of the graph and therefore also irrelevant.
If you're going to make this claim....and not be a total vacuous douche bag....then explain yourself. Where on Gatsby chart does it show you the $ amount, and direction of the income mobility?
I don't see the question of HOW the rich maintain their position being relevant
Cause it torpedo's your argument. Again, it's very sad that you're an educator.
Nor does having a strong or weak overall economy or stock market change the relationship (or Brazil would not be close to the US).
Of course it changes the relationship!! If you're measuring income inequality in a way that INCLUDES investment income....then you're fucking things up royally! The fact that Brazil is close to the US proves that the chart is fucked.
Nor does it change the overall conclusion about the clear relationship between income mobility and income disparity.
Ok, but the overall conclusion is incredibly vague. Again....for the zillionth time....the chart only shows that income mobility is more likely to occur in countries with higher rates of income inequality. That's it. The size and direction of the change are massively relevant, yet wholly ignored by this analysis. You seem to believe they are irrelevant because of your hopeless delusion that economics is a zero-sum game and that the rich only get rich at the expense of the poor. And that is a retarded liberal myth that you need to let go of if you want to continue this conversation.
Otherwise, just accept that fact that America fucking rules, and scandanavia sucks herpes-ridden rhinoceros dick.
|
Reply With Quote