Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

[BananaStand]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US that's not really the case.

You are wrong.

Two thirds of the people born into the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile. Income Mobility!!

11 percent of them rise all the way to the top quintile. Income Mobility!!

8 percent of the folks born into the top quintile fall all the way to the bottom, and even more fall to the quintiles in between. Income mobility!!

Also...this "rich get richer" argument ignores the fact that the rich aren't the same people from one generation to another. That's because of income mobility. Oprah couldn't go from being on welfare, to being who she is today, if she lived in Norway her whole life.

[spoonitnow]

You are wrong.

Two thirds of the people born into the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile. Income Mobility!!

11 percent of them rise all the way to the top quintile. Income Mobility!!

8 percent of the folks born into the top quintile fall all the way to the bottom, and even more fall to the quintiles in between. Income mobility!!

Also...this "rich get richer" argument ignores the fact that the rich aren't the same people from one generation to another. That's because of income mobility. Oprah couldn't go from being on welfare, to being who she is today, if she lived in Norway her whole life.

You better stop with all of this logic and shit before someone comes along and calls you a Russian shill.

[CoccoBill]

You are wrong.

Two thirds of the people born into the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile. Income Mobility!!

11 percent of them rise all the way to the top quintile. Income Mobility!!

8 percent of the folks born into the top quintile fall all the way to the bottom, and even more fall to the quintiles in between. Income mobility!!

Also...this "rich get richer" argument ignores the fact that the rich aren't the same people from one generation to another. That's because of income mobility. Oprah couldn't go from being on welfare, to being who she is today, if she lived in Norway her whole life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve

Edit: Just to be sure you understand the significance and purpose of the link. What you posted is like really cool and impressive. The numbers you quoted just happen to be worse than in many other countries, such as the nordic countries which I used as an example.

[Poopadoop]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve

Damn. Socialist (i mean communist) Canada has waay more social mobility than the US.

[BananaStand]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve

Edit: Just to be sure you understand the significance and purpose of the link. What you posted is like really cool and impressive. The numbers you quoted just happen to be worse than in many other countries, such as the nordic countries which I used as an example.

Seems cloudy. It definitely doesn't show anything that compares to the numbers I posted in a way that would allow you to say that X country is Better/worse than the USA. Two totally different analyses.

The first murky thing I see, is that the Y axis shows "the likelihood that you inherit your parent's relative position of income level"

It doesn't show "the likelihood that you exceed your parent's relative position of income level", or "the likelihood that you achieve less than your parent's relative position of income level".

Second, the part about "rungs being farther apart" is HUGE. If everyone's relative income is clustered at a certain level, then it really doesn't take much to move up many percentiles. In other words, this chart could be telling me [hypothetical numbers] that 90% of Danish kids will achieve a relative income level that is 10 percentile higher than their parents, and that 65% of US kids will achieve a relative income level that is 30 percentile higher than their parents. Can you really tell me which is better?

It would be interesting if the they showed how large the increase/decrease is likely to be by country. 80% chance of a 20% increase, or a 60% chance of of a 50% increase. Which would you rather have poker players??

So I'm not convinced that this chart shows "superior" income mobility in Nordic countries. It just shows that it's more likely to occur. But we don't know by how much, or in which direction the mobility will take place. I kinda think that's important.

In the end though, the income-inequality drumbeat fails because you simply can't get around this fact...

In a healthy economy, investments grow faster than wages....so the rich will ALWAYS get richer.

Add to that the fact that most income inequality stats are bullshit to begin with because, as wuf pointed out, they tend to lump capital gains income along with labor income, and that really fucks things up. I'm pretty sure the Dow is crushing whatever Scandanavian exchanges exist out there. So I wonder what happens to the Gatsby Curve if we strip that part out of it??? Seems unfair to penalize the USA just because our companies are more innovative, efficient and profitable.

[Poopadoop]

Seems cloudy. It definitely doesn't show anything that compares to the numbers I posted in a way that would allow you to say that X country is Better/worse than the USA. Two totally different analyses.

It absolutely does. There is a very strong correlation between income disparity and income mobility shown by how the data tend to cluster around a diagonal line going up and to the right.

The first murky thing I see, is that the Y axis shows "the likelihood that you inherit your parent's relative position of income level"

It doesn't show "the likelihood that you exceed your parent's relative position of income level", or "the likelihood that you achieve less than your parent's relative position of income level".

For one person to go up a step, another person has to come down. So how many go up and how many go down will be roughly equal. I say 'roughly' because if one person goes up three steps, this can be offset by three people each going down one step. But the overall net change will be the same. The measure is of income variability as a function of income inequality.

Second, the part about "rungs being farther apart" is HUGE. If everyone's relative income is clustered at a certain level, then it really doesn't take much to move up many percentiles. In other words, this chart could be telling me [hypothetical numbers] that 90% of Danish kids will achieve a relative income level that is 10 percentile higher than their parents, and that 65% of US kids will achieve a relative income level that is 30 percentile higher than their parents. Can you really tell me which is better?

It would be interesting if the they showed how large the increase/decrease is likely to be by country. 80% chance of a 20% increase, or a 60% chance of of a 50% increase. Which would you rather have poker players??

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. 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.

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.

So I'm not convinced that this chart shows "superior" income mobility in Nordic countries. It just shows that it's more likely to occur. But we don't know by how much, or in which direction the mobility will take place. I kinda think that's important.

Also based on a misinterpretation of the graph and therefore also irrelevant.

In the end though, the income-inequality drumbeat fails because you simply can't get around this fact...

In a healthy economy, investments grow faster than wages....so the rich will ALWAYS get richer.

Add to that the fact that most income inequality stats are bullshit to begin with because, as wuf pointed out, they tend to lump capital gains income along with labor income, and that really fucks things up. I'm pretty sure the Dow is crushing whatever Scandanavian exchanges exist out there. So I wonder what happens to the Gatsby Curve if we strip that part out of it??? Seems unfair to penalize the USA just because our companies are more innovative, efficient and profitable.

I don't see the question of HOW the rich maintain their position being relevant. Nor does having a strong or weak overall economy or stock market change the relationship (or Brazil would not be close to the US). Nor does it change the overall conclusion about the clear relationship between income mobility and income disparity.

[BananaStand]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

It's hard to evaluate the figures you provided without a source. Do you have one?

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.

I didn't say that.

It's a non-intuitive way of thinking about things, so I'll try to be patient. You have a society where different people earn different amounts. If you divide that society up into quintiles, the top 20% make the most, the next 20% the second most, and so on, until you get to the bottom quintile which is the 20% who make the least. Each quintile has an equal number of people in it.

The next generation, there are still five quintiles, each with an equal number of people in it. The graph shows the likelihood that a person who's parent(s) are in any given quintile will end up in that same quintile. It has nothing to do with how much the average earning in that quintile is (presumably it's gone up in 25 years). If your parents are in quintile 3 you can either go up or down, or stay in quintile 3. But, since the same number of people occupy each quintile (20%), if you change quintiles up, someone else has to change quintiles down.

Here's an example

Q1: 10 people
Q2: 10 people
Q3: 10 people
Q4: 10 people
Q5: 10 people

Now, someone in Q3 has a baby who grows up to be a bigly success and gets into Q1. That's income mobility. But now there is an extra person in Q1 that wasn't there before, and that has to be balanced with someone moving down. You can't have 11 people in Q1 and 9 in Q3. That's not how quintiles work.

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.

Their rungs are relatively further apart, not absolutely. Let's say the median income in Q1 for Brazil is $50k a year, whereas for Q5 it's $5k a year. meanwhile for Denmark the Q1 and Q5 median incomes are $100k an $20k a year, respectively. The person making 20k a year in Denmark has further to go (80k) than the person in Brazil (45k) to get from Q5 to Q1.

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??

It generally does, as do all Western countries. The issue is not HOW much education there is, but WHO has access to that education. Moreover, it's only one of a broader category of things that you can call 'opportunity'. If Joe Blow lives on a dirt farm and his Q5 parents can't afford to send him to college, it doesn't help him that most of the people in Q1-Q4 can send their kid to college. OTOH, if college were subsidized such that his parents could afford to send him, he would have a better chance of experiencing income mobility.

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.

Ok, bye.

[BananaStand]

It's hard to evaluate the figures you provided without a source. Do you have one?

Economists at Harvard and Berkely evaluated 40 million tax returns between 1971 and 2012

That's not how quintiles work.

Nice backpedal. But don't pretend like your argument up until this point has been that the rich get rich at the expense of the poor.

Their rungs are relatively further apart, not absolutely. Let's say the median income in Q1 for Brazil is $50k a year, whereas for Q5 it's $5k a year. meanwhile for Denmark the Q1 and Q5 median incomes are $100k an $20k a year, respectively. The person making 20k a year in Denmark has further to go (80k) than the person in Brazil (45k) to get from Q5 to Q1.

That's not what the chart shows. Try again.

Furthermore, I could say that in Brazil the gap between Q1 and Q5 is 10x, or 1000%. Meanwhile the gap in Denmark is only 5x, or 500%. Therefore you could say that the Brazillians, not the Danish, have farther to go.

In investing, it's ALOT harder to turn $5K into $50K than it is to turn $20K into $100K. In economics it really depends on the skills, education, and opportunities available. If you're a dirt farmer in Brazil making $5k, then ALOT of shit has to happen for you to move up to $50K. You need opportunities available to you, and finding those opportunities are probably alot harder than they are in denmark, or the US. Meanwhile, in Denmark, if you're a clerk making $20K, then all you need is some training, education, and work ethic to advance yourself. So in that regard, I would say that the advantage goes to the country with the most educational opportunities. And the USA crushes everyone else when it comes to access. We have more universities, and more top universities per capita than pretty much anywhere.

It generally does, as do all Western countries. The issue is not HOW much education there is, but WHO has access to that education.

Another libtard myth. it was decided during the Clinton administration that education was a right. It doesn't matter who you are, where you're from, what your parents do, or anything. If you want to go to college, you fill out a form, and the government will loan you the money.

There are countless vocational schools, community colleges, cheap in-state tuition, and the like around the country. It's possible to get a college education for less than $150/credit. The whining on this issue from the left stems from a materialistic sense of entitlement for the residential college experience.

Maybe if you're in a shithole in Brazil, it's touger to get into a classroom. But in the USA, anyone, literally anyone can go to school. That's another reason why the Gatsby chart is fucked.

Ok, bye.

So you're just gonna stand by your fact-less, information-less, data-less moans?

[wufwugy]

Economists are editing out basic economics in their textbooks based on their precious fee fees.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...l_krugman.html

The real losers in the rejection of economics aren't us; the real losers are the poor kids who are made destitute by those who reject economics.