Originally posted by wolfgang59Stating as fact, "born rich - stay rich" and "born poor - stay poor" is overstating your case.
I don't think I overstated my case.
I admitted to being surprised that US social mobility was worse than UK.
Europe is better but not perfect.
It would be interesting to see stats from the 50s and 60s when I believe US
would top the list. It is a shame that so many Americans are living in the past.
US is now more class-ridden than most Western countries.
That's not overstating a little, that's not stretching the truth, that's not a mild exaggeration, it is gross exaggeration, it is grossly overstating your case.
wolfgang:
"The fact is, for American citizens, the US is not the land of opportunity.
Born rich - stay rich.
Born poor - stay poor."
Originally posted by wolfgang59Not really. It makes the point that hard work can increase the quality of life from the previous generation.
Good for you.
Lucky for your children.
Kind of makes the point that success depends on your parents.
If you want to argue that hard work by parents helps the next generation, of course that's accurate, though I hardly think anybody would disagree with that or consider it a bad thing.
Seems that some of you don't understand statistics. It is not about unique stories of people but of the big numbers.
There are some things in that: The whole population is 100%. If the whole society would move to higher standards of living the poorest 10% would still be the poorest 10%.
People dealing with social mobility deal with dezils (10😵 to organize the socity in groups. So probability is high that people who are in the least dezile have parents from the sam dezile. Social upwards mobility is coupled with the same amount of social downwards mobility. So we can't have a society which only goes up. This would only be possible if wealth was distributed from the richest dezile which owns about 85% of wealth.
Btw mobility between the lowest half of the scoiety is of no consequence to the distribution of wealth in the big numbers, since the accumulated wealth of half of the US society ia abou7t half of a percent of the whole...
Originally posted by PonderableWelcome to Debates, Ponderable (don't recall seeing you here before; sorry if you've been posting on this board for the last 5 years and I've just missed it... 😉) and thank you for the excellent point.
Seems that some of you don't understand statistics. It is not about unique stories of people but of the big numbers.
There are some things in that: The whole population is 100%. If the whole society would move to higher standards of living the poorest 10% would still be the poorest 10%.
People dealing with social mobility deal with dezils (10😵 to or ...[text shortened]... nce the accumulated wealth of half of the US society ia abou7t half of a percent of the whole...
I'd also like to add, while we're pointing out the social mobility in a vacuum is not necessarily a good or bad thing, that the same is true for "poverty" measurements which also are measured by relative criteria and are calculated before government assistance.
Here's to using better statistics!
Originally posted by vivifyWhat makes a country great?
https://youtu.be/Y8J7Ug_0N6A?t=1m36s
Please watch the above link before responding. It has some profanity, but is little more than 2 minutes long.
Considering factors like standard of living, median household income and crime rates, what is the greatest country in the world?
Is it wealth, safety, freedom, military power, etc.?
I suppose your response depends on if you have personal wealth, freedom, safety, etc.
It's all about you don't ya know.
The greatest nation on earth is the nation that embraces morality. It is the nation that recognizes that passing laws and building prisons does not make a society moral. It is a society that recognizes that electing politicians who vow to make us moral does not make a society moral. it is a society that recognizes that no man is better than another, and so the more power one man is given over another becomes more and more ludicrous.