Income and Social Mobility - Page 4

RightinNYC · 05-31-08, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new coup for you

mobility is a code word for improvement...that's just how it is. in the media, academia and in politics.

downward mobility has its own terms

That's not possible, because when you're looking at a closed system like what quartile of wealth families end up in, every "improvement" has to be met with an equal and opposite decline. Mobility, as it's used in this context, necessarily indicates both upward and downward movement.

RightinNYC · 05-31-08, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

He's stated the obvious really, but you can see how the fellow supported public education. The problem, however, is that simply increasing tertiary education places (as in the case of Britain) is insufficient to narrow the income distribution.

Come now, you have the required material to point your finger in the air and slightly sigh. This is about changes to social mobility generated by changes in education investment. Instead of it providing a means to enable the more able student to break the class shackles, it has further imprisoned the Brits. At best, this suggests that the education system struggles to meet the human capital goal that the Adam Smith fans hope for. We're not getting the most able student investing such that the return from education is maximised. This partially reflects wealth differences (in simple investment talk, the silver spoon spod can borrow at a lower interest rate given his background). Attempting to remove this problem via university grants has not worked (although to be fair, the student never received a sufficiently high subsidy). Students drop out further down the education system (thus, the preference for 'further education' subsidies)

Feckin ell thats an argument and a half (for Utah!)

Whinge n whine from someone that hasn't got to the first base in the debate. Limp their and then get back to me...

I honestly don't think you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. There is no way that a rational person could consider anything that you said to be a response to any of my points. You continue to avoid the question of whether the mobility that you describe is necessarily beneficial, you completely miss the gaping lack of credible support for your ideas on the causes for the problem, you keep focusing on the completely tangential question of funding for higher education, you support your arguments solely through unrelated quotes and leaps in logic, and you seem reluctant to engage in critical thought as it relates to my questions.

Overall, D-.

Scucca · 05-31-08, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

I honestly don't think you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. There is no way that a rational person could consider anything that you said to be a response to any of my points.

The problem is that you haven't actually made any points. You haven't referred to the consequences of the education investment and why it has reduced social mobility. I'm therefore restricted to trying to maneuver you towards making something that achieves treasured twittering

Quote:

You continue to avoid the question of whether the mobility that you describe is necessarily beneficial

An increase in education investment that reduces social mobility (consistent with those low ability kiddies from richer backgrounds now able to go to university and take opportunities from high ability kiddies from poor backgrounds) is not consistent with any human capital celebration.

Quote:

you completely miss the gaping lack of credible support for your ideas on the causes for the problem

I've referenced an empirical study that supports my stance. We have comments like: ”the rapid expansion of the higher education system over this period was concentrated among people from higher income backgrounds. This has acted to slow down and restrict the extent of mobility up or down the distribution across generations”. And what is behind that previous mobility? Innate ability

Quote:

you keep focusing on the completely tangential question of funding for higher education

Here, you're merely showing a lack of comprehension over the human capital model. We would expect differences in education investments according to concerns independent of ability; i.e. as mentioned, the student from richer background can fund their investment at a lower interest rate. Theoretically, this will reduce the benefits of the education sector (given we cannot be assured that the high ability students, more suited to the tertiary education environment, will be the investors). Funding becomes key in reducing these problems. Social mobility, via education, is then consistent with ensuring the human capital role of education is maximised.

Quote:

you support your arguments solely through unrelated quotes and leaps in logic

What unrelated quotes? Adam Smith? Important to show the importance of education for the wage distribution (with pubic education integral). The original journal article? Clear empirical evidence that the British education investment has failed to deliver with its system. We aren't seeing the most able students investing, sparking off greater social mobility consistent with innate ability.

Quote:

and you seem reluctant to engage in critical thought as it relates to my questions.

A tad repetitive. See the beginning of this response.

E

gunner · 05-31-08, 06:34 PM

I,m probably going of on abit of tangent. But i like to use "real life" experience and relate that to a question than referring to pure academia.
Succa you need to get over your obsession with the middle classes its blurring your obvious talent in economics.
I,ll keep it short, I am 36yrs old have lost both parents in that time. I was raised in a working class family on a rough council estate [where i still live]. I joined the Army at 16 served for 7 yrs. Once i left the Army "I" got into trouble [violence] and was incarcerated for 6months. "I" came out "I" got a grip of myself and went to college, where i spent 6yrs progressing in the field of electrical/electronics and "I" gained employment within the defense industry.
I now earn a good salary and have two great kids, one attending a state funded "high school" [after passing her 11+ exam]. "I" have purchased my own property and rent another out.
In life i feel the only boundaries are those that you allow to be "a boundary" If you have the dedication to work hard there's nothing [within reason] that you cannot achieve.
So i don't buy into this born into poverty bull**** as a restriction on income and social mobility.

Sorry for rambling on.

Paul.

Scucca · 05-31-08, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunner

Succa you need to get over your obsession with the middle classes its blurring your obvious talent in economics.

You don't think we're still class ridden?

Quote:

In life i feel the only boundaries are those that you allow to be "a boundary" If you have the dedication to work hard there's nothing [within reason] that you cannot achieve.

How do you account for the increase in graduate unemployment? Is it perhaps that demand-side constraints (which are beyond the individual's control) effectively make the usual supply-side stories insufficient?

Quote:

So i don't buy into this born into poverty bull**** as a restriction on income and social mobility.

Whilst I thank you for your personal example, it isn't sufficient to discount the point. I'm from working class oik background myself and have achieved a self-employment level that I'd have spat on as a more naive whipper-snapper "I wannabe Citizen Wolfie Smith". Its the lack of overall upward mobility that is the problem, with evidence to discount innate ability is able to sufficiently break through the intergenerational divides generated by wealth

Bergslagstroll · 06-01-08, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

One point that hasn't been addressed here - why do you assume that changes in intergenerational social strata are automatically good? What you term social mobility could also be termed social instability.

Situation 1:

A1 is a brilliant wealthy physician who raises his son A2 to be a brilliant wealthy physician. B1 is a scumbag poor drug dealer who raises his son B2 to be a scumbag poor drug dealer.

Situation 2:

A1 is a brilliant wealthy physician who raises his son A2 to be a brilliant wealthy physician. Unfortunately, A2 loses his practice and goes bankrupt when some idiot jury returns a massive malpractice reward against him in a situation that wasn't really his fault. B1 is a scumbag poor drug dealer who raises his son B2 to be a scumbag poor drug dealer. B2 then gets shot 45 times, writes a rap album about it, and becomes a billionaire.

Another exampel is that you A1 a brilliant wealthy physician who raises his son
to believe in himself and find his own path in life. So instead of forcing the son and using his contacts to get his son to also be a physician, he instead let the son choose himself. So the son instead becomes a highly decorate police officer with a job much more suitable for his abilities and interest. That yes he doesn't earn that much and have a lower social status but he really loves his job and have found his role in society.

While B2 his a son of B1 a scumbag poor drug dealer that left the family before B2 even was born. And B2 believe his only choice in life is also to join a gang and become a drug dealer. But thankfully he ends up with a really great teacher, that not only teach him subjects like math, science, english but that life have so many other choices and opportunities. So he realise that he actually can gain something from studing hard and also realise that he actually is a very smart kid. So after graudates he get's a scholarship and ends up as a brilliant wealthy physician.

American · 06-02-08, 03:40 PM

To whom it may concern, are the demographics of Europe and the US identical? If not, why do you compare the two?

Scucca · 06-02-08, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

To whom it may concern, are the demographics of Europe and the US identical? If not, why do you compare the two?

What aspects of the demographic differences would you refer to? Typically, folk will refer to immigration differences. We might expect countries with greater immigration to exhibit greater social mobility, particularly as the incompatibility of foreign education is eliminated and a person's human capital is improved