Scucca

The primary sector is characterised by the internal labour market. Internal promotion, by definition, reduces social mobility as an individual's economic outcome is largely based on initial primary sector entry.

Effort only gets you a reduced probability of the sack in the secondary sector

I'm actually closer to the thinking of the likes of Adam Smith than you. I'm no idealist. I merely appreciate that the labour market is not a meritocracy.

Not with wage norms dominated the outcome. There is no where to go. The labour market is not characterised by payment according to productivity.

That goes against orthodox labour economics. In a world characterised by a large of sellers of labour, the large number of buyers of labour are still predicated to achieve economic rents from paying too little. Monopsony for you!

What %? You seem to be a tad hopeful here.

We're back to realising that the US has relatively little social mobility. There is no innate ability dictating result as that would lead to a darn more aggressive mobility rate.

That would suggest that, ceteris paribus, immigrants are paid more or see greater wage growth?

This is more hope than anything, particularly as your immobility apes the class ridden Brits.

__________________

Awesome!

Well, social mobility isn’t the goal. The goal is to get employed which doesn’t take a large brain to do in the primary sector in the U.S. especially if you have an education along with some work experience. I disagree about effort. Effort is paramount for many individuals who gain internal promotions due to wage incentives from “ evil “ managers like myself, however will concede it’s not always a meritocracy as some people are more productive but not as talented as others when it comes to leading and supervising others. Their effort is only worth so much, however another employer may disagree, the key point being the employer is not the bad guy.

You may appreciate that the labor market is not a meritocracy, and that the individual is powerless however you seem a tad negative?

Also, anyone who has ever negotiated their salary, or been approached by an over market offer to join another company will tell you that wage norms are not always the rule and their individual effort played a part in increasing their wage. O.k. luck too and a new opening due to someone retiring; O.k. but the wage norm doesn’t factor negotiating.

I would agree with your orthodox labor economics if it was a monopsony, but it isn’t factoring upward mobility and a host of other buyers of labor. We need to achieve economic rents from paying too little for a time. Of course! Does a private earn a sergeants salary? And who decides who pays too little? By the time the union is done all we have left is wage norms and a shortage of jobs albeit some secondary sector jobs. And while the union is largely responsible for this madness, who do they always blame? The hand that feeds them…Brilliant! Even though we employ a lot of people domestically and internationally helping the local economy as well as the sourcing countries (Adam Smith would be proud) we are the bloody problem? No sympathy here, and if you don’t get off your bloody arse then you don’t deserve any pudding in my book.

And it’s not as you propose: Ceteris Paribus. It’s actually all things being unequal to the immigrant as they usually are very successful. I standby upward mobility in the U.S., still available if you want it, and thank immigrants for their work ethic.

Scucca

It certainly is! Social mobility would show that innate ability is allowed to break through the class shackles and demonstrate that human capital determines economic result. The lack of mobility shows problems such as inequality of opportunity and therefore, at the very least, a failing education system.

You're not understanding the nature of labour segmentation theory. It ensures that demand-side issues dominate. There are essentially a fixed number of jobs available in the primary sector. Those jobs are filled mainly by the use of education screening. The rest is luck! Luck that is largely denied to discriminated groups who are often forced into the secondary sector (thus, the primary sector is over-populated by the white male)

There's no morality spewing required. There is just appreciation that the labour market is characterised by inefficiency. Market forces do not eliminate it as it is consistent with profit maximisation (with employers benefiting from the economic rents generated by underpayment)

Negative? I must admit that I'd kick a kitten, but so what? There is only valid and invalid labour economics here. I'm hugging validity as if it was a fluffy bunny rabbit

A minority within the primary sector. These folk often do genuinely have market power. Indeed, at the extreme, you can talk about opportunistic behaviour as an employee can "hold-up" the firm via a human capital version of "asset specificity". However, these cases are few and far between.

Actually it does! Monopsony conditions still exist with 'many buyers of labour'. Moreover, on-the-job search only suggests that underpayment falls with variables such as age.

Empirical evidence of success?

You haven't provided any positive empirical evidence over upward mobility. Given the US is on a par with the class-ridden British, I can't agree with your summary

Awesome!

It certainly is! Social mobility would show that innate ability is allowed to break through the class shackles and demonstrate that human capital determines economic result. The lack of mobility shows problems such as inequality of opportunity and therefore, at the very least, a failing education system.

An opportunity is all that is needed. If you need to window dress society with an equal amount of minorities through government regulation, then fine, but most minorities or immigrants just want a chance and from my experience… they do just fine without pandering like you are suggesting. Well in the U.S. that is, but maybe not in the U.K. or France?

You're not understanding the nature of labour segmentation theory. It ensures that demand-side issues dominate. There are essentially a fixed number of jobs available in the primary sector. Those jobs are filled mainly by the use of education screening. The rest is luck! Luck that is largely denied to discriminated groups who are often forced into the secondary sector (thus, the primary sector is over-populated by the white male)

Your not understanding getting off your arse and making something happen for yourself. I suggest you make contact with the real-world asap versus limiting yourself to theory.

There's no morality spewing required. There is just appreciation that the labour market is characterised by inefficiency. Market forces do not eliminate it as it is consistent with profit maximisation (with employers benefiting from the economic rents generated by underpayment)

And? Do you want me to break out my violin. Maybe put your jammies on and I’ll read you a bed-time story? Geez….

Negative? I must admit that I'd kick a kitten, but so what? There is only valid and invalid labour economics here. I'm hugging validity as if it was a fluffy bunny rabbit

No, I disagree, I think you’re having some idealistic contemplation, which we all do. Sooner or later though we need to put the school books down and come to terms with reality, and it’s really not that bad... especially in the western world. Geez…..

A minority within the primary sector. These folk often do genuinely have market power. Indeed, at the extreme, you can talk about opportunistic behaviour as an employee can "hold-up" the firm via a human capital version of "asset specificity". However, these cases are few and far between.

No, no, no it’s not the extreme. It’s extreme discipline, hard work and so readily available in the U.S. if you want to work for it, or you can let theory hold you back, but it’s a lot more rewarding playing a hand writing the book so to speak eh? The third world can see the meal ticket here, why can’t you?

Actually it does! Monopsony conditions still exist with 'many buyers of labour'. Moreover, on-the-job search only suggests that underpayment falls with variables such as age.

I’m tuning my violin…

Empirical evidence of success?

That is laughable...would millions of immigrants first and second generations be enough for your empirical evidence of success, or are they just lucky? Unbelievable.

You haven't provided any positive empirical evidence over upward mobility. Given the US is on a par with the class-ridden British, I can't agree with your summary

Well you’re stuck in a theoretical paradigm and it’s tough come to terms with reality in that situation. It’s the white male, it’s the government, it’s wage norms. Always something right? Or to be fair, maybe you will see your perfect labor market: Robust, rewarding with no class restrictions, or race discrimination. More power to you, but in the U.S. it’s not a major factor as immigrants demonstrate each and everyday.

Scucca

Your opinion is not supported by the evidence. As I've shown, the US apes the class ridden Brits. It is therefore not a good idea to talk about "opportunity".

You're the one that brought up labour market segmentation theory! I've just communicated how it actually supports my argument and weakens yours.

Nope, I go commando. I just want you to support your argument with either theory or empirical evidence. As far as I can tell, given no one has made an "evil employer" argument (except for the illegal immigrant fellow again and again and again), you've brought up a morality angle as a means to hide from that.

This is not a good comment. I've made no idealistic comment, nor any melancholic utopian socialist pleading. Indeed, my argument is based on a realistic understanding of the limitations of market forces.

I've referred to the reality, particularly with regards the immobility limitations of the US. You may have a "live and let live" attitude, but that involves ignoring inefficiency that intensifies deprivation.

Extreme international income divides of course leads to labour mobility. That actually reflects unfair trade followed by the West, as detailed earlier.

Given you're not offering any valid argument, I'll have to assume that you have accepted the monopsony argument.

So you can't refer to one piece of empirical evidence to justify your "[i]t’s actually all things being unequal to the immigrant as they usually are very successful" remark?

I do not understand why people will make arguments without being able to support it, either theoretically or empirically. Given there is a plethora of international studies into social mobility, you really have no excuse for your failure to provide any positive empirical evidence. Could it possibly be that you'd have to admit the unpalatable?: the US is indeed no different to the class ridden Brits. You might as well get yourself a Queen!

Awesome!

Your opinion is not supported by the evidence. As I've shown, the US apes the class ridden Brits. It is therefore not a good idea to talk about "opportunity".

Again, either start a revolution or get up and go to work like the rest of us do everyday, unless you want to keep selling impotency with pure theory, based on the “were all powerless” comments. Who cares what system apes another system? What are you selling as an alternative?

You're the one that brought up labour market segmentation theory! I've just communicated how it actually supports my argument and weakens yours.

Labor market segmentation theory would only support your argument if upward mobility wasn’t factored in, which is why I brought it up.

Nope, I go commando. I just want you to support your argument with either theory or empirical evidence. As far as I can tell, given no one has made an "evil employer" argument (except for the illegal immigrant fellow again and again and again), you've brought up a morality angle as a means to hide from that.

No, I did not bring a morality angle in to hide from anything. I’ve merely stated that an individual’s work ethic can be rewarded through their own production capability which you won’t concede at all, only to say its luck, or the extreme and the rest of us are powerless? I have given you plenty of real world examples apart from your theoretical spin which you are not able to grasp, which is unbelievable as so many people get up, make something happen for them each and everyday and you want to kick kittens because maybe it isn’t you. Your selling impotency and not just making observations it would seem?

This is not a good comment. I've made no idealistic comment, nor any melancholic utopian socialist pleading. Indeed, my argument is based on a realistic understanding of the limitations of market forces.

And the pandering union and government forces are all powerful without limits?

I've referred to the reality, particularly with regards the immobility limitations of the US. You may have a "live and let live" attitude, but that involves ignoring inefficiency that intensifies deprivation.

Again factoring upward mobility doesn’t support your argument, it only destroys your “ intensifies deprivation” comment. I am right in the middle of the class struggle each and everyday and see hard working, happy people embracing the American dream moving upward. I am not ignoring anything but am a part of a growing business helping society teaching others everything that I have learned to help them develop and grow in the working world, but according to you “monopsony” rendering them powerless?

Extreme international income divides of course leads to labour mobility. That actually reflects unfair trade followed by the West, as detailed earlier.

Unfair trade? O.k. and when did you learn that the real world is no utopia? Moving forward? Or are you able to?

Given you're not offering any valid argument, I'll have to assume that you have accepted the monopsony argument.

No I agree that monopsony does exist but it’s not a major factor in the US and so therefore do not put that much value on it. It also isn’t all that bad. My grandfather worked for Ford Motor Company for 40 years as an electrician and provided for his family very well. They were first generation German immigrants who paved the way for the next generation.

[i]So you can't refer to one piece of empirical evidence to justify your "t’s actually all things being unequal to the immigrant as they usually are very successful" remark?

The immigrant who sometimes doesn’t know the language, is in a bad neighborhood, lives with 8-15 people in the same house and works two jobs, goes to school, and starts their own business is all the empirical evidence you need. It’s not the extreme, I see it everyday which is not in a school book. Sign up to work for a cruise line and see the world! Get away from that theory for awhile!

I do not understand why people will make arguments without being able to support it, either theoretically or empirically. Given there is a plethora of international studies into social mobility, you really have no excuse for your failure to provide any positive empirical evidence. Could it possibly be that you'd have to admit the unpalatable?: the US is indeed no different to the class ridden Brits. You might as well get yourself a Queen!

Your not the first one who has a difficult time understanding the real world. I would like to see your evidence as I’ve presented real life examples which you seem to think is the extreme or luck? Oh that’s right the plethora of international studies right along with the plethora of criticisms of the studies, which finally leaves making contact with the real world, which is again up to the almighty individual.

Scucca

This isn't a good start! I do very well thank you very much. Indeed, I'm one of the few examples in the UK of upward social mobility. I just don't use my personal experience to ignore the general reality: we're a class ridden society that exhibits little mobility. That the US apes our result (as shown by the empirical evidence that you haven't entertained) shows that the individual's "opportunity" is also severely curtailed.

You've not appreciated the "reality" of the theory I'm afraid. Segmentation theory, by definition, leads to demand-led analysis and therefore the irrelevance of your simplistic supply-side approach.

I've already shown how factual my remark has been. See the increase in graduate employment following the significant increase in undergraduate education investment. Your argument is on a par that supply and demand can be understood with one curve.

You haven't provided any empirical evidence that demonstrates the availability of opportunities. I have. The American Dream, for example, is certainly a dream (as shown by your desperately poor intergenerational mobility)

All powerful? You're going to have to enlarge on this point. It doesn't say anything. Try entertaining a "realistic" understanding of the labour market, just for the crack!

You're prepared to ignore the inefficiencies of your labour market, despite its horrendous effects on deprivation. That isn't a very jolly thing to do!

This "in my experience" approach by you is a tad of a bore. Of course some mobility exists. We'd expect mobility just with luck! However, the evidence shows that mobility is a relative rarity.

According to supply and demand! If the individual wasn't powerless we'd have much narrower wage differentials. That has been accepted since the classical economists such as Smith.

I've never suffered utopianism, so you're again shooting low. Unfair trade has been enabled by neo-liberalism. Fighting against the irrationality of that government coercion is merely rational.

Is this a guess? You make so many comments without any empirical support. Monopsony is a very important factor for the US. For example, the likes of Card and Krueger needed to refer to it to explain the results from their minimum wage 'natural experiment' analysis of the labour market.

You've failed to refer to one piece of empirical evidence again. Given you're prepared to embrace the 'real world', its a shame that you cannot entertain real world evidence! I'll ask again. Can you refer to an empirical study into immigration mobility that supports your stance?

I have no difficulty. To understand the 'real world' we need to use theory to ensure the empirical testing of hypothesis. I've achieved that on this thread, referring both to labour economics and the available evidence into mobility. You've used "in my experience" to ignore that scientific approach.

Awesome!

This isn't a good start! I do very well thank you very much. Indeed, I'm one of the few examples in the UK of upward social mobility. I just don't use my personal experience to ignore the general reality: we're a class ridden society that exhibits little mobility. That the US apes our result (as shown by the empirical evidence that you haven't entertained) shows that the individual's "opportunity" is also severely curtailed.

No I think that you need to use your personal experience as a method and variable and you will see your mobility numbers go up because the fact remains that IQ/Test scores/education are factors regardless of class and there is always room at the top for the different races to enter the primary service sector based on their productivity versus class restrictions more so in the U.S. than in Britain depending on what variables you would like to use right? Because if you choose to use all of the variables it becomes very difficult to understand why the service class children end up in the working class and why working class children end up in the service class so you just categorize that as luck or to the extreme of both sides or just ignore it outright. The fact is there are so many factors not just class, or sector, but the individual that you assert is powerless.

You've not appreciated the "reality" of the theory I'm afraid. Segmentation theory, by definition, leads to demand-led analysis and therefore the irrelevance of your simplistic supply-side approach.

I do appreciate theory, but it doesn’t measure what it can’t understand, so it ignores or categorizes what it can’t understand as extremes. Work ethic is still viable but because of entitlement and union and political distortions we are making more pantsh@@ters than producers.

You haven't provided any empirical evidence that demonstrates the availability of opportunities. I have. The American Dream, for example, is certainly a dream (as shown by your desperately poor intergenerational mobility)

Here is your intergenerational mobility evidence in NYC, same that I see everyday on the West Coast. Working class family’s children in college and in the service sector. I’m sorry it’s not politically influenced like most of the mobility studies are.
New York, Still the Opportunity City by Steven Malanga

All powerful? You're going to have to enlarge on this point. It doesn't say anything. Try entertaining a "realistic" understanding of the labour market, just for the crack!

My point is what do you want to do? Isn’t it enough to see that some generations are in the working class by choice, and that it’s more of a natural progression than some forced regulation? I mean some people would just like to stay in the class that they are in never to move upward, and then get upset, like the scumbag employer guy when their industry is gone or wages drop.

You're prepared to ignore the inefficiencies of your labour market, despite its horrendous effects on deprivation. That isn't a very jolly thing to do!
Horrendous effects on deprivation? Follow the immigrants example, work a little harder and don’t expect entitlement and you will be just fine.
This "in my experience" approach by you is a tad of a bore. Of course some mobility exists. We'd expect mobility just with luck! However, the evidence shows that mobility is a relative rarity.

There you go ignoring experience, even your own as if it had no value unworthy to be a variable. Of course it’s a bore hearing from the other side when your politically motivated to assert that we are all powerless?

According to supply and demand! If the individual wasn't powerless we'd have much narrower wage differentials. That has been accepted since the classical economists such as Smith.

No different industries place a different value on the work being done. The individual worker has a choice then to work for whatever industry they so choose, right along with the incentives that certain industries give to the workers. The differential is a reality but it doesn’t make the worker powerless especially with so many jobs available. Opportunities.

I've never suffered utopianism, so you're again shooting low. Unfair trade has been enabled by neo-liberalism. Fighting against the irrationality of that government coercion is merely rational.

Well move along with your trade justice movement then. I just don't see intervention for unfair trade, or due to social mobility concerns as the major culprit. It's laziness.

Is this a guess? You make so many comments without any empirical support. Monopsony is a very important factor for the US. For example, the likes of Card and Krueger needed to refer to it to explain the results from their minimum wage 'natural experiment' analysis of the labour market.

Well, of course they do. Analyze flipping burgers and make claims that raising the minimum wage will not decrease jobs. Wow, what remarkable insight! It’s just redistribution b.s. at it’s finest.

You've failed to refer to one piece of empirical evidence again. Given you're prepared to embrace the 'real world', its a shame that you cannot entertain real world evidence! I'll ask again. Can you refer to an empirical study into immigration mobility that supports your stance?
Can you refer to any government intervention study that helped increase mobility?

I have no difficulty. To understand the 'real world' we need to use theory to ensure the empirical testing of hypothesis. I've achieved that on this thread, referring both to labour economics and the available evidence into mobility. You've used "in my experience" to ignore that scientific approach.

I just don’t see it as a major concern. And compared to countries like Denmark, Finland, Sweden etc. countries with less population than that NYC or similar amount of population? Come on? So what if we have to work harder? The immigrants come here and do just fine because they work harder. Were in an entitlement generation which needs to get off their arse and get to work. Again, if an immigrant can do it based on their work-ethic, we need to as well. The study as follows raises concern, but ridding ourselves of unions and being more productive will make up for this. The more our generation hear pandering politicians with their class warfare and academic studies suggesting their generation won't get better unless we have redistribution policies is dangerous. They need to learn to get of their arse and work and go to school.
http://www.economicmobility.org/asse...m%20Report.pdf

Scucca

Everyone apples "in my experience", from the socialist worker oik to the fascist oaf. It doesn't impress me.

This is a horrid sentence, so apologies if I have misinterpreted it. If specific socio-economic variables have a greater impact on social mobility then it should be easy to prove it empirically. Given the US's mobility record is so poor, i won't be holding my breath!

You've got your analysis back to front. Its the failure to show any significant mobility that shows individual factors aren't important. As we move towards a meritocracy, innate ability would lead to greater mobility. We don't have that. We therefore have class raising its ugly head.

Are we ignoring segmentation theory now then? You brought it up. We now note that it is actually supportive of my stance. It is therefore logical for you to quietly forget you mentioned it...

Political distortions? Could you enlarge on that?

You should be apologising for two reasons. First, it is a magazine opinion piece. It is not an empirical study. Second, you need to be referring to a study that compares. You need to be showing that the US does not actually have 'desperately poor intergenerational mobility'.

So you're arguing that America, compared to other nations, has more people that willingly stagnate in their chosen job?

"In my experience" is always boring. It doesn't matter if its supportive or conflicting. It shows a laziness in thought. It is also decidedly dodgy, given the psychological flaws that inflict us all.

Following the supply and demand arguments, labour mobility should lead to the elimination of most wage differentials. After controlling for human capital, there should actually be "one wage". We don't see that. Wage differentials beyond supply and demand theory continue to exist. You haven't offered any explanation for that (except segmentation theory that supported my demand-side stance)

This is the standard comment. It of course has horrible repercussions. You'd have to argue that Americans, compared to their European counterparts, tend to be lazier. That is of course nonsense. It gets worse when we consider the tax and benefit systems. Europe utilises greater taxation. According to neo-liberalism, this should reduce the work ethic. Europe also adopt a much more effective welfare system. According to neo-liberalsm, this should reduce the pressure on the individual to improve their human capital. Despite that, the Europeans still out-perform the US in the mobility stakes (and the poor sods suffer from long term deprivation)

This is a silly comment. The analysis into the minimum wage is a test of the impact of exogenous wage increases on employment. It is therefore a test of labour market theory. The results are consistent with the premise that underpayment inflicts the labour market.

I go further than that. I look at the mobility analysis and look for differences in economy 'type'. Neo-liberal countries have higher poverty and lower mobility rates.

We should adopt anti-intellectualism in order to protect the American Dream?

Blame the individual, ignore the problem! Hip-hip-hoorah!

Awesome!