Wealth distribution in the US

[PDH]

the very bad value for Atalanta

Hunting is not a path toward upward mobility

[alfred russel]

I think the value of 20% is only interesting as a point of reference. From the looks of the map, there are quite a few areas where the lower quintile shows much more upward social mobility than what you would expect in even a perfect meritocratic society. That's a quite interesting effect. Probably just as interest as the very bad value for Atalanta et al.

Probably an artifact of not adjusting for local conditions. If a dirt poor region suddenly gains wealth, you can go from almost everyone in the area being in the lower half to most in the upper half. That would show as social mobility, but it doesn't mean the sons of janitors are becoming doctors.

On the other side, the deep south is poor. Being in the top quintile nationally may mean are are in the top 10% there, so social mobility in that region is less likely.

[DGuller]

I think the value of 20% is only interesting as a point of reference. From the looks of the map, there are quite a few areas where the lower quintile shows much more upward social mobility than what you would expect in even a perfect meritocratic society. That's a quite interesting effect. Probably just as interest as the very bad value for Atalanta et al.

Probably an artifact of not adjusting for local conditions. If a dirt poor region suddenly gains wealth, you can go from almost everyone in the area being in the lower half to most in the upper half. That would show as social mobility, but it doesn't mean the sons of janitors are becoming doctors.

On the other side, the deep south is poor. Being in the top quintile nationally may mean are are in the top 10% there, so social mobility in that region is less likely.

Not adjusting for cost of living, among other things, is IMO a major oversight.

[The Brain]

You will never get a society in which success = ability + effort. There will always be other factors involved, such as upbringing, luck, and environmental factors beyond one's reasonable control.

Upbringing and environmental factors affect ability.

[The Brain]

In Sweden we built a society where you only fail if you're a lazy bum. The failures and their supporters still cry for more, more, MORE of my money.

[Iormlund]

the very bad value for Atalanta

Hunting is not a path toward upward mobility

[Razgovory]

Yes, we do sacrifice fundamental freedoms for the sake of equality.  For instance we curtail property rights so that people won't be enslaved.  If we remove the freedom to be a slave why shouldn't we remove the freedom to starve?

Got a problem?

[Sheilbh]

Assuming we could muster the political will to fix it in principle, how could you fix it in a practical sense? What kind of legislation would a smart government enact to slowly (or not so slowly) adjust this back to where we as a society would like it to be?

I forgot to answer this earlier. It's difficult and there's no one answer, the answer you come up with will be informed by your political values and ideology.

For me I'd broadly say you should have a well-funded but narrowly directed welfare state aimed at the poorest and those most in need (probably hand-in-hand with substantial pensions reform) along the lines of what Australia has. I think in the US and the UK we've nationalised the benefits of work, so rather than people's wages increasing we've added lots of 'working family tax credits', 'earned income tax credits' and so on. I think we should abolish them, raise the minimum wage and cut corporate or payroll tax so that increasing your pay packet is tied to employment rather than the welfare state.

Then I think the US needs substantial healthcare reform to lift, or shift that cost from the middle and working class. Paying more than anywhere else in the world for a system that isn't even truly universal just doesn't seem sustainable and seems to place a high cost on individuals, on top of the taxes they're already paying. In addition I think the same will happen with social care as people get older so it's probably better to address it now, before it becomes another unbearable cost for many working families.

In the UK and the US I think I'd have a tax on high wealth and a land value tax combined with making income taxes broader and lower. Socially I also think that the high rate of incarceration and its effects and the race are major issues hindering social mobility in the US - I've no idea how to address them.

Finally the US and the UK need education reform at primary and secondary level. I also think the US needs reform of higher education to make it a lot cheaper - again it's like healthcare at the moment it just seems an unsustainable cost on individuals.

You will never get a society in which success = ability + effort. There will always be other factors involved, such as upbringing, luck, and environmental factors beyond one's reasonable control.

Obviously, that's why it's a dystopia. But like most dystopias it was criticising a trend within society. In Young's perfect meritocracy they eventually develop techniques to accurately predict someone's IQ at the age of 4. Everyone gets put into ability streams and then it's pure effort how far they'll go. Eventually there's a revolt of the underclass, because they are an underclass but also because they know they deserve it.

I sense a shift in the US though, I think people a decade ago used to be far more confident in America being an equitable, meritocratic society than they are now. So the success of the top and the difficult of the bottom look less justified and less the consequence of merit.

[Admiral Yi]

If we remove the freedom to be a slave why shouldn't we remove the freedom to starve?

Because one is a negative right and the other is a positive right.  In this country there's a broad consensus on negative rights, much less so on positive rights.

[ulmont]

Because one is a negative right and the other is a positive right.  In this country there's a broad consensus on negative rights, much less so on positive rights.

Which is a poor classification, in that all rights can command positive action from the state.

[Admiral Yi]

Which is a poor classification, in that all rights can command positive action from the state.

Not sure I understand.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Got a problem?

It would appear your brain fell out of your head while you were crafting a response to my post, that's probably what has BB worried.

[ulmont]

Which is a poor classification, in that all rights can command positive action from the state.

Not sure I understand.

My negative right to be free from restraints against speech is actually a positive right to invoke one branch of the government (the judiciary) as against another (the executive) for some form of redress.

And so on.

[Admiral Yi]

My negative right to be free from restraints against speech is actually a positive right to invoke one branch of the government (the judiciary) as against another (the executive) for some form of redress.

And so on.

OK.  But the most important difference between the two types of rights is that for you to enjoy negative rights others must generally do nothing, whereas to enjoy positive rights the state must extract the fruits of labor from someone else and pass them on to you.  So not really a poor classification.

[ulmont]

My negative right to be free from restraints against speech is actually a positive right to invoke one branch of the government (the judiciary) as against another (the executive) for some form of redress.

And so on.

OK.  But the most important difference between the two types of rights is that for you to enjoy negative rights others must generally do nothing, whereas to enjoy positive rights the state must extract the fruits of labor from someone else and pass them on to you.  So not really a poor classification.

Your proposed difference only holds up if courts and police, necessary to enforce even the most basic negative rights, are free.  Which is to say that the difference is illusory.