The Incredible Shrinking Incomes of Young Americans

[garbon]

Poor people are not stupid.  They are just poor.

I think there is something to be said regarding expectations from life. When I look at my mostly poor extended family, I don't see stupid people, but I do see many who didn't expect to amount to much / for life to give them much more beyond what they were familiar with and knew. Striving for an upper middle class existence was only natural for me, but not so with my cousins of poorer backgrounds.

[alfred russel]

I am not going to comment on what Ide did or didn't do because that is backroom material and should not be discussed here.   But again your assumptions do not accord with my experience.  I didn't need my parents to tell me that I should take part fully at law school, make contacts there and essentially take advantage of the whole experience.  Neither did my parents or anyone else need to tell me to prepare for interviews.  Poor people are not stupid.  They are just poor.

I edited out the stuff in my post about Ide in the event it was backroom material--I don't think it was exclusively so--I didn't have BR access back at the relevant time period--and also have spoken with him in person. But to be safe can you delete the stuff I wrote out of your post?

I agree there are many people--you apparently being one--that can figure out certain tasks improve their odds and complete them without being told. There are others that need encouragement. It seems likely to me that a group more prone to receive encouragement and sound advice will be more successful than a group that doesn't.

[crazy canuck]

Poor people are not stupid.  They are just poor.

I think there is something to be said regarding expectations from life. When I look at my mostly poor extended family, I don't see stupid people, but I do see many who didn't expect to amount to much / for life to give them much more beyond what they were familiar with and knew. Striving for an upper middle class existence was only natural for me, but not so with my cousins of poorer backgrounds.

Yeah, I agree with that entirely.   Once I started university my whole world view changed and expanded dramatically.  I would never have gone to university without being asked to attend by my university coach.  It was certainly not something I ever aspired to do.   That is why I agree with Picketty that education is the key.  If kids of the poor can be educated to think about university as a viable option and if it is in fact a viable option economically then a large hurdle in social mobility will be overcome.

[MadImmortalMan]

Is simply striving to achieve something greater than that which you know so alien? The concept that a person must be institutionalized in order to be educated has always struck me as wrong. Education is a thing that a person does to him or herself. It's not a process of feeding skills to someone. Like the verb to grow. A person grows. An economy grows. You don't grow it.

The process of growing plants or crops is one of providing and maintaining a suitable environment and allowing the growth to occur. This is how I think of education too. I am more and more educated each day of my life than I was the day before. I have a great big fire hose of knowledge coming down that internet pipe into my face and I use it. A university might be the best environment or it might not be. Many people are brilliant but don't do well in an institutionalized setting. Some get addicted to that kind of thing as well. Like criminals who re-commit crimes because they are more comfortable in a prison environment. It's predictable and it's what they know.

But the process of reaching beyond the known and comfortable is something that to some degree may simply be down to personality. And it may be that the people whose known and comfortable environment is one which generally reproduces a good lifestyle simply benefit from that, but there has to be some way to encourage the risk-taking mentality that is what really creates the jumps from one paradigm to the next. Maybe Ide was going to be successful even without the prior knowledge that living in a lawyer family might have afforded him simply because he was willing to risk it.

[crazy canuck]

Is simply striving to achieve something greater than that which you know so alien? The concept that a person must be institutionalized in order to be educated has always struck me as wrong. Education is a thing that a person does to him or herself. It's not a process of feeding skills to someone. Like the verb to grow. A person grows. An economy grows. You don't grow it.

The process of growing plants or crops is one of providing and maintaining a suitable environment and allowing the growth to occur. This is how I think of education too. I am more and more educated each day of my life than I was the day before. I have a great big fire hose of knowledge coming down that internet pipe into my face and I use it. A university might be the best environment or it might not be. Many people are brilliant but don't do well in an institutionalized setting. Some get addicted to that kind of thing as well. Like criminals who re-commit crimes because they are more comfortable in a prison environment. It's predictable and it's what they know.

But the process of reaching beyond the known and comfortable is something that to some degree may simply be down to personality. And it may be that the people whose known and comfortable environment is one which generally reproduces a good lifestyle simply benefit from that, but there has to be some way to encourage the risk-taking mentality that is what really creates the jumps from one paradigm to the next. Maybe Ide was going to be successful even without the prior knowledge that living in a lawyer family might have afforded him simply because he was willing to risk it.

I agree it is not a process of feeding skills.  And that is definitely not what a university should be - hence my ongoing disagreement with Ide about that point.

Its hard to explain but before I went to university the limit of my aspiration was getting on full time at one of the local mills.  Most of my friends had the same aspiration.  To us that was striving to achieve something greater because at the time we were all working odd jobs at a much lower wage.  To get on at the mill was making it.  University was not only about teaching me things.  Its most important impact on me was being exposed to a whole world of other opportunities.

[Jacob]

Yeah, I think the main thing is the combination of laying out the possibilities, as well as indicating where the roadmaps to them can be found. It seems absurd to those who are already aware of those possibilities that someone could not be, but to someone who is not it's basically a blind spot that they need some specific moment to make visible.

Personally I can recall two very distinct moments of "seeing a blind spot" like that in my own life like that. I mean, I come from a pretty decent academic/ bourgeois background but between immigrating - so changing systems and expectations - at a critical point, and a fairly low level of engagement in my education on the part of my stepfather (and to be fair to him, I don't know if I would have welcomed it) I missed some things that I think would be considered very basic by many.

Once, in art school, I was chatting to a girl. Her parents were both successful doctors, and could be considered rather wealthy. We were talking about this and that, and she mentioned how she was getting her stuff together to apply for a Masters program at Yale. Up until that point, I had never considered it either a possibility for someone in my sphere of life - or for me - to go to one of those schools and, more importantly, I had never even considered a reason for wanting to. That whole calculus of the benefits of going to an elite school, of considering it a possibility, of lining up the requirements, and of figuring out the benefits from doing so had never been one I'd engaged in. Not until I met someone in my daily life for whom there were real expectations and concrete real actions to be taken did that move from the realm of "things that happen on TV" to "things that are theoretically within reach."

Similarly with entrepreneurship and business. Not until I'd run into enough friends and acquaintances who'd done this sort of things themselves and offered enough off hand comments to create a sort of framework of a roadmap (and a resource for bouncing questions of off), did engaging in that sort of activity become even theoretically possible.

Those switches were both very specific "aha" moments that happened because of how life went for me. I think those "aha" moments could have happened earlier if there had been some focused educational effort to make them happen. I expect that situation is generalizable to other realizations of potential that some - many - people have to have before they pursue specific paths for success; while for others, those realizations were instilled into them as part of the environments in which they were raised.

[mongers]

Yeah, I think the main thing is the combination of laying out the possibilities, as well as indicating where the roadmaps to them can be found. It seems absurd to those who are already aware of those possibilities that someone could not be, but to someone who is not it's basically a blind spot that they need some specific moment to make visible.

Personally I can recall two very distinct moments of "seeing a blind spot" like that in my own life like that. I mean, I come from a pretty decent academic/ bourgeois background but between immigrating - so changing systems and expectations - at a critical point, and a fairly low level of engagement in my education on the part of my stepfather (and to be fair to him, I don't know if I would have welcomed it) I missed some things that I think would be considered very basic by many.

Once, in art school, I was chatting to a girl. Her parents were both successful doctors, and could be considered rather wealthy. We were talking about this and that, and she mentioned how she was getting her stuff together to apply for a Masters program at Yale. Up until that point, I had never considered it either a possibility for someone in my sphere of life - or for me - to go to one of those schools and, more importantly, I had never even considered a reason for wanting to. That whole calculus of the benefits of going to an elite school, of considering it a possibility, of lining up the requirements, and of figuring out the benefits from doing so had never been one I'd engaged in. Not until I met someone in my daily life for whom there were real expectations and concrete real actions to be taken did that move from the realm of "things that happen on TV" to "things that are theoretically within reach."

Similarly with entrepreneurship and business. Not until I'd run into enough friends and acquaintances who'd done this sort of things themselves and offered enough off hand comments to create a sort of framework of a roadmap (and a resource for bouncing questions of off), did engaging in that sort of activity become even theoretically possible.

Those switches were both very specific "aha" moments that happened because of how life went for me. I think those "aha" moments could have happened earlier if there had been some focused educational effort to make them happen. I expect that situation is generalizable to other realizations of potential that some - many - people have to have before they pursue specific paths for success; while for others, those realizations were instilled into them as part of the environments in which they were raised.

Good for you Jacob.

Personally I miss that stuff all the time. 

[Berkut]

Yeah, I think the main thing is the combination of laying out the possibilities, as well as indicating where the roadmaps to them can be found. It seems absurd to those who are already aware of those possibilities that someone could not be, but to someone who is not it's basically a blind spot that they need some specific moment to make visible.

Personally I can recall two very distinct moments of "seeing a blind spot" like that in my own life like that. I mean, I come from a pretty decent academic/ bourgeois background but between immigrating - so changing systems and expectations - at a critical point, and a fairly low level of engagement in my education on the part of my stepfather (and to be fair to him, I don't know if I would have welcomed it) I missed some things that I think would be considered very basic by many.

Once, in art school, I was chatting to a girl. Her parents were both successful doctors, and could be considered rather wealthy. We were talking about this and that, and she mentioned how she was getting her stuff together to apply for a Masters program at Yale. Up until that point, I had never considered it either a possibility for someone in my sphere of life - or for me - to go to one of those schools and, more importantly, I had never even considered a reason for wanting to. That whole calculus of the benefits of going to an elite school, of considering it a possibility, of lining up the requirements, and of figuring out the benefits from doing so had never been one I'd engaged in. Not until I met someone in my daily life for whom there were real expectations and concrete real actions to be taken did that move from the realm of "things that happen on TV" to "things that are theoretically within reach."

Similarly with entrepreneurship and business. Not until I'd run into enough friends and acquaintances who'd done this sort of things themselves and offered enough off hand comments to create a sort of framework of a roadmap (and a resource for bouncing questions of off), did engaging in that sort of activity become even theoretically possible.

Those switches were both very specific "aha" moments that happened because of how life went for me. I think those "aha" moments could have happened earlier if there had been some focused educational effort to make them happen. I expect that situation is generalizable to other realizations of potential that some - many - people have to have before they pursue specific paths for success; while for others, those realizations were instilled into them as part of the environments in which they were raised.

Great story Jake.

However...I am going to cut across the grain a little. While I do not disagree with any of what you are saying here, or even what CC is saying, I do think there is an element here of wishing for the world to work in a certain way, and assuming that it would, if only society could make it so...

In other words, it is certainly the case that there are people out there who can benefit from an educational system that does a good job of making it clear what opportunities are available, and even do a better job of communicating those opportunities outside the "typical" comfort zone for many people.

However, I do not think it is the case that doing so, if we could do so perfectly, would somehow mean that everyone would then achieve their potential. We should strive for this anyway, since the concern is that there are still people who could, but that is not the same as saying that this is a solution to the problem of poverty.

The simple reality is that there are people out there who are relatively poor because they lack drive, ambition, and/or intelligence. And no matter how well we adjust the system to make more opportunity available and visible, not everyone is going to take advantage.

Indeed, I think we can look at western liberal advancement as a continuing (hopefully) opening up of opportunity across social boundaries. In an ideal world, the lack of opportunity would simply not be a variable in the calculus of success. I think we are much closer to that now than ever before...but I don't think the end state is one where poverty has been eliminated (at least not for this reason). Because the simple, harsh reality is that there are people out there who are "poor" because they deserve to be, and simply do not care to work at being not poor.

[Tamas]

Indeed, I think we can look at western liberal advancement as a continuing (hopefully) opening up of opportunity across social boundaries. In an ideal world, the lack of opportunity would simply not be a variable in the calculus of success. I think we are much closer to that now than ever before...but I don't think the end state is one where poverty has been eliminated (at least not for this reason). Because the simple, harsh reality is that there are people out there who are "poor" because they deserve to be, and simply do not care to work at being not poor.

I agree.

However, as you pointed out, it would be important to make sure that everyone who wants (AND able) to improve themselves are given a fair shot at it. We can't guarantee success, we sure as hell can't guarantee success without ever trying, but we can create an environment that offers the chance.
And we already do, probably better than ever before in history. But it is most certainly pretty far from perfect.

And that is BTW a large part behind my stance on pro free market - the current overload of regulation (in parts of Europe at least), really favours fortifying existing privileges and raising the barrier of entry into markets and self-reliance. Things like the insane regulation on taxi drivers in Paris are the most blatant examples but there could be plenty more made.
But that's a complex topic on its own.

[Martinus]

I agree.

However, as you pointed out, it would be important to make sure that everyone who wants (AND able) to improve themselves are given a fair shot at it. We can't guarantee success, we sure as hell can't guarantee success without ever trying, but we can create an environment that offers the chance.
And we already do, probably better than ever before in history. But it is most certainly pretty far from perfect.

I think an important element of such environment is also creating a safety net for those who, despite not acting grossly unreasonably, do not achieve success. Would you agree?

[DGuller]

It seems like at some point you have to make a value judgment on everything that can make you poor.  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of having a serious and permanent disability?  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of losing your job?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born stupid?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born without a drive?

[Berkut]

Indeed, I think we can look at western liberal advancement as a continuing (hopefully) opening up of opportunity across social boundaries. In an ideal world, the lack of opportunity would simply not be a variable in the calculus of success. I think we are much closer to that now than ever before...but I don't think the end state is one where poverty has been eliminated (at least not for this reason). Because the simple, harsh reality is that there are people out there who are "poor" because they deserve to be, and simply do not care to work at being not poor.

I agree.

However, as you pointed out, it would be important to make sure that everyone who wants (AND able) to improve themselves are given a fair shot at it. We can't guarantee success, we sure as hell can't guarantee success without ever trying, but we can create an environment that offers the chance.
And we already do, probably better than ever before in history. But it is most certainly pretty far from perfect.

And that is BTW a large part behind my stance on pro free market - the current overload of regulation (in parts of Europe at least), really favours fortifying existing privileges and raising the barrier of entry into markets and self-reliance. Things like the insane regulation on taxi drivers in Paris are the most blatant examples but there could be plenty more made.
But that's a complex topic on its own.

I used to think that as well, but over time I've come to the conclusion that the free market is no panacea for equality of opportunity. Nor is there any objective reason it should be - there is nothing magical about the "free market" that is going to ensure equality of opportunity. It isn't even designed to provide that at all, in fact.

[Tamas]

It seems like at some point you have to make a value judgment on everything that can make you poor.  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of having a serious and permanent disability?  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of losing your job?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born stupid?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born without a drive?

Well yeah that's the problem isn't it? I think we need to stop (or in case of US, never start) "help" that enables people to choose that help as a lifestyle choice.

Yes that is difficult because there will be people who will have no choice due to bad luck/utter stupidity, but the alternative is distorting your society for the worse.


eg. in the UK every time there is a proposed welfare cut, BBC finds a single mother who explains why that is bad. In general the country either really has a separate noticable demographic of "single moms" or at least pretend there is this big group of citizens.
This seems to be because if you are fine with having a very limited poor lot in life here, all you need to do is be a single mother. Or pretend to be one and have your significant other as a lodger or something.

And this would be extremely hard to solve now. There should not be tax pounds spent on financing somebody from 16 years old to the grave just because she is fine with never working and living in a dump.
But you can't just stop paying these welfare payments either, not now anyways, when so many have organised their existence around it.

[The Brain]

It seems like at some point you have to make a value judgment on everything that can make you poor.  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of having a serious and permanent disability?  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of losing your job?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born stupid?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born without a drive?

No one is born stupid. Many people just degenerate mentally after birth.

[crazy canuck]

However, I do not think it is the case that doing so, if we could do so perfectly, would somehow mean that everyone would then achieve their potential. We should strive for this anyway, since the concern is that there are still people who could, but that is not the same as saying that this is a solution to the problem of poverty.

The simple reality is that there are people out there who are relatively poor because they lack drive, ambition, and/or intelligence. And no matter how well we adjust the system to make more opportunity available and visible, not everyone is going to take advantage.

Indeed, I think we can look at western liberal advancement as a continuing (hopefully) opening up of opportunity across social boundaries. In an ideal world, the lack of opportunity would simply not be a variable in the calculus of success. I think we are much closer to that now than ever before...but I don't think the end state is one where poverty has been eliminated (at least not for this reason). Because the simple, harsh reality is that there are people out there who are "poor" because they deserve to be, and simply do not care to work at being not poor.

I agree, there is always going to be people who do not take advantage of opportunity as well as others.  Those people populate all socio-economic levels of society.  There are also people in all socio-economic levels who will pursue those opportunities.  I think we are in agreement that it is important to do what we can to provide that opportunity as equitably as possible.