The Incredible Shrinking Incomes of Young Americans

[crazy canuck]

Since I am a direct beneficiary of social mobility through education I have to say I don't agree that only educating the children of the elites is a particularly attractive model. 

Of course not. I'm a beneficiary of that as well, and paid for college with scholarships and student loans.

Neither of us are really reaching the super elite status though.

I have been working for about 10 years. When I look at what the CEO of my company was doing with my experience level, I am way behind, even if most people would say I'm doing well. The CEO's father would qualify as elite, and while it doesn't say in his official biography, it isn't hard to imagine his early opportunities were partially opened by his father.

The problem these days - and not talking only about the super-elite here - is that education is increasingly a necessary - but not sufficient - criterion for success.

Exactly the point.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure what you are arguing.  That only the children of the elite in society can become very successful?  If so, there are too many counter examples to bother listing here.

Children of elites have a disproportionate opportunity to be successful.

The reason is because as as education increasingly moves outside of traditional classroom settings, the children of elites have much better access to this informal system, which in part negates the work done to ensure improved access to traditional schooling across income groups.

I am not sure what your evidence is for that assertion.  I am certainly proof of someone who is an exception to that assertion.  And I know a number of people you would likely consider to be elites who started in similar circumstances to mine.  I just don't buy your argument that social mobility has little utility.  Rather I consider it to be one of the most important aspects of modern society.

[alfred russel]

I just don't buy your argument that social mobility has little utility.  Rather I consider it to be one of the most important aspects of modern society.

You have completely misunderstood everything I've been saying if that is your takeaway. That is definitely not my argument.

FWIW, you agreed with Malthus, and I would as well, only I'm trying to expand on what is needed in addition to education, given that it is no longer a sufficient "criterion for success."

What I am arguing, is that what is needed in addition to education is something the elite have disproportionate access to.

[Eddie Teach]

I just don't buy your argument that social mobility has little utility.  Rather I consider it to be one of the most important aspects of modern society.

I don't think he's arguing that it has little utility, but that we don't have as much of it as we like to think. 

[crazy canuck]

I just don't buy your argument that social mobility has little utility.  Rather I consider it to be one of the most important aspects of modern society.

You have completely misunderstood everything I've been saying if that is your takeaway. That is definitely not my argument.

FWIW, you agreed with Malthus, and I would as well, only I'm trying to expand on what is needed in addition to education, given that it is no longer a sufficient "criterion for success."

What I am arguing, is that what is needed in addition to education is something the elite have disproportionate access to.

Ok, I guess I have misunderstood your point.  From my vantage point the children of elites have the advantage of going to the best schools where they in turn make the connections that will most assist.  If the children of non elites also get access to the best schools then the significant advantages you say exist become mitigated to a considerable extent.  Sure there is still going to be a certain amount of cronyism but that is more the exception than the rule.  When the stakes are high people, even the elites, want the best people - not someone who's main credential is that they are the child of another elite.  You seem to think of it like the Roman divide between the Patricians and Plebs.  Perhaps it really has gotten that bad in the US, but I doubt it.  Or at the very least Western democracies should do what they can to avoid or fix that problem.  Which is really my point.

[Tamas]

eg. if you want to super-tax high-end cash bonuses to move the corporations toward investing in assets and such, then they will just, for example, buy a house and give it to the manager they want to reward. If you tax that they will move on to expensive jewelry etc. Or just buy something from the manager at a ridicoulously high price.

That shit may work in Eastern Europe or former USSR, but in countries with entrenched rule of law, all of that would be illegal.

Cute

[alfred russel]

Ok, I guess I have misunderstood your point.  From my vantage point the children of elite's have the advantage of going to the best schools where they in turn make the connections that will most assist.  If the children of non elites also get access to the best schools then the significant advantages you say exist become mitigated to a considerable extent.  Sure there is still going to be a certain amount of cronyism but that is more the exception than the rule.  When the stakes are high people, even the elites, want the best people - not someone who's main credential is that they are the child of another elite.  You seem to think of it like the Roman divide between the Patricians and Plebs.  Perhaps it really has gotten that bad in the US, but I doubt it.  Or at the very least Western democracies should do what they can to avoid or fix that problem.  Which is really my point.

I definitely don't see a Patricians vs. Plebes divide.

I look at it as a variety of factors:
-informal education: there is a big advantage for children of educated parents, who tend to be better off, versus uneducated parents. After all, most learning is outside the classroom.
-structured learning outside of classrooms: better off parents have the ability to hire tutors to help kids falling behind, or to accelerate them ahead of their peers.
-formal education: I think that while better off children have more opportunities to attend better schools, the gap is closing. Elite ivy league schools are increasingly free to poor students, public colleges in the US are improving, and student loans enable access to good colleges for almost everyone with a solid record.
-networking and career planning: This is a huge advantage for kids from better backgrounds. It isn't enough to just go to college, but uneducated parents likely don't realize what is needed. Kids don't get the guidance to enter the right majors, or how to find employers on campus. Kids from better backgrounds also have better experience and access to advice on how to behave and what to wear in professional settings.
-career placement: everything from outright nepotism to using parental resources to help fund a startup.

[DGuller]

eg. if you want to super-tax high-end cash bonuses to move the corporations toward investing in assets and such, then they will just, for example, buy a house and give it to the manager they want to reward. If you tax that they will move on to expensive jewelry etc. Or just buy something from the manager at a ridicoulously high price.

That shit may work in Eastern Europe or former USSR, but in countries with entrenched rule of law, all of that would be illegal.

Cute

[crazy canuck]

Ok, I guess I have misunderstood your point.  From my vantage point the children of elite's have the advantage of going to the best schools where they in turn make the connections that will most assist.  If the children of non elites also get access to the best schools then the significant advantages you say exist become mitigated to a considerable extent.  Sure there is still going to be a certain amount of cronyism but that is more the exception than the rule.  When the stakes are high people, even the elites, want the best people - not someone who's main credential is that they are the child of another elite.  You seem to think of it like the Roman divide between the Patricians and Plebs.  Perhaps it really has gotten that bad in the US, but I doubt it.  Or at the very least Western democracies should do what they can to avoid or fix that problem.  Which is really my point.

I definitely don't see a Patricians vs. Plebes divide.

I look at it as a variety of factors:
-informal education: there is a big advantage for children of educated parents, who tend to be better off, versus uneducated parents. After all, most learning is outside the classroom.
-structured learning outside of classrooms: better off parents have the ability to hire tutors to help kids falling behind, or to accelerate them ahead of their peers.
-formal education: I think that while better off children have more opportunities to attend better schools, the gap is closing. Elite ivy league schools are increasingly free to poor students, public colleges in the US are improving, and student loans enable access to good colleges for almost everyone with a solid record.
-networking and career planning: This is a huge advantage for kids from better backgrounds. It isn't enough to just go to college, but uneducated parents likely don't realize what is needed. Kids don't get the guidance to enter the right majors, or how to find employers on campus. Kids from better backgrounds also have better experience and access to advice on how to behave and what to wear in professional settings.
-career placement: everything from outright nepotism to using parental resources to help fund a startup.

You are making assertions that do not match my experience.

informal education -  All children get informal education.  I would actually argue that mine was better than many pampered elites because when I did have the opportunity to go to university I worked harder than many of my peers.
structured learning - I didn't have tutors to be sure - but I finished in the top of my class so I am not sure it mattered as much as you think
network and career planning - Now you sound like Ide - pray tell, what is the "right" major to take and what makes you think that the children of elites disproportionately take that course of study?  In my experience the children of elites disproportionately take the easier courses of study. And your what to wear advice is really something.  Because my dad never wore a suit, I couldn't figure out what to wear?
Career placement - If you are correct then the US really is lost.  But I doubt it is as bad as you suggest.

[alfred russel]

But I doubt it is as bad as you suggest.

It isn't a case of any single item being decisive. It is a question on each factor: over the general population, which groups have the advantage? When you start to combine those advantages, the result is that while social mobility is not zero, it is reduced. Which is what we see.

[DGuller]

What we're concerned with here is tendency, not ironclad certainty.  Do people born into privilege start with an advantage?  How strong?  That's what we want to answer, and correct if we don't like the answer.  There will always be outliers that either pissed away their family fortune, or pulled themselves by their bootstraps from grinding poverty to insane riches, but they don't by themselves say much about how egalitarian our society really is.

Ah, I see. Yeah, that makes sense - though I don't think either of Alfred Russel nor CC were framing the question in that way, so I'm not sure whether that's what they want to answer. It seemed more like an exchange of anecdotes and opinions than an attempt at answering a statistical question.

It's fine to exchange anecdotes, as long as you realize their limitations in discussions like this.  FWIW, I think AR does and CC does not.

[The Brain]

Family-friendly anecdotes?

[Jacob]

Free market capitalism. That's all we need.

But you've never participated in it, having lived your entire professional life having all your needs taken care of by government spending.

[crazy canuck]

But I doubt it is as bad as you suggest.

It isn't a case of any single item being decisive. It is a question on each factor: over the general population, which groups have the advantage? When you start to combine those advantages, the result is that while social mobility is not zero, it is reduced. Which is what we see.

...but skipped all the extra curriculars and job search stuff early on. When it came time to find a job, he couldn't overcome those problems. He never did interview prep. My guess would be that had his parents been lawyers, they would have helped him see the importance of those minor things that make all the difference when seeking employment out of law school.

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.

[crazy canuck]

FWIW, I think AR does and CC does not.

Got any stats to back that up?