|
|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, it shows income disparity and the likelihood of a change in relative income. that's it. The information that I provided demonstrates the likelihood of a change in relative income AND how much, AND in which direction. So comparing my numbers, to this chart, and then saying X country is "better" than USA is a leap not supported by the data.
It's hard to evaluate the figures you provided without a source. Do you have one?
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Garbage. Where did you get this "zero sum game" theory??? It's absolutly a myth that the rich get rich at the expense of the poor. It's a popular liberal myth, but it's not true.
I didn't say that.
It's a non-intuitive way of thinking about things, so I'll try to be patient. You have a society where different people earn different amounts. If you divide that society up into quintiles, the top 20% make the most, the next 20% the second most, and so on, until you get to the bottom quintile which is the 20% who make the least. Each quintile has an equal number of people in it.
The next generation, there are still five quintiles, each with an equal number of people in it. The graph shows the likelihood that a person who's parent(s) are in any given quintile will end up in that same quintile. It has nothing to do with how much the average earning in that quintile is (presumably it's gone up in 25 years). If your parents are in quintile 3 you can either go up or down, or stay in quintile 3. But, since the same number of people occupy each quintile (20%), if you change quintiles up, someone else has to change quintiles down.
Here's an example
Q1: 10 people
Q2: 10 people
Q3: 10 people
Q4: 10 people
Q5: 10 people
Now, someone in Q3 has a baby who grows up to be a bigly success and gets into Q1. That's income mobility. But now there is an extra person in Q1 that wasn't there before, and that has to be balanced with someone moving down. You can't have 11 people in Q1 and 9 in Q3. That's not how quintiles work.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What???? No! That's EXACTLY what the chart says. Brazil and Chile have the biggest gaps of income inequality....their rungs are the furthest apart. It's not 'difficult to argue' that you are further to go in those countries at all. That's exactly what the analysis is telling you.
Their rungs are relatively further apart, not absolutely. Let's say the median income in Q1 for Brazil is $50k a year, whereas for Q5 it's $5k a year. meanwhile for Denmark the Q1 and Q5 median incomes are $100k an $20k a year, respectively. The person making 20k a year in Denmark has further to go (80k) than the person in Brazil (45k) to get from Q5 to Q1.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It generally does, as do all Western countries. The issue is not HOW much education there is, but WHO has access to that education. Moreover, it's only one of a broader category of things that you can call 'opportunity'. If Joe Blow lives on a dirt farm and his Q5 parents can't afford to send him to college, it doesn't help him that most of the people in Q1-Q4 can send their kid to college. OTOH, if college were subsidized such that his parents could afford to send him, he would have a better chance of experiencing income mobility.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Uhhh, no it isn't. And it's pretty dubious for you to come in here and talk about the definition of "income mobility" since neither you, nor anyone in this thread had even used the term until I did. Until this....it was just "waaah inequality". Finally, if you're arguments are just gonna be data-less, fact-less, information-less moans of "you don't know what X means", you should rightly go fuck yourself.
Ok, bye.
|
Reply With Quote