
The Mobility Myth (2014) - Futurebot
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/03/the-mobility-myth
======
asift
>Seventy per cent of people born into the bottom quintile of income
distribution never make it into the middle class, and fewer than ten per cent
get into the top quintile. Forty per cent are still poor as adults.

I'm unconvinced this is a terribly concerning level of mobility. Some people
seem to assume an ideal level of mobility would demonstrate no advantage to
those born in upper quintiles (i.e., your birth quintile plays no role in your
adult quintile), but given what we know about the importance of genetics in
passing along favourable human capital characteristics, matching behavior in
mating markets, and the importance of social capital -- it seems very
reasonable that we would see less than "perfect" mobility.

~~~
pron
> but given what we know about the importance of genetics in passing along
> favourable human capital characteristics

I don't think we know that at all, and as an assumption it is a terrible one.
If it is wrong (and we have no reason to assume it is correct, at least not to
a very high degree), you are deciding to give up on a lot of people. You're
basically _guessing_ that the poor are where they belong and as a consequence
of that guess, you make no effort to help them. Moreover, even if that
assumption is right, so what? Even if people are born less capable of riches,
that does not mean we shouldn't do our best to help them achieve moderate
levels of success, or at least to better their lot in life. This isn't all
altruistic: a more egalitarian society is a more pleasant one.

In the end, it all comes to values. But I want to clarify what those values
signify: financial success isn't just about how much stuff you can buy, but
more importantly about power[1]. The less money you have relative to the
median, the less power, and the less power you have -- the less freedom.
Giving up on power equality means giving up on greater freedom to great many
people.

> it seems very reasonable that we would see less than "perfect" mobility.

There's a very long way from where the US is now to perfect mobility.
Americans can start with striving for European levels of mobility for a start.
We know that at least that is possible.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_\(social_and_political\))

~~~
asift
Actually there is a tremendous amount of research on the importance of
genetics (particularly twin and adoption studies). My quick summary here is
going to be overly simplistic, but at a very high level, so long as a child
wasn't raised in an abusive environment, genetics are much more important in
predicting things like intelligence and future earnings than a family's
characteristics are. That conclusion is not merely anecdote. It's one of the
most extensively studied questions in parenting research.

~~~
pron
I think that your interpretation of the results is very wrong.

Studies on criminality show a significant genetic component -- not that it is
the most significant factor. The IQ studies indeed show that a much stronger
correlation with the biological parents, but IQ variation has not been found
to be a major cause of social inequality, AFAIK. I.e. to draw your conclusions
you'd need another missing element, which is to show that low IQ is a major
cause of poverty, and other causes don't play as significant a role. I am not
aware of any such claims. Indeed, in the famous twin-adoption studies,
heredity was found to explains only ~20% of the variation in earnings in men
and ~10% in women -- certainly significant, but far from being the determining
cause.

Also, that genetics may have a significant influence on future earnings does
not mean that no action is possible to counter that effect -- if we choose to
take it. Choosing to take it or not is a value-based choice. Genetics also
prevents us from flying or some people born with deformities from walking, yet
we have built airplanes and prosthetics.

------
kabouseng
Everybody can't be rich (que incredibles quote: "if everyone's super no one
will be").

So for every person who moves up, someone must move down. So here is a thought
experiment, instead of thinking about improving upward mobility, rather think
about improving downwards mobility. Make it difficult to occupy the top
echelons, make people work for it and deserve it, instead of just inheriting a
fortune and riding the advantages of passive capital working for you.

Just a thought, I have no idea where it could lead but it could perhaps
provide a fresh perspective...

~~~
lagadu
> So for every person who moves up, someone must move down.

Standards of living and wealth are not a zero-sum game, there are plenty of
situations where changes benefit everyone.

~~~
kabouseng
Standards of living isn't zero sum, I agree. Wealth, or rather relative wealth
or a class society is zero sum.

Again, everyone can't be rich (relative to other people), unless you want to
go the direction of communism / socialism / classless society. So as a thought
experiment...

PS. Why did you downvote, seriously you downvoted a thought experiment meant
to stimulate thought.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Communism / socialism / classless society doesn't escape the zero-sum game you
mentioned. Relative wealth is zero-sum by very definition. If everyone has
exactly the same wealth, no one is richer than others.

~~~
kabouseng
I agree.

