
Economic Mobility Requires the Nearly Impossible - CarolineW
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/economic-inequality/524610/?single_page=true
======
padobson
This is where I stopped reading:

 _He writes that the upper class of FTE workers, who make up just one-fifth of
the population, has strategically pushed for policies—such as relatively low
minimum wages and business-friendly deregulation—to bolster the economic
success of some groups and not others, largely along racial lines._

The idea that raising the top marginal tax rates 3-5% or raising the minimum
wage 4 or 5 bucks will combat inequality is laughable.

The cognitive dissonance between the cause of class (and the related race)
inequality and the policies suggested to combat it never fail to blow my mind.

Slavery was a legal, government subsidized industry. The Jim Crow south that
systematically stripped the black community of their property rights was built
on a system of state and federal laws. The highly regulated, highly subsidized
mortgage loan industry had reams of racially divisive rules that barred the
black community from building generational wealth during the most important
period of general economic prosperity in perhaps the history of the world
following WWII.

American governments spent 200 years systematically robbing various ethnic
groups of their rights, but bullshit pieces like this blame it on affluent
white people that vote for candidates that have ideological problems with the
minimum wage.

Gimme a break.

The cause of economic inequality is several generations of government
disrespect of individual property rights and monetary policy that slants
competition toward those that can pool assets - banks.

~~~
dnautics
I think people don't fully appreciate the erosive power of monetary policy.

~~~
bmh_ca
Please - Look up the monetists, who proposed 20% overnight lending rates to
combat erosion (inflation/stagflation) back in the 1980s. The erosion we are
experiencing is a brand of Monetary policy called Keynesianism - being ultra
low interest rates to simulate growth - on the theory that growth would offset
inflation; it did, but only - it appears - because wealth growth concentrated
instead of disseminated. We are at the end game of Keynesianism, where we have
to force a currency change to offset the dilution resulting from negative
interest rates.

That was a mouthful - point being - if this interests you, it's probably worth
checking out monetists; they predicted our current spectre of stagflation.

Which is all to say - monetary policy is a useful tool, a good rope - for
pulling in inflation by raising the interest rate - but pushing a rope for
stimulating it. Not all monetary policy is negative; the overnight lending
rate was always intended to operate with a premium to punish poor lenders and
reward good ones, and stimulate the economy by lowering lending burdens in
times of stress, but monetary policy was never intended to replace fiscal and
regulatory burden sharing between civilizations aims and capital investments.
But that's what it's become - all capital investments are now passed off, in
failure, to ultra low interest rates or bail outs, which is skewing the
market.

~~~
dnautics
Even the monetists have a crazy appeal to authority that somehow an expert
should "track the growth of the economy" (for some definition of "growth" and
for some definition of "economy") and match inflation. All this does is Rob
from the poor the social benefits of technological price deflation to chase
this mythical good of "stability". Stability just means keeping the rich rich.

Ultimately even self proclaimed monetist Alan Greenspan couldn't keep his
hands off the dials and creatively interpreted economic growth to mean
something that was nonsensical to anyone except the investment class.

~~~
bmh_ca
I'm not disagreeing on the point but you've failed to connect "track" to
"rob".

Also, Greenspan was clearly a Keynesian - and, IMO, rather/depressingly naive
or proud, from his bio. Smart guy, horse blinders.

~~~
dnautics
well inflation generally robs the poor (and everyone else[0]) of the value of
their money. By rob, I mean 'nonconsensually alter in the negative direction
relative to the natural state'. Technology is supposed to be the 'tide that
lifts all boats'. What few people understand is that the primary mechanism by
which it does this is by lower prices, because that doesn't fit the narrative
of "deflation is bad for poor people" (it's not).

I suppose it's a bit loose to say that the poor are entitled to ameliorative
effects of technology - but they are entitled to not be cheated by the
government, and if they weren't cheated by the government then they would be
enjoying a higher quality of life from lower prices.

Yes, obviously Greenspan acted as a Keynesian, but he was trained and
continues to believe himself a monetarist. That's the point. Monetarism still
believes in the seductive idea that stability can be achieved by fiddling with
the money supply - they just would prefer to relegate it to some computer
program or something algorithmic, but that STILL encodes the normative biases
of the individuals who choose the criteria for the algorithms. So even if you
could have a 'top man' in place that is so virtuous or autistic as to keep his
hands off the dials during crises, it would STILL screw the poor. Point being:
There's no categorical difference between a Keynesian and a Monetarist, just a
matter of degree of recklessness.

[0] but other people have means to protect themselves from inflation, mostly
investments which yield higher than inflation. Really rich people benefit
greatly from leveraged financial instruments, which are tougher in a
deflationary regime. In other words, via inflation we are stealing from the
poor to make it easier for the wealthy to get really wealthy, and it seems the
recurring pattern when society gets overleveraged, the solution is to bail out
the really wealthy - socializing the pain of risk.

~~~
bmh_ca
> Monetarism still believes in the seductive idea that stability can be
> achieved by fiddling with the money supply

I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is my belief as well; while it
is apparent that monetary policy can be useful, the old adage goes "if all you
have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail".

It appears that instead of doing the correct (and politically difficult) thing
from a fiscal, tax, and policy perspective, we just keep lowering the interest
rates and waiting for the next upswing.

Which where the Chilean experiment[1] with apolitical fiscal policies will be
interesting to observe. I've not seen much on it since, but it'll certainly be
tested in the not too distant future.

[1]
[http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/10/fiscal-p...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/10/fiscal-
policy-0)

------
zackmorris
I’m pushing 40 and side with the article. It takes about 20 years of paying
one’s dues to really understand how broken the entire system is. How much
effort year after year it takes to tread water, to climb slower than one is
capable of, to get pushed back by debt and doing what others tell us. That’s
the part I’d specifically like to do away with - the rat race. I’m older, more
broken today, but no more capable than I was when I was 20. I mostly see the
wasted time and how others happened to land on the lucky side of things. Now
that I have some semblance of stability in my life, I’d prefer to give it all
away if it allowed others to self-actualize earlier. I’m wondering if this is
something one either groks or doesn’t, and how to communicate with people who
only talk but don’t listen.

------
maroonblazer
One solution that isn't mentioned is improving our voting process. U.S. ranks
something like 30th in voter turnout. Given that you're more likely to vote if
you're well-educated/higher income, white and older means many of the
disenfranchised referred to in this article aren't represented in govt.

------
pocoloco
The view expressed in the article is not surprising when reading two other
articles (see below) that appeared not long ago here in HN, one of which was
flagged (I tend to suspect that these theses hit a little too close to home
for some and hence the immediate dismissal).

[1] America is Regressing into a Developing Nation for Most People
[https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-
is-r...](https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-is-
regressing-into-a-developing-nation-for-most-people)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14158310](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14158310)

[2] Why Poverty Is Like a Disease
[http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/why-poverty-is-
like-...](http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/why-poverty-is-like-a-
disease)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14201822](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14201822)

------
dnautics
> Many cities, which house a disproportionate portion of the black (and
> increasingly, Latino) population, lack adequate funding for schools.

This is quizzical. Most cities spend more money per pupil than suburbs and
rural areas; which suggests that poor education in urban areas is a function
of institutional corruption and not lack of funding.

~~~
jnicholasp
> This is quizzical

I think you might mean "This is questionable". Quizzical is an adjective
applied to people's expressions or behavior, implying that they are puzzled,
confused, or questioning. It is not an appropriate word for suggesting that an
argument is dubious.

[Assume a standard grammar Nazi mea culpa here, if language corrections are
annoying to you.]

~~~
justifier
i read gp as using quizzical as a verb meaning the sentence induced in thæm
'expressions or behavior, implying that they are puzzled, confused, or
questioning.'

[Assume a standard grammar allied powers mea culpa here, if language
corrections are annoying to you.]

~~~
jnicholasp
> i

> thæm

I suspect the so-called Allied powers are trying to instigate a war, but we
will not be provoked.

> i read gp as using quizzical as a verb

That reading of gp's _intent_ , while plausible, still involves an in-apt
_usage of the word_. At best, you might say "This makes me quizzical", but
that would still be an awkward way to express your doubts about the validity
of the argument.

------
rch
> address systemic racism by reviving the spirit of the Second Reconstruction
> of the 1960s and 1970s

I think we're going to need more concrete recommendations than that.

~~~
Thrillington
We would be better off going back to the antitrust monopoly busting of the
initial 1930s new deal anyway.

------
norikki
First listed reason for inequality in America according to The Atlantic:
Slavery. Good to know what political slant they bring to the table.

~~~
alexc05
I really think these articles are important to read. I still think about and
reference Ta-nehisi Coats' article "the case for reparations"
[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-
cas...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-
reparations/361631/)

He makes a strong point.

Now, I'm a white guy, my father owned a small business after selling his
scanning electron microscope company to a bigger player. He paid for my
University education outright including rent. I had to work for any spending
money I wanted, but I basically had a free ride into my current programming
job.

A poor black kid living in a high-violent-crime area who is the child of a
minimum-wage-working single mother, is not going to have the same chances.

If he gets caught underage by cops with a six pack of beers or a jar of mixed
hard-alchohol stolen from a liquor cabinet, or good forbid enough marijuana
for a joint, he's not going to be able to rely on his parents' to hire the
lawyer to get those charges removed.

This is (according to this article and others) traceable in a large part back
to slavery. But it also comes from gererational poverty. Lack of parental
resources leading to malnutrition, which leads to inattention in school,
parental long hours at work leads to a lack of attention and corrective
feedback. Or the parents are addicted to something and modelling bad behavior
to begin with.

The child in these cases _starts_ innocent and realistically has an
infantessemal chance of success.

The solution is for government programs to tax me and people like me to
provide simple things that can help break the cycle of poverty.

Free breakfast and lunch for kids, raise minimum wage, etc...

The Palmer Luckey's of the world have to catch on to just how fucking
privileged they are as middle class white kids.

These articles don't deserve to be rejected outright under "bias" they're
based on real solid research.

~~~
teslabox
> The solution is for government programs to tax me and people like me to
> provide simple things that can help break the cycle of poverty.

It'd be even better to end institutionalized racism, institute a mass pardon
program, and pay reparations to the victims of Nixon's stupid escalation of
the war on plants:

    
    
      At the time [1994], I was writing a book 
      about the politics of drug prohibition. I 
      started to ask Ehrlichman a series of 
      earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently 
      waved away. “You want to know what this was 
      really all about?” he asked with the 
      bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace 
      and a stretch in federal prison, had little 
      left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, 
      and the Nixon White House after that, had two 
      enemies: the antiwar left and black people. 
      You understand what I’m saying? We knew we 
      couldn’t make it illegal to be either against 
      the war or black, but by getting the public 
      to associate the hippies with marijuana and 
      blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing 
      both heavily, we could disrupt those 
      communities. We could arrest their leaders, 
      raid their homes, break up their meetings, 
      and vilify them night after night on the 
      evening news. Did we know we were lying about 
      the drugs? Of course we did.”
    

\- Legalize It All: How to win the war on drugs,
[http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-
all/](http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/) [https://web-
beta.archive.org/web/20160323102916/http://harpe...](https://web-
beta.archive.org/web/20160323102916/http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-
it-all/)

edit: John Taylor Gatto [1] points out in one of his books that black families
were pretty stable post-civil-war, until the governments started sending black
men to prison for teh ganja. Children do better when they have a father
around.

[1] [https://www.JohnTaylorGatto.com/](https://www.JohnTaylorGatto.com/)

~~~
alexc05
I miss-wrote. It sounded like I thought there was ONE solution required.
Clearly you have a point and there is far more to the story and there isn't
any reason I can think of why you wouldn't be able to do both of these and
more.

