Is America the new South Africa?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Elok
Also, no lethal anti-carjacking devices

You're saying that like it's a good thing.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
While the Bushes are blue-blood elites (as well as Kerry and Gore), Obama certainly isn't. Nor was Clinton. Nor was Reagan.

I may be wrong here but nore was Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Truman etc etc. Not sure about Eisenhower, Kennedy was, Roosevelt was.

Oops just read the rest of the thread and realized several people posted similiarly obvious retorts

[rah]

Originally posted by Arrian


rah,

Click on the link KH provided. Read the report. It's interesting.

-Arrian

Interesting, but as stated it looked at attributes but didn't consider things like desire. Gee, race and education where the most important factors in determining upward mobility. I'm really surprised.

This study looked at results and tried to go back and understand the components. In most of the areas they looked at they didn't see a lot and even admited it.

So while they looked at results, I don't think that necessarily reflect acurately the potential for opportunity. I think the desire of the individual is an important component which was mainly ignored in this study. This would reflect most in the education component because desire/effort are the main factors in grades, not the amount of money spent per pupil. (not to say dollars have no impact) And good grades by minorities is a GUARENTEE of scholarship offers and continued education.

The Race component I can agree with, but desire can play a big difference there also. Most seen in sports since minorities are more likely to think it's the only way to success so may concentrate on it more.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rah
ANY minority child from a poor family that works hard and gets good grades in high school will have access to scholarships for higher education. You can go to the worst schools and you'll find that the kids that put in the work will still get a fine education.
The quality of the schools is usually based on the kids that come out of it. And if you have a lot of kids that don't give a crap, it doesn't matter how much you spend. If parents aren't involved pushing it makes a big different.

That's true, but middle class kids have the benefit of a family that expects more of them. Therefore poor kids don't have equal opportunity.

[rah]

But middle class kids can have good grades and not have the same access to scholarships. (at least full ride ones) Middle class kids are more likely to have to take out loans and be burdened by them later in life. And rich kids will get it handed to them which explains why more rich kids end up with higher education and a higher chance of remaining wealthy. But for a minority kid with enough desire, education shouldn't be a stumbling block.

(not trying to infer that lower class kid have it easier, just pointing out possible differences) Yes I will concede that middle class kid do have the benefit of a family that expects more.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by rah
Almost every successful black athlete came from a lower social group.

All the techno geeks that became wealthy during the dot.com splurge.

The list goes on and on.

KrazyHorse is using statistics. You're using anecdotes. Which is more reliable?

[Arrian]

rah,

Of course desire matters. What GePap was trying to tell you is that the most ambitious (desiring) among us will get ahead, even in adverse circumstances. Most people - the vast majority, in fact - are NOT like that.

I mean... come on. Individual examples of triumph (and failure) will always exist, but we're talking about huge numbers of people here. And the numbers back up the assertion you initially disputed. Hey, I'd have disputed it reflexively too... but since I figured KH isn't actually crazy, I'd check out his source. And how about that, my preconception was challenged by data.

-Arrian

[rah]

I'm not convinced the statistics he based it on prove his point. The survey aspect about the end result I think was done quite well, but what they tried to infer from it and the methodology used was suspect in my opinion.

I work for a global research shop so am quite familiar how to make stats look like they prove something that they really don't. So I think I deserve the right to be cynical about any stat since I'm asked to lie with them on a weekly basis.
(sometime anecdotes are more reliable if the research methodology is flawed)

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The most charitable explanation you might be able to make for the US's lack of economic mobility is that the US has been an opportunity society for so long relative to other countries that a sorting has taken place whereby people with the most advantageous inheritable traits are already sitting near the top of the income distribution while others are already sitting near the bottom.

A slightly less charitable view is that economic barriers to upward movement are higher in the US than elsewhere (for instance, in the existence of high-cost/high-status/high-utility private tertiary education) and that the US simply has a higher dispersion of incomes, meaning that movement across the distribution requires greater absolute changes in income.

KH's first paragraph above is absolute, utter drivel based on the belief that the rich got that way because they deserve it, even if, in fact, most of them inherited it. No study has ever shone that the inheritors have any measurable proportion of the capability of those who built the wealth.

Typical of why KH is one of our best commentator's despite his own intolerance is the second paragraph above, which provides an excellent summary of why the US class system is as rigid as it is.

How does any of this address the original contention: questioning if the US is the new South Africa. In fact, the questioner takes two completely unrelated states, finds som superficial comparitives and asks us to respond. The question has evolved ito something way more interesting. I am surprised that this many people in America don't actually know what a class society is.

[Blaupanzer]

Actually, the US upper class preserves itself through manipulative laws related to taxes, fees, entry costs for companies, and inheritance. Also, the US upper class defines itself with utilitarian and existential sets of definitions. -- "If you have wealth and know how to use it, you are one of us." Rock stars and athletes live well, but are mostly not regarded as members of the upper class as they do not know how to use their wealth.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Do you want me to back my statement of a relative lack of economic mobility in the US?

The two measures I'm thinking of are the "movement between quintiles" (or quartiles, or whatever) measure and the intergenerational elasticity of income measure.

If you have some figures at hand, I'd like to see them. The pdf doesn't work for some reason.

Originally posted by Oerdin
There are a lot more Americans who own their own businesses then Europeans. Plus there are a lot of tax loop holes designed to help businesses not pay taxes. That's why even though or nominal business tax rate is something like 32% 50% of businesses pay absolutely not taxes each year including some of our biggest and most profitable companies.

This is a Democratic party (US) talking point. Do you have any proof or examples?

[rah]

Originally posted by Arrian
rah,

Of course desire matters. What GePap was trying to tell you is that the most ambitious (desiring) among us will get ahead, even in adverse circumstances. Most people - the vast majority, in fact - are NOT like that.

I mean... come on. Individual examples of triumph (and failure) will always exist, but we're talking about huge numbers of people here. And the numbers back up the assertion you initially disputed. Hey, I'd have disputed it reflexively too... but since I figured KH isn't actually crazy, I'd check out his source. And how about that, my preconception was challenged by data.

-Arrian

The true test for upwards mobility is what institutional blocks are there to stop those with the most ambition from suceeding.
That was not covered in the study cited, which was my point. So while I think the study had some good points to it, I don't think it can be used to make the blanket statement that there is less opportunity in one place vs another.

[Patroklos]

in fact, most of them inherited it.

Proof?

The true test for upwards mobility is what institutional blocks are there to stop those with the most ambition from suceeding.

Is there any particular reason why there simply can't be a lack of ambition within a certain population? I don't know about you, but the decadent "things will be taken care of for me" attitude present in all classes (whether it is mommy and daddy or the government) makes me think the American work ethic is slacking across the board.

Just because there is a lack of institutional barriers does not mean people will take advantage of that.

[Kuciwalker]

The true test for upwards mobility is what institutional blocks are there to stop those with the most ambition from suceeding.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the true test for upwards mobility is the actual rate of upwards mobility.

[Kuciwalker]

KH: do your numbers include immigrants? Is it possible that immigrants filling high-end jobs in the US depress the upward mobility numbers by crowding out slighty less-qualified Americans who would otherwise get those jobs?