Hacker News Reader

Comment by hx87 | Hacker News Reader

Low socioeconomic mobility is a problem because the potential for any individual to contribute to the good of society is at best loosely correlated with their previous socioeconomic status. If people who could have been top-notch scientists, engineers, civil servants and entrepreneurs were prevented from doing so because they couldn't move up the ladder (and inversely, rich rent-seekers couldn't move down), society is deprived of their contributions and is worse off.

P.S.: The rapid change in up and down votes is probably caused more by your confusion of socioeconomic mobility and equality (you seem to be using the two interchangeably) than anything else.

View on HN

Where did I conflate socioeconomic mobility and income equality? I didn't intend to do that.

More to your point - I respond by asking whether or not the socioeconomic standing of a scientist matters for the societal impact of their work.

I don't see an easy conclusion here. The scientists driving innovation in industry are generally paid very well (this is relative, but we can probably agree they are paid higher than a median salary). The scientists driving innovation in academia are not, as a rule, paid as well as their counterparts in industry, but that doesn't stop them from contributing valuable research to their fields.

So how do we conclude that socioeconomic stance matters for a scientist's research impact, if they have grants or corporate sponsorship?

To reiterate my point - if reduced socioeconomic mobility can't be demonstrated to be a net loss for society, why does it matter if income inequality causes it or not, and how does it demonstrate income inequality as a net loss for society?

How many famous intellectuals from before the 19th century came from the lower classes? That is what we will return to.

Thank you. There are so many "could have beens" throughout history that didn't happen simply because the vast majority of the human populace was, until very recently, entirely excluded from being able to contribute towards human progress.

How many people who could have become great scientists, engineers, or inventors instead have to grind out an existence planting and farming grain or bussing tables in a diner or some other job?

It's not so much an issue for those people who came from poorer backgrounds and became scientists (though there's still a question of whether they could have been better scientists with better early educational support), but it's a bigger issue for those who never got that chance by an accident of birth.

I don't support equality of outcome as a desirable goal, but I do support equality of opportunity.

What is socioeconomic mobility (of a person) in this discussion ? Is it rate of change in salary ?

> If people who could have been top-notch scientists, engineers, civil servants and entrepreneurs were prevented from doing so because they couldn't move up the ladder (and inversely, rich rent-seekers couldn't move down), society is deprived of their contributions and is worse off.

Why are they being perevented ? If I am the CEO, would not it be against my own interest to prevent my employees from making a contribution ? What ladder is that you speak of ? It certainly cannot be salary. Is there a caste system in company ? If people are being prevented based on their position in social ladder (such as caste system) does it even matter if they have more income ?

Well, social mobility is the change in social status relative to others, which can correlate with income, yes. It also correlates with things like education and skills, type of occupation, etc.

> Why are they being perevented ?

Well, education is expensive -- and has an opportunity cost -- so low-income people often cannot afford to improve their skills and earn more income. If I am poor, and I have enough intelligence to become a good scientist, engineer, or artist, but cannot afford to go to university and gather the requisite skills, then this is a loss to society.

> Well, social mobility is the change in social status relative to others, which can correlate with income, yes. It also correlates with things like education and skills, type of occupation, etc.

Why do you classify it as social mobility ? Would not economic mobility be a better term considering education and skills are economic goods not social.

> Well, education is expensive -- and has an opportunity cost -- so low-income people often cannot afford to improve their skills and earn more income.

I thought it was not economic inequality but something else. But yes this make sense and its expected/desired of a good economy. This is not preventing.

> If I am poor, and I have enough intelligence to become a good scientist, engineer, or artist, but cannot afford to go to university and gather the requisite skills, then this is a loss to society.

Thats why the concept of loan/investments exist. All you have to is convince them that its net positive for them too.

Also this not loss. This is absence of profit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com