Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

Isn't this a similar effect to lifespan? We say the average lifespan is increasing, but in fact its the effect of most people reaching their normal lifespan (instead of dying early).

So as income falls into a more uniform distribution (more folks have access to most common jobs) we see 'mobility' decrease. The same as 'lifespan mobility' has decreased (folks no longer living longer than their parents). Its a good thing.

View on HN

There's a small difference: "lifespan mobility" as you call it is not something where you see changes for yourself within your life - it is measured once, when you die.

Income mobility affects you your entire life, and where you are is measured constantly. So no, it's not a good thing - because it means that if you're born poor, you stay poor. Calling it a good thing is the same thing as saying "more babies dying is great, it evens out the distribution to be more uniform, it's a good thing!"

And no, the distribution is not "uniform". If you bother to look at the data at all, you'll see that it approaches a pareto distribution. Awesome if you happen to be one of the few rich or well-off. Sucks if you're one of the vast majority of people who barely make ends meet, and who are now, due to decreased mobility, stuck there for the rest of their lives.

Decreased income mobility is only good for people who have a good income. And those are currently significantly outnumbered by people who don't. Traditionally, situations like this tend to end in war, revolution, or dictatorships. Really not what I'd file in the "good thing" category.

The only way to make it a good thing is to increase the amount of people with a liveable income. Hence all the discussion around universal basic income going on recently. But until that (or some other kind of reduction of inequality has happened), reduced mobility is really, really, really bad.

But it's not becoming more uniform distribution -- not only is mobility decreasing, income inequality is rising (the "Great Divergence" as Krugman calls it). We are returning to a pre-20th century society where the rich are rich and the poor are poor and not much inbetween.

As sort of a general comment on the situation, its informative to consider that when American foreign policy spends centuries on gunboat diplomacy and inequality and immobility in the 3rd world, the citizen response is rah rah USA USA. But when the same policy is applied to the USA itself, suddenly lots of hand wringing about maybe massive income inequality isn't the most moral and ethical system or maybe caste based zero mobility isn't the fairest way to treat people. Well whats good for the goose is good for the gander or whatever trite saying.

Its also useful to consider that the 3rd world has been kept the way it is for centuries, so claims that it could never be implemented in the USA or would never be stable/permanent state of affairs is pretty comical level unrealistic.

Finally WRT apocalypse claims, you have to realize that over a long term and from far away, Central and South America look pretty messed up, especially compared to "us" where "us" is the former western civilization, rapidly intentionally self destructing. Yet, their people none the less do a lot of smiling, their reproductive success is higher than ours, their lifespan isn't that much shorter... Americas future looks a lot more like Venezuela than Venezuela's future looks like America, and that's not really all that bad. The future is going to suck, and yes it will be entirely our fault, but its hardly the end of the world.

Look, you make your national political, economic, trade, immigration, frankly "all" policies to turn the USA into Brazil, don't act all surprised when USA starts looking like Brazil with Brazil reduced income, Brazil reduced public services, Brazil housing affordability, Brazil rape and murder rate, Brazil economic mobility. Brazil's got problems, but don't forget as USA dies and turns into Brazil, that Brazil's got plenty of good parts too. The powers that be want it this way and you're not stopping it but you can try to get ahead of the curve. So assuming the USA turns into Brazil what do you do today, so your kids do better in the Brazil-like USA of 2070 than some imaginary dead USA that will never exist in 2070? A cross cultural lesson is nobody ever got ahead in the world by endlessly ruminating on how unfair some awful disaster is unfolding. You can work on thriving in a Brazil-like USA of 2070 or you can feel really really bad about it, now let me know which is more likely to turn out well in the long run.

The only scenario where low mobility is obviously not a problem is when income is entirely even.

If there is an uneven income distribution, to decide that low mobility is fair, you need some other explanation for why people aren't moving from say, the bottom quintile up to the other quintiles.

For example, in a cartoon world where income outcomes are entirely random, you'd expect 80% mobility from each quintile.

It's a good thing unless your entire worldview is wrapped up in having your children "do better than you," whatever that means. I think many people have a gut reaction to decreased mobility (I know I do) as being somehow anti-meritocratic. It's very possible the science doesn't back that up but I don't know that there is any research on it. I feel like high mobility in both directions means a society is more meritocratic than one in which you generally stay in the same socioeconomic strata you're born into.

Sure, a growing dichotomy between rich and poor could be a sign of a meritocracy or it could be a sign of people who's parents have money have a greater chance of success.

Either way in a country as rich as the United States there should never be hunger, fear of homelessness or other poverty generated afflictions we suffer here.

In addition people are born with different cognitive skills, should those born with average intelligence automatically be doomed to lead lives of poverty compared to others?

I'm not advocating asset seizures but we as a nation can do better.

There doesn't need to be a dichotomy, I'd love to see wealth distributed on a bell curve but I don't think that's realistic (and I don't want the government enacting policies try to enforce some arbitrary distribution of wealth). Wealth is tied up in a lot of advantages - better schools, more opportunity for leisure, etc - that themselves tend to lead to more wealth.

> should those born with average intelligence automatically be doomed to lead lives of poverty compared to others?

Nobody born with average intelligence is doomed to a life of poverty so I'm not sure what the point of that straw man is. I think it's a fact of life that someone of average intelligence will have a harder time amassing great wealth than someone of exceptional intelligence. I'm pretty sure my intelligence is at best slightly above average and I don't see anything wrong with that.

> Nobody born with average intelligence is doomed to a life of poverty.

Have you ever interacted with the under-privileged? Plenty of smart people feel their lives are doomed because of the way society is structured against them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com