Hacker News Reader

Comment by Paul-Craft | Hacker News Reader

You realize you're actually not really saying anything here, right? After spending 1/4 of one's life going to school, then (if one is lucky) another 1/4 of one's life working, and another 1/4 of one's life in old age, there's not very much life left to live.

Putting it more concretely, the US ranks 27th on the Global Social Mobility Index. That's great, if you're cool with hanging out with Latvia, Spain, Poland, and Cyprus. But, why do that, when you can be Denmark? The benefits are clear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index#G...) But I guess that just doesn't make enough money for the shareholders or something.

View on HN

"Social Mobility Index" always seems like a particularly weird metric to me. Not just in the usual issues of vanity metrics or gaming the system or whatnot, but also because, I'm not sure that maximizing it is even a desirable outcome. It's a weird measure of like, societal churn.

I'd much rather look at quality of life metrics across all citizens than just check if the outcomes of children are uncorrelated to their parents decisions.

Most of the countries 1-27 are homogeneous nations with populations below 5 million. They all have low wages too. The floor is raised a bit but the ceiling is lowered massively for what you can acheive. I don't want to live in a capped society. The US affords more opportunity; plain and simple. Look at the millions of people trying to get in every day, and the biggest foreign tech work force in the world.

How are low wages a problem? Affordability is the problem, and in at least the top 20, it seems the affordability situation regarding housing, healthcare, and the other basics of life (see, e.g. the bottom levels of Maslow's heirarchy) are all accessible to everyone.

You do also realize that you're saying the US somehow affords more opportunity than the 26 other countries that rank above it on the Global Social Mobility Index? I don't think you've fully understood the concept here.

Limiting opportunity is directly causal to a higher social mobility index though. Preventing people from earning high wages or accumulating wealth will directly increase that metric.

A country where everyone is in extreme poverty could have the top score for social mobility.

I like my high wage. I would get paid half of what I got paid today if I lived in one of those places, if not less. Why would I want that? I have everything I want here and more. I already pay high taxes too.

> Global Social Mobility Index

Look at the attributes that make up the index, they aren't objective like you're making them out to be. Also, its from the WEF, an organization that has a contentious reputation.

Have you consider perhaps that you aren't the center of the universe, and that there are millions of other people who are worse off than you? That if those people were better off, even at your personal expense, then that would be a better society to live in? Your comments are all "me me me," and I don't see any reason why "we we we" should assign any weight to them.

Your zeal for this is unhinged. I don't owe anything to others. Giving more money to the government isn't going to "better society". Here is a link if you are feeling so charitable: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...

I'm already taxed nearly 45% of my income, pay insane property taxes on my home and car. Not to mention the goods I buy. How about the failing US government redirect its insane budget to improving things that matter, and not far away wars, foreign aid and ever-growing bureaucracy. Focus on domestic issues. Not global profiteering. People in the US, not just citizens but illegal immigrants as well, still have it pretty good compared to most places (free healthcare, EBT, housing vouchers). Thats why millions are trying to get here every year.

Most countries are "homogenous" nations with populations of below 10 million and low wages, so you're not actually saying much.

Comparing a country of 335 million to countries the size of some of the USA's smallest states is a bad way to look at data.

Perhaps, but the data doesn't show that there's a bias towards or against, and if anything it could be easier for there to be upwards mobility in a larger country.

Provide a good way, then. I'm open to it.

1) What's the cost of Denmark's social mobility? We already have a fairly progressive tax system in the US, what does Denmark do differently and to whom does it cost?

2) What's the benefit? (Note that although a rising tide floats all boats, it is unfortunately impossible to imagine the world that would result if opportunity was equitable)

I'm not arguing against it, I'm just saying it boils down to those things.

The better question is: what's the cost of the US's lack of social mobility. (A partial answer to this is in the wiki link in my comment, FYI. You should read it.)

When you say "cost," it doesn't always mean dollars and cents. Honestly, who cares if shareholders have a few less dollars in their pockets if everyone else is better off as a result?

That's the real problem, not realizing that dollars and cents aren't the be all and end all of everything.

You're right. Value is measured not just in cash.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com