The Truth About the Rich

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a capitalist, but I don't read the chart in quite the same way others here are. I see that more people stay in their quintile group than move to any other group. And that this is most pronounced for the poorest and richest quintiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over a very tiny section of time...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have data suggesting it is different over a larger amount of time? I'm curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

The data given shows it. If it's 50% over 20 years it's gonna be like 25% over 40 years. This is pretty simple. Admittedly, I'm way over simplifying it, but it's certainly going to keep on going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unwarranted assumption of random distribution FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read what you quoted?

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "way oversimplfying it" you meant "coming to exactly the opposite conclusion", then I guess your post was accurate.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a capitalist, but I don't read the chart in quite the same way others here are. I see that more people stay in their quintile group than move to any other group. And that this is most pronounced for the poorest and richest quintiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over a very tiny section of time...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have data suggesting it is different over a larger amount of time? I'm curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

The data given shows it. If it's 50% over 20 years it's gonna be like 25% over 40 years. This is pretty simple. Admittedly, I'm way over simplifying it, but it's certainly going to keep on going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unwarranted assumption of random distribution FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read what you quoted?

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "way oversimplfying it" you meant "coming to exactly the opposite conclusion", then I guess your post was accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]
His post is a logical truth. If people have X% chance of changing their socioeconomic status in Y years, they have >X% chance to do so in >Y years. There may be a dimishing return but X never doesn't increase when Y increases.

[neverforgetlol]

Do AC's even care about class mobility or wealth distribution? For example would you find 1% of society owning say 99% of it's property undesirable (compared to something a bit more balanced)?

[latefordinner]

you could also read that chart as:

3/4 of the richest 2/5 of americans children are also in the richest 2/5, 80% of the 2/5 poorest americans are also in the poorest 2/5

the US has the lowest rate of social mobility of any industrialized country - controlling for any relevant factors in a multivariate analysis the single biggest predictor of poverty status is whether your parents were impoverished

i'm too busy at the moment to pull out a bunch of citations, but in response to neverforgetlol check out the why x% of the people have y% of the welath thread from just the last couple of weeks if you want a discussion on that topic

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
His post is a logical truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is anything but.

[ QUOTE ]
If people have X% chance of changing their socioeconomic status in Y years, they have >X% chance to do so in >Y years. There may be a dimishing return but X never doesn't increase when Y increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. That's not what I was objecting to in his post. I was specifically objecting to him posting that it would be significantly different over a longer period of time (i.e. assuming the distribution of people who stop being rich is random). It would be like saying "90% of all species died out within 1 million years during the Permian extinction. Therefore 99% of all species died out within 2 million years". There is a threshold of time beyond which you are far less likely to change status.

2. Your post is also wrong. X can certainly not increase. It can stay the same. It can also decrease. Or are you saying that once you lose your fortune you can *never* get it back?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His post is a logical truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is anything but.

[ QUOTE ]
If people have X% chance of changing their socioeconomic status in Y years, they have >X% chance to do so in >Y years. There may be a dimishing return but X never doesn't increase when Y increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. That's not what I was objecting to in his post. I was specifically objecting to him posting that it would be significantly different over a longer period of time (i.e. assuming the distribution of people who stop being rich is random). It would be like saying "90% of all species died out within 1 million years during the Permian extinction. Therefore 99% of all species died out within 2 million years". There is a threshold of time beyond which you are far less likely to change status.

2. Your post is also wrong. X can certainly not increase. It can stay the same. It can also decrease. Or are you saying that once you lose your fortune you can *never* get it back?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you lose your fortune and can get it back, it's really not an argument against social mobility, is it? In fact, it supports the idea of a socially mobile society where fortunes can be lost or gained over time. You are being obtuse. And to say 90% of a species dying in 1 million years doesn't mean 99% will die in two million is correct -- but it would be impossible for 90% to disappear in 1 million but of those same species, only 80% are gone after 2 million. So your analogy merely supports the point you are trying to disprove. Rather than play these silly games, why don't you just show us some data that supports your assertion that over a longer time, the numbers show the opposite trend. You seem to imply this is an obvious fact -- so show ing it should be easy.

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His post is a logical truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is anything but.

[ QUOTE ]
If people have X% chance of changing their socioeconomic status in Y years, they have >X% chance to do so in >Y years. There may be a dimishing return but X never doesn't increase when Y increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. That's not what I was objecting to in his post. I was specifically objecting to him posting that it would be significantly different over a longer period of time (i.e. assuming the distribution of people who stop being rich is random). It would be like saying "90% of all species died out within 1 million years during the Permian extinction. Therefore 99% of all species died out within 2 million years". There is a threshold of time beyond which you are far less likely to change status.

2. Your post is also wrong. X can certainly not increase. It can stay the same. It can also decrease. Or are you saying that once you lose your fortune you can *never* get it back?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you lose your fortune and can get it back, it's really not an argument against social mobility, is it? In fact, it supports the idea of a socially mobile society where fortunes can be lost or gained over time. You are being obtuse. And to say 90% of a species dying in 1 million years doesn't mean 99% will die in two million is correct -- but it would be impossible for 90% to disappear in 1 million but of those same species, only 80% are gone after 2 million. So your analogy merely supports the point you are trying to disprove. Rather than play these silly games, why don't you just show us some data that supports your assertion that over a longer time, the numbers show the opposite trend. You seem to imply this is an obvious fact -- so show ing it should be easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try shifting the burden, but I haven't made any assertion in this thread. AlexM made the assertion that 50% left after 20 years implies 25% left after 40 years and then I pointed out that that is bogus. It could just as easily still be 50% or 40% or (maybe not quite as easily)even 60%.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His post is a logical truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is anything but.

[ QUOTE ]
If people have X% chance of changing their socioeconomic status in Y years, they have >X% chance to do so in >Y years. There may be a dimishing return but X never doesn't increase when Y increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. That's not what I was objecting to in his post. I was specifically objecting to him posting that it would be significantly different over a longer period of time (i.e. assuming the distribution of people who stop being rich is random). It would be like saying "90% of all species died out within 1 million years during the Permian extinction. Therefore 99% of all species died out within 2 million years". There is a threshold of time beyond which you are far less likely to change status.

2. Your post is also wrong. X can certainly not increase. It can stay the same. It can also decrease. Or are you saying that once you lose your fortune you can *never* get it back?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you lose your fortune and can get it back, it's really not an argument against social mobility, is it? In fact, it supports the idea of a socially mobile society where fortunes can be lost or gained over time. You are being obtuse. And to say 90% of a species dying in 1 million years doesn't mean 99% will die in two million is correct -- but it would be impossible for 90% to disappear in 1 million but of those same species, only 80% are gone after 2 million. So your analogy merely supports the point you are trying to disprove. Rather than play these silly games, why don't you just show us some data that supports your assertion that over a longer time, the numbers show the opposite trend. You seem to imply this is an obvious fact -- so show ing it should be easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try shifting the burden, but I haven't made any assertion in this thread. AlexM made the assertion that 50% left after 20 years implies 25% left after 40 years and then I pointed out that that is bogus. It could just as easily still be 50% or 40% or (maybe not quite as easily)even 60%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that's the same as your statement that he came to the "exact opposite conclusion". Whatever.... let the reader judge your argument.

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah that's the same as your statement that he came to the "exact opposite conclusion". Whatever.... let the reader judge your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. His conclusion: From the data we can conclude that fewer and fewer people will stay in the richest quintile over time

The exact opposite conclusion: From the data we can't conclude etc.

If you want to count that as an assertion that you want me to back up with data, that's insane.

[Brainwalter]

I see GMontag's point (for once). The top 10% could be completely immobile, and the second 10% could be a revolving door. This would result in 50% turnover of the top quintile over 20, 50, 100 years.

Seems unlikely but from these data it's possible.