|
|
#51
04-10-2007, 09:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Truth About the Rich
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see how the data sheds any light either way on its likelihood. You'd need at least two sets of data over different lengths of time to do that. However, a priori, it seems likely to me that if you're smart enough to keep your fortune over 20 years, you're probably smart enough to keep it over 40 years. 
|
|
#52
04-10-2007, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About the Rich
[ 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 ] Math is hard, obv. What is this "threshold of time beyond which you are far less likely to change in status?? Is "the year 2000" such a threshold? I presume you're talking about an individual's age - and as far as I can tell, this data didn't control for age, so if anyone is making "unwarranted assumptions" it would be you. Point 2 supports the position you're attacking. This should be fairly intuitive.
|
|
#53
04-10-2007, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About the Rich
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't made any assertion in this thread. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] There is a threshold of time beyond which you are far less likely to change status. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#54
04-10-2007, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About the Rich
[ QUOTE ]
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)? [/ QUOTE ] I "care" about it, but I don't find particular distributions *inherently* objectionable. Distributions that extreme have invariably been accompanied by regimes weilding huge amounts of coercive force, so the empirical examples you could provide would be "undesirable".
|
|
#55
04-10-2007, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About the Rich
[ QUOTE ]
Your post is also wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No it's not. [ QUOTE ] 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 ] You're right, it/you can. That's not the issue. We're talking averages here. Take a list of all the fortune 500 companies. Let's say that on average, X% of those companies will not be fortune 500 companies in Y years. If we increase Y, on average, X will increase. This is a logical truth.
|
|
#56
04-10-2007, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About the Rich
[ QUOTE ]
AlexM made the assertion that 50% left after 20 years implies 25% left after 40 years [/ QUOTE ] He used those numbers with the caveat that he didn't mean exactly those. If he simply said that the number would be significantly smaller then 50% in 40 years as opposed to 20 he would be undeniably correct. [ QUOTE ] It could just as easily still be 50% or 40% or (maybe not quite as easily)even 60%. [/ QUOTE ] With the possible exception of 40%, no, no it couldn't.
|
|
#57
04-10-2007, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About the Rich
[ QUOTE ]
Math is hard, obv. [/ QUOTE ] No, but logic is for some apparently. [ QUOTE ] What is this "threshold of time beyond which you are far less likely to change in status?? Is "the year 2000" such a threshold? I presume you're talking about an individual's age - and as far as I can tell, this data didn't control for age, so if anyone is making "unwarranted assumptions" it would be you. [/ QUOTE ] I was talking about the extinction, not the economic data. Usually when sentences are right next to each other, they are related. [ QUOTE ] Point 2 supports the position you're attacking. This should be fairly intuitive. [/ QUOTE ] No it doesn't. Upward mobility doesn't imply downward mobility. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I haven't made any assertion in this thread. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] There is a threshold of time beyond which you are far less likely to change status. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Again, I was talking about the extinction. Try looking at statements actually within context next time.
|
|
#58
04-10-2007, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About the Rich
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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 ] You're right, it/you can. That's not the issue. We're talking averages here. Take a list of all the fortune 500 companies. Let's say that on average, X% of those companies will not be fortune 500 companies in Y years. If we increase Y, on average, X will increase. This is a logical truth. [/ QUOTE ] No it is not. This isn't hard. It is only true if the decay rate is constant. Since you have neither specified the behavior of the decay rate, nor can you infer anything about the behavior of the decay rate from the single set of data ITT, your conclusion is not valid. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] AlexM made the assertion that 50% left after 20 years implies 25% left after 40 years [/ QUOTE ] He used those numbers with the caveat that he didn't mean exactly those. If he simply said that the number would be significantly smaller then 50% in 40 years as opposed to 20 he would be undeniably correct. [ QUOTE ] It could just as easily still be 50% or 40% or (maybe not quite as easily)even 60%. [/ QUOTE ] With the possible exception of 40%, no, no it couldn't. [/ QUOTE ] Jesus christ, this isn't hard. All three of those are possible because you don't know anything about the behavior of the decay rate.
|
|
#59
04-10-2007, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About the Rich
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Math is hard, obv. [/ QUOTE ] No, but logic is for some apparently. [ QUOTE ] What is this "threshold of time beyond which you are far less likely to change in status?? Is "the year 2000" such a threshold? I presume you're talking about an individual's age - and as far as I can tell, this data didn't control for age, so if anyone is making "unwarranted assumptions" it would be you. [/ QUOTE ] I was talking about the extinction, not the economic data. Usually when sentences are right next to each other, they are related. [/ QUOTE ] Ah. Ok, so you made an "analogy" that you admit isn't analogous? OK. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Point 2 supports the position you're attacking. This should be fairly intuitive. [/ QUOTE ] No it doesn't. Upward mobility doesn't imply downward mobility. [/ QUOTE ] O RLY? Everyone can't move up if we're looking at percentiles. Again, this should be fairly intuitive. Think of the top 25 football rankings. On a given week, for every team that moves up one spot, some other team has to move down one spot. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I haven't made any assertion in this thread. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] There is a threshold of time beyond which you are far less likely to change status. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Again, I was talking about the extinction. Try looking at statements actually within context next time. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, it's not an assertion?
|
|
#60
04-10-2007, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Truth About the Rich
[ QUOTE ]
No, but logic is for some apparently. [/ QUOTE ] apparently
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
