SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a sign of the fading American Dream, 92 percent of children born in 1940 earned more than their parents, but only half of those born in 1984 can say the same, researchers said Monday. Greater inequality in the distribution of growth is largely to blame, said the findings in the US journal Science. "Children's prospects of earning more than their parents have faded over the past half century in the United States," said the study, led by Raj Chetty of Stanford University. "Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class."
Since little data exists linking children to their parents in terms of economic performance, researchers combined US census data with tax records, adjusting for inflation and other confounding variables. They found the sharpest declines in income in the industrial Midwest, including states like Indiana and Illinois. "The smallest declines occurred in states such as Massachusetts, New York and Montana," said the study.
(Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:23PM (7 children)
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive [bloomberg.com]
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/632a2t/utah_has_the_highest_social_mobility_in_the_us/ [reddit.com]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14016858 [ycombinator.com]
(Disclaimer: I'm from there, and I love it. I've seen and experienced a great deal of kindness during hard times. Have also lived in other states and abroad and seen similar kindness. Pls, if you have negative comments, try to make it more thoughtful than a hit-and-run cheap shot. I think we can converse intelligently. Also note much has been discussed already at the above links.)
--
Personal organizer for touch typists at http://onemodel.org [onemodel.org] . AGPL, fast, free with tutorial. Data "sharing" features & other improvements in the works (no mobile support yet).
(Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:26PM (5 children)
...which is another reason I hope the federal government stops trying to solve every problem and let states, communities, or families do it. Because we are not all alike and can learn from each others' efforts, but that is much harder if the federal level takes so much money and makes so many rules. Someone wise said ~"the greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the greater the sense of entitlement".
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:59PM (4 children)
I hope the federal government stops trying to solve every problem and let states, communities, or families do it.
Show some effort in reducing state/local corruption, and you might get your wish.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:00PM (3 children)
Yes, corruption is a bad thing, and we should all do our part to elect honest people and promote honesty and the Golden Rule, in every level and setting. I've studied soviet communism in college, observed things, have family with a degree in Asian Studied who traveled to China, learned some Russian, lived abroad myself, and I read a lot of history and current events. I have yet to see an example where more centralized government power leads to less corruption. At least sometimes, the problem gets worse, the more government power is centralized: ie the corruption affects more people more strongly. Corruption is the very reason that such power should be limited. I also think it is easier to have an impact locally. For those national issues where one is passionate and able, the constitution should be our guide (limited federal power, independent states). One's energy to make the nation and world better can also be invested in fundraising for charities that meet one's own criteria, campaigning for honesty, etc etc., without making laws that compel faraway others to a forced charities that the givers might not agree with or which is largely mismanaged.
I've also dealt with both private and public (SSA) disability insurance, and there are distinct pros and cons in both. After several months, the SSA couldn't even so much as tell where an application was in the queue (though the individuals I spoke with were usually trying to do a good job, and spoke kindly). (But on the other hand, the private company only covered the disabling condition for one year, but that was in the contract. Years later it is hoped but unknown whether SSA will cover it.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:50PM (2 children)
In other words governments geographical range should be small so people can vote system with their feet.
(Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:09PM (1 child)
For many things, yes, heartily agreed. I am glad the US is big enough to defend ourselves though. Like, if we hadn't have been able to access our combined resources (and ship goods around effectively e.g. via rail, air, & water), WW2 might have gone differently (ouch). And things like the bill of rights etc are great. :)
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:11PM
If Germany didn't support the communists to overthrow their enemy in Russia then there might had been less of communism there but still a revolution. Big capital in US would then been less keen on supporting the Nazi movement to counter communism. And US wouldn't needed the A-bomb etc to counter Nazis. Then there would not be any A-secret to steal and so on. So there is one critical point where this event chain could been halted. And that is where the support of big capital helped the Nazis to secure power. IBM machines were actually used to keep track of people. The result of that can be read in the history books.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:48PM
The Utah compassionate conservative program [bloomberg.com] seems to be about:
* Housing first, before trying to address the problems that contributed to their homelessness.
* Mormon Church support, ie the virtue of the population matters.
* Functional bureaucracy.
* Food and furniture for the poor but with expectations to find work.
* Letting social workers push people (with risk for arbitrary judgements).
* Emphasizing going to school and not having children until you can support them.
* When the poor people are, by and large, the same race as the richer ones, people find it easier to talk about them the way they might talk about, well, family members (see Robert Putnam [wikipedia.org] on societal trust) .
* Mormon Church forbids drinking and encourage marriage.
* “The people who are doing the research are the people who don’t need marriage.”
* Cultural homogeneity.
Economists Isabel Sawhill and Ron Haskins famously estimated that we could reduce poverty by 71 percent if the poor did just four things: finished high school, worked full time, got married and had no more than two children — and the number of children was the least important factor in that calculation.
Marriage seems to have more of a correlation with mobility than race does.
As a redditor said: [reddit.com]
If you trust the people you are dealing with, you have to waste as many resources vetting them and guarding fraud. So you have good connections, a strong internal reputation system, and high levels of trust, all of which are excellent for business.