US vs Rest of World - re: Land of Opportunity

[Edward64]

Somehow the thread on FL school shooting went off on a tangent regarding opportunities, equality etc. of minorities and poor. I contributed to that (and in a way seemed disrespectful) and I apologize.

thesloppy and I had the exchange below and told him I would research it further.

Decided to create its own post. I'm sure others will want to share their perspective and POV.

My ask is keep it cordial and informative.

Unfortunately, evidence points to the exact opposite:

U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility | Economic Policy Institute
“The State of Working America, 12th Edition” finds that policy-driven inequality has undercut low- and middle-income workers for past three decades | State of Working America

Very, very little.

[Edward64]

All,

Post #2 is the context. Post #3 contains the details.

The following is my analysis of my original post below with thesloppy.

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
Yeah, I agree it hasn't been for 250 years for many groups that are non-white and male. However, I think that argument starts to dry up starting in the 70's and really, for the most part, irrelevant in the 00's.

Is it perfect, no. But it is much better than before and a minority/lower class in US has a much better chance of doing well in the US vs their peers in other countries.

This analysis is re:the first paragraph on how non-whites and females have progressed since the 70's and that "its much better than before".

Additionally, my comment on "irrelevant in the 00's" needs more clarity. It is my perception that minorities and women coming into the adulthood in the 00's have relatively much less challenges and basically same level of opportunities as white males than prior generations.

This analysis is NOT

• Comparison with ROW (that analysis is forthcoming)
• Whether non-whites and females have achieved or come close to achieving equality with white males (it is has it gotten "much" better)
• Trying to answer "why" those discrepancies continue to exist

With that said, here are some caveats

1. I organized my analysis of non-whites and male into - Blacks, Hispanic, Asians and Women
2. The Pew research (source #1 below) was a wealth of info and I used it as my baseline document
3. A key challenge was historical context was not consistently baselined (duh) to a point in time e.g. 1970. In my list of sources, I attempted to document the baseline dates used in their research
4. Definitely not saying this is all comprehensive but I think it has a good chunk
5. I bypassed alot of articles that I did not feel rose to level of Pew/Gallup vs news articles. I know I missed a bunch of good ones
6. This is as of post #27 in this thread
7. How I googled and my sources are listed at the bottom.

Google search terms and sites

1. are minorities are doing better than in 70s
2. how have women progressed
3. pew research
4. gallup poll

Sources & References

1) Demographic trends and economic well-being | Pew Research Center

2016 article. Baseline varies from 1962 to 1976 to 1983. Contains demographics and historical trends. Also contains current opinions (e.g. race relations are generally good/bad, racial equality) but no historical trend to 1970

2) http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969.pdf

2009 article. Used for women demographics. Baseline 1970

3) Women still underrepresented among US political, business leaders | Pew Research Center

2017 article. Used for women demographics. Baseline 1964 and 1995

4) RSF Journal

2016 article. Used for women demographics. Baseline 1955

5) http://news.gallup.com/poll/164153/1...tting%2520Jobs

http://news.gallup.com/poll/163580/f...nd%2520Housing

2013 articles. Views from US Blacks. Baseline 1963 & 1993

From thesloppy

6) https://www.revealnews.org/article/f...homeownership/

2018 article. "People of color" housing discrimination. Current point-in-time, no historical comparison

7) Blacks, Hispanics face mortgage challenges | Pew Research Center

2017 article. Blacks and Hispanic Home ownership analysis. Baseline 2000

[Edward64]

(See post #2 for context)

TL;DR summary - Here's my draft conclusion.

There have been significant progress made since circa 1970's for non-white and female minority groups. Female and Asian minority groups have progressed the most. Black and Hispanic minority groups have also shown significant improvement but will (likely) continue to lag Whites, Women and Asians in the short-term future.

I would reword my original statement above into

"I think the argument starts to dry up starting around the 70's for non-whites and Women. For Women and Asians, it has become largely irrelevant in the 00's but challenges continue for Blacks and Hispanics. Is it perfect, no. But it is much better than before ..."

Here are the data points I collected

(One additional note, I considered documenting incarceration rates too which I suspect has increased. But to me, it didn't seem that "felons" (vs. regular people) should be part of the analysis)

Blacks

1. Increased HS graduation - see #1
2. More college degrees - see #1
3. Increased Median Income (adjusted to 2014)- see #1
4. Less likely to be poor - see #1
5. Approx same for house ownership - see #1
6. Unemployment rate has decreased (lots of variations) - see #1
7. Increased non-marital births (substantially higher) - see #1
8. Increased in Children living with single parent (substantially higher) - see #1
9. Easier time getting home mortgages (but higher rates) - see #7
10. In 1963, 74% blacks thought whites had better chances at jobs for which they were qualified for, in 2011 that number is 60% - see #5
11. In 1962, 53% of blacks thought they equal educational opportunities, in 2011 that number is 56% (however, it peaked at 68% in 1990).
12. Black Americans are significantly less likely now than they were 20 years ago to cite discrimination as the main reason blacks on average have worse jobs, income, and housing than whites. Today, 37% of blacks say these differences are due to discrimination and 60% say they are caused by something else. In 1993, 44% said such differences were due to discrimination and 48% something else. - see #5

Hispanics

1. Increased HS graduation - see #1
2. More college degrees - see #1
3. Increased Median Income (adjusted to 2014)- see #1
4. Approx same % less likely to be poor
5. Approx same for house ownership - see #1
6. Unemployment rate has decreased (lots of variations) - see #1
7. Increased non-marital births - see #1
8. Increased in Children living with single parent - see #1
9. Easier time getting home mortgages (but higher rates)- see #7

Women

1. More college degrees than men - see #4
2. Significantly more women in workforce - see #4
3. Earn more as a % of men - see #4
4. Significantly more women in national & state government - see #3
5. Significantly more women as CEO and Board members in fortune 500 - see #3
6. Extent and intensity of sex-based dicriminbation has decreased markedly over the last 50 years - see #4
7. By most objective measures the lives of women in the US has improved dramatically over the past 35 years. Moreover, women believe that their lives are better (4 in 5) - see #2
8. Trends in self-reported subjective well-being indicate that happiness has shifted toward men and away from women (e.g. women are reporting they are less happy) - see #2 (this one was strange to me so documented it)

Asians

1. Increased HS graduation - see #1
2. More college degrees - see #1
3. Increased Median Income (adjusted to 2014)- see #1
4. Less likely to be poor - see #1
5. Increased home ownership - see #1
6. Unemployment rate has decreased (lots of variations) - see #1
7. Increased non-marital births - see #1
8. Increased in Children living with single parent - see #1
9. Easier time getting home mortgages - see #7

[thesloppy]

I dunno where it fits in this discussion, but coincidentally just as the subject came up yesterday this article was released, regarding racial discrimination in lending in the US:

https://www.revealnews.org/article/f...homeownership/

.and here's one from earlier this year:

Blacks, Hispanics face mortgage challenges | Pew Research Center

...with that said, I certainly don't claim to have my finger on the pulse of this issue, and am going to take pretty much anything written down as gospel, for better or worse.

[jeff061]

Between the ever increasing wage gap and overall consolidation of corporate entities, I can't see how upward mobility today is better than it has been in the past. I'll read what you come up with though.

I think our policy historically has driven innovation and economic success, but it reaches a tipping point where things need to be reset or there's a risk of collapse.

[ISiddiqui]

Here is another study that says upward mobility has fallen sharply in the US (reporting on a study done by the US Journal "Science"):

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-upward...n-sharply.html

And an article from The Atlantic from 2016:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...merica/491240/

[Edward64]

Thanks for the comments and links so far.

Please note that I had wanted to research how the poor are doing in the US vs their peers in other countries. I've found articles comparing income so far but not specifically on "opportunities" provided.

Simplistically - in general, does a poor person in the US have a better chance, more opportunities etc. of being middle/upper class vs a poor person in (pick a country).

[ISiddiqui]

Though you did indicate that it is better than before and a lot of the linked articles are saying it is not the case.

[Edward64]

Fair enough. My quote was ...

Yeah, I agree it hasn't been for 250 years for many groups that are non-white and male. However, I think that argument starts to dry up starting in the 70's and really, for the most part, irrelevant in the 00's.

Is it perfect, no. But it is much better than before and a minority/lower class in US has a much better chance of doing well in the US vs their peers in other countries.

So I'll see what I can find before and after the early 70's specific to non-white and male in addition to comparing with ROW.

[thesloppy]

Here's the link to the article from EPI that I linked to earlier, implying US social mobility is lagging behind its peers:

U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility | Economic Policy Institute

Here's a report from the Brookings Institution:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...awhill_ch3.pdf

Here's an article from the National Review, from the more conservative side of the aisle:
Economic Mobility -- United States Compared to Europe & Scandinavia | National Review

And an even more in depth analysis from the same author of the National Review piece:
Does America Have Less Economic Mobility? Part 1 | Economics21

If I cobble together those pieces I get the impression that 'relative' class/social mobility is definitely lower in America relative to its peers in Europe, however there is still some question to how that relates to the total quality of life in a country which makes it difficult to compare. Even the most conservative, USA-centric authority seems to assert that we're definitely not anywhere near as social/class mobile as our developed peers, just that maybe it doesn't matter because our general standard of living is better.

[whomario]

Personally I see absolutely no way that the US is even close to offering willing young poor people the same amount of opportunities as Germany and most other european countries. Just the fact that the social and health care systems are basically utter shit is a big one, the cost of education is another. I find it ironic that so many americans see those flaws as actually being a good thing in a "you have to work for your good fortune" kind of thinking. Sure, that might be a noble idea but it doesn't work in a modern society at all. This isn't the 19th century anymore.

Just as a quick example: In Germany and many other big european countries you can study essentially for free at any university you choose if you qualify for the admissions criteria. Which is mostly straight forward and determined by the grade you had in HS with a certain weight also going to the amount of time passed between HS and applying. So if you want to study a sought-after field and lack in grades, you do a trainee-programm and voila, 2 years later you can get in. The university does not get to handpick based of personal bias or some shit.
I pay a paltry 300 € a semester and that includes free transportation within the state as well as other services (near-free printing/copying, cheap-as food on campus etc).
And if your parents earn below a certain amount you get a loan for your living expenses from the state that gets higher the poorer your parents. This loan is not only interest-free but in fact you only have to pay back at most 50% as a general rule* and only have to start gradually paying it back 7 years after graduation.

In a hypothetical point system, that is a gazillion points the US looses right there when it comes to potential for upwards mobility.

* less if you finish your studies in time and among the best X% (varies between fields of study) of graduates, it is also capped at 10k so becomes much less than 50% for anybody that does a Masters and not just a Bachelors. Also, anybody can get additional funds for a semester abroad on top of it (I got about 10k for flights, living and tuition in NZ. None of which i'll have to repay).

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, the Atlantic article I linked to earlier indicates that one of the barriers to social mobility is college education. It can be a gatekeeper, keeping lower class folks from getting as high as they used to because college is now considered a bare minimum for many jobs.

[Edward64]

Yeah, you bring up a good point. There are several ways to slice and analyze data. Alot of links refer to other Developed or European countries.

In Europe there are benefits of lower cost higher education but is that primarily for white male kids or does that also factor in women and/or new immigrants from Africa?

Is what may be true in Europe also true when comparing African, Asian, South American countries to US?

I don't know but these questions are coming to mind as I read thru your links.

Thanks everyone for the interest so far.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah, you bring up a good point. There are several ways to slice and analyze data. Alot of links refer to other Developed or European countries.

In Europe there are benefits of lower cost higher education but is that primarily for white male kids or does that also factor in women and/or new immigrants from Africa?

Is what may be true in Europe also true when comparing African, Asian, South American countries to US?

I don't know but these questions are coming to mind as I read thru your links.

Thanks everyone for the interest so far.

1) Of course there are barriers (language for one, general cultural adjustments for another, family traditions/teachings for a third) and resulting from that certain inequalities, but those are again almost certainly a lot smaller than they are in the US.

2) Do you really want to compare the US to countries that lag behind massively in general development and wealth (maybe excluding a few countries like Japan) ? Sure you can do that, but that's like saying "But wouldn't the Browns be able to hang with a middling College Team ? There's you silver lining right there" There's a reason most studies concentrate on the highly developed european countries because most anything else isn't a viable comparison. Not just for economic reasons but also general cultural development and traditions. There is a reason you call it "The West" when speaking about western/central Europe, the US/Canada and Australia/NZ.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by whomario

2) Do you really want to compare the US to countries that lag behind massively in general development and wealth (maybe excluding a few countries like Japan) ? Sure you can do that, but that's like saying "But wouldn't the Browns be able to hang with a middling College Team ? There's you silver lining right there" There's a reason most studies concentrate on the highly developed european countries because most anything else isn't a viable comparison. Not just for economic reasons but also general cultural development and traditions. There is a reason you call it "The West" when speaking about western/central Europe, the US/Canada and Australia/NZ.

Which doesn't even address our national 'bootstraps' narrative that we've been promoting for most of modern history.....according to that narrative we shouldn't just be expecting the US to fall in the middle of its developed European peers (which it apparently doesn't), it should be the unquestionable leader in every indicator of financial/class mobility AND standard of living.

[whomario]

Interestingly, the UK is pretty comparable to the US when it comes to cost of education while the other former colonies (Australia, Canada, NZ) are less expensive but still way more expensive than all western european countries. As much as the US (and other former colonies) wanted to be it's own entity, the traditions and mindset is very much linked in many fields.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, the Atlantic article I linked to earlier indicates that one of the barriers to social mobility is college education. It can be a gatekeeper, keeping lower class folks from getting as high as they used to because college is now considered a bare minimum for many jobs.

It is interesting that the college requirement has seemingly become MORE common as the cost of secondary education rises and the usefulness/quality of secondary education sink. In that sense it has become a gatekeeper for the middle class, testing your family's general financial strength & stability as much as anything else.

Back in the '90s and the tech boom you would've thought that college educations were headed towards becoming less of a standard for class mobility, and I wonder what drove that U-turn post millenium.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Which doesn't even address our national 'bootstraps' narrative that we've been promoting for most of modern history.....according to that narrative we shouldn't just be expecting the US to fall in the middle of its developed European peers (which it apparently doesn't), it should be the unquestionable leader in every indicator of financial/class mobility AND standard of living.

Yeah, that discrepancy of mindset and reality might be the single biggest factor holding back true reform in the US. Overall, it continues to astonish me how a self-proclaimed super-free and progressive country hangs onto outdated ideas, structures and rules/laws.

There are very few areas the US is actually leader of the pack (in comparison to other western countries) and most of those are not categories you want to be leading in ...

[tarcone]

1st, I didnt think you were disrespectful. We all have our opinions and I think we all know what each others opinions are at this point.

2nd, Ruby Payne extensively studied classes in the United States. One of the things she found is that people in the bottom socio-economic group do not value education. In fact, we had a speaker come and talk to us about Ruby Payne and she experienced this exact thing. She was the 1st in her family to attend college. Her family made fun of her for doing so.

Im not sure "free" college helps the poor. Some of them, sure. But I think "free" college is more likely to help the middle class.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by whomario

2) Do you really want to compare the US to countries that lag behind massively in general development and wealth (maybe excluding a few countries like Japan) ? Sure you can do that, but that's like saying "But wouldn't the Browns be able to hang with a middling College Team ? There's you silver lining right there" There's a reason most studies concentrate on the highly developed european countries because most anything else isn't a viable comparison. Not just for economic reasons but also general cultural development and traditions. There is a reason you call it "The West" when speaking about western/central Europe, the US/Canada and Australia/NZ.

Re-reading my original comments, I did say "other countries" so wasn't clear about that. However, I did intend to do ROW in the comparison.

NA and Europe is about 17% of the world.

If the group here is willing to concede that the US poor does have better opportunities than non-NA and non-European poor, I'll be glad bypass that analysis ... but 83% is pretty significant IMO and majority of current US immigration is coming from non-European countries.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by whomario

Personally I see absolutely no way that the US is even close to offering willing young poor people the same amount of opportunities as Germany and most other european countries. Just the fact that the social and health care systems are basically utter shit is a big one, the cost of education is another. I find it ironic that so many americans see those flaws as actually being a good thing in a "you have to work for your good fortune" kind of thinking. Sure, that might be a noble idea but it doesn't work in a modern society at all. This isn't the 19th century anymore.

Just as a quick example: In Germany and many other big european countries you can study essentially for free at any university you choose if you qualify for the admissions criteria. Which is mostly straight forward and determined by the grade you had in HS with a certain weight also going to the amount of time passed between HS and applying. So if you want to study a sought-after field and lack in grades, you do a trainee-programm and voila, 2 years later you can get in. The university does not get to handpick based of personal bias or some shit.
I pay a paltry 300 € a semester and that includes free transportation within the state as well as other services (near-free printing/copying, cheap-as food on campus etc).
And if your parents earn below a certain amount you get a loan for your living expenses from the state that gets higher the poorer your parents. This loan is not only interest-free but in fact you only have to pay back at most 50% as a general rule* and only have to start gradually paying it back 7 years after graduation.

In a hypothetical point system, that is a gazillion points the US looses right there when it comes to potential for upwards mobility.

* less if you finish your studies in time and among the best X% (varies between fields of study) of graduates, it is also capped at 10k so becomes much less than 50% for anybody that does a Masters and not just a Bachelors. Also, anybody can get additional funds for a semester abroad on top of it (I got about 10k for flights, living and tuition in NZ. None of which i'll have to repay).

This is interesting because my German coworkers lament the same system and heaven forbid you want a job that does not fit your background. The problem as well is I am not sure people here would like it, the test would be perceived as a way to keep disadvantaged kids from moving up in the world.

I personally like the German system as it guarantees workers enter the work force with marketable skills.

I think there are several issues though:

1. We tell our kids to do whatever makes you happy. That does not equate to having a job that can pay the bills. How many jobs can you get with a degree in Women’s Studies?

2. Because we are litigation happy, people that can do jobs do not get the opportunity to interview for them due to job requirements being set unrealistically high. I am a product manager, many companies require a Master’s degree for this position. However, you do not need a Master’s degree to do it. Had I not already been working for the company and taken a new job, I never would have received this position. Most of this I blame on the fear of litigation, and HR setting job requirements too high as a result.

3. Lobbyists have ruined Capitol Hill. Many companies become large and lobby Congress to put in legislation that is unnecessary and create unrealistic hurdles to cross in order to do business. This enables the large companies to not have to worry about threats from smaller more agile companies.

[molson]

What I always look for in the upward mobility studies is whether they're measuring upward mobility in income/quality of life, or income relative to others. It's usually the latter. And 50% of that equation is never talked about. In order for someone to move up relative to others, someone has to move down. Assuming we want more of that, should we ignore that 50% of the equation, and if not, what do we do to push undeserving people down that ladder? A lot of people want more upward mobility relative to others, but I haven't met many parents middle class or higher who aren't totally committed to giving their kids every advantage their status allows them to give.

I've also never thought that the super-rich are inherently bad for an economy, or that we should always judge ourselves financially in relation to them. I think the super-rich can be a great benefit to a county. And I think we just need to evolve with modern realities about how wealth is generated and how easily it is maintained and grown, and tax the highest earners and wealth holders much, much more. After all, it is the American economic system, and our stability, universities, etc., which launched so many of these people and helped create so much wealth, it's only fair that as that system evolves, their role in funding it evolves as well.

And I don't believe the underlying assumption in most of these stories and rants about wealth inequality - that if the super rich didn't make so much, the rest of us would necessarily just get more somehow. I don't think the modern global economy works that way. There is not a fixed sum of money in the world. The super-wealthy are able to create more wealth, wealth that wouldn't exist if they weren't doing that. That should be a resource for a country that we should tap into, not something that we resent. If half of the wealth of the richest people in the U.S. disappeared overnight, our wealth inequality stats would look "better", but I don't think that would be a good thing for our country.

And I think it's hard to compare the current economic situation of individual Americans with those of decades ago. I had the advantages of family stability, etc, and not being disadvantaged by my race or gender, by I feel like at 39 years old, I'm in much better shape than my parents were at 39, even though the stats would tell me they were better off because they got by with a single income supporting a family. But I have far superior technology, much cheaper travel, my house is worth a lot more, and I can borrow money much more cheaply. I've seen so much more of the world then they did, and I have so many more comforts and entertainment from modern technology. They spent less on groceries every week, but I still wouldn't trade places with them.

Edit: I think long-term for the country, 50-100 years down the road, as technology improves and we don't need as many people to work, the super rich are the ones that can help us make the transition more smoothly - as long as the wealth they're able to create is utilized better for the benefit of all U.S. citizens through higher taxes. I could see a future where 50% of people don't work in a traditional full time job, but are still able to live a decent life, and can provide a pool from with the next great artists and entrepreneurs can be drawn, whereas the super rich and medium rich are able to support the whole thing and gain all of the benefits of wealth that came from that success. That would basically be the economy I would push the U.S. to as a king if I could - a minimum salary and standard of living for all, and then great wealth still available to those who succeed and push the country forward. There would still be tension between the rich and poor, but it would be a lot better than the alternative, as long as the poor is fed and free to create, to invent, to attempt to push forward, etc.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

What I always look for in the upward mobility studies is whether they're measuring upward mobility in income/quality of life, or income relative to others. It's usually the latter. And 50% of that equation is never talked about. In order for someone to move up relative to others, someone has to move down. Assuming we want more of that, should we ignore that 50% of the equation, and if not, what do we do to push undeserving people down that ladder? A lot of people want more upward mobility relative to others, but I haven't met many parents middle class or higher who aren't totally committed to giving their kids every advantage their status allows them to give.

I've also never thought that the super-rich are inherently bad for an economy, or that we should always judge ourselves financially in relation to them. I think the super-rich can be a great benefit to a county. And I think we just need to evolve with modern realities about how wealth is generated and how easily it is maintained and grown, and tax the highest earners and wealth holders much, much more. After all, it is the American economic system, and our stability, universities, etc., which launched so many of these people and helped create so much wealth, it's only fair that as that system evolves, their role in funding it evolves as well.

And I don't believe the underlying assumption in most of these stories and rants about wealth inequality - that if the super rich didn't make so much, the rest of us would necessarily just get more somehow. I don't think the modern global economy works that way. There is not a fixed sum of money in the world. The super-wealthy are able to create more wealth, wealth that wouldn't exist if they weren't doing that. That should be a resource for a country that we should tap into, not something that we resent. If half of the wealth of the richest people in the U.S. disappeared overnight, our wealth inequality stats would look "better", but I don't think that would be a good thing for our country.

And I think it's hard to compare the current economic situation of individual Americans with those of decades ago. I had the advantages of family stability, etc, and not being disadvantaged by my race or gender, by I feel like at 39 years old, I'm in much better shape than my parents were at 39, even though the stats would tell me they were better off because they got by with a single income supporting a family. But I have far superior technology, much cheaper travel, my house is worth a lot more, and I can borrow money much more cheaply. I've seen so much more of the world then they did, and I have so many more comforts and entertainment from modern technology. They spent less on groceries every week, but I still wouldn't trade places with them.

Edit: I think long-term for the country, 50-100 years down the road, as technology improves and we don't need as many people to work, the super rich are the ones that can help us make the transition more smoothly - as long as the wealth they're able to create is utilized better for the benefit of all U.S. citizens through higher taxes. I could see a future where 50% of people don't work but are still able to live a decent life, and can provide a pool from with the next great artists and entrepreneurs can be drawn, whereas the super rich and medium rich are able to support the whole thing and gain all of the benefits of wealth that came from that success.

A couple of things. One, movement up and down the scale is good as it forces everyone to strive for their best or fall behind. With little movement, at some point there's no more point i trying to do better. If you don't have, you can't get and if you have, you can't lose. I'm sure there's a point when too much instability and movement would be a problem, but there's no reason to think we're close to that line.

Two, at some point, too much wealth concentration inhibits the movement of capitol and causes problems. For an admittedly extreme example, imagine a world where all but one person has a dollar and the last person has all the rest. There would be very little economic activity in that world and even the one wealthy person would be unable to increase there wealth much. The question is whether we are at that point where wealth concentration is inhibiting growth and some research suggests we are at or near that point.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

This is interesting because my German coworkers lament the same system and heaven forbid you want a job that does not fit your background. The problem as well is I am not sure people here would like it, the test would be perceived as a way to keep disadvantaged kids from moving up in the world.

I personally like the German system as it guarantees workers enter the work force with marketable skills.

.

I think you misread/misunderstood my post a little bit here Right now the two paths after "High School" (let's call it that for simplicities sake, but the system is pretty different ...) are: 1) University or 2) Apprenticeship. Both have roughly the same intake nowadays.

(well, of course also 3) Unemployment, 4) unskilled labour and 5) "Other", but in terms of Education after HS there are the 2 big ones)

What i described was essentially the same system of tertiary education (College/University) as the US or other english speaking countries, with pretty much the same scope of subjects tought. You can either study those fields as such or you can study to become a teacher in those fields (another thing that always weirds me out about the US is how damn low the bar is for becoming a teacher), which basically means taking roughly 60% of the same courses/classes as everybody else and the remaining 40% being specific courses in pedagogy and trainee programms in schools.
But unless you become a teacher you are somewhat qualified for a vast number of different jobs, yet of course not really trained in any specific field. So yeah, this is obviously coming with a pro/con list. What a lot of kids do is take internships, either over the holidays (we have 2 semesters divided by about 8-9 weeks) or doing them parallel to the semester (1,2 days a week over a longer period). Which they obviously couldn't do without financial support.

There is also what might be translated as "University of applied sciences and arts", but this has much smaller numbers than general Universities. These are pretty much what it says in the title, with study geared more towards specific future jobs/fields (like Public Health rather than "Medicine" as a whole or "applied computer sciences" rather than "computer sciences), although that is simplifying it a bit.

What we indeed have as well is a big tradition of 3-year (usually, sometimes 2.5 or 3.5) apprenticeships in a certain field that is called a dual education system (Dual education system) - Wikipedia, where you are under contract with a firm, store or public employer (city, state) and essentially spend about 60% of your time working/learning in that firm and 40% in a "vocational school", where all the kids from a certain area and a certain field get taught more theoretical stuff relating to the field which might not be part of daily operations in the firm people work in. This way you are later qualified to apply to/work in a range of different types of firms rather than being entirely pigeon-holed to a firm doing the exact same stuff the one you trained in did.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Re-reading my original comments, I did say "other countries" so wasn't clear about that. However, I did intend to do ROW in the comparison.

NA and Europe is about 17% of the world.

If the group here is willing to concede that the US poor does have better opportunities than non-NA and non-European poor, I'll be glad bypass that analysis ... but 83% is pretty significant IMO and majority of current US immigration is coming from non-European countries.

I don’t think many would argue differently, but you didn’t just say ‘other countries’, you used the phrase ‘peers in other countries’ which implies some sort of selective criteria to look at roughly equal starting points.

Depends on what you want to discuss, but if you widen the scope to the entire ROW, it leads to a discussion point of when did ‘America is the best country in the world’ change to ‘America is in the top 17%’, and how is that a good change of emphasis?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Fair enough. My quote was ...

So I'll see what I can find before and after the early 70's specific to non-white and male in addition to comparing with ROW.

All,

Thanks again for all the comments. I think this will be an educational thread with differing opinions.

Don't necessarily think opinions will change but I'm sure I'll be better educated.

FWIW,

I'm going to do the analysis of "before and after the early 70's specific to non-white and male" first and then do the ROW comparison.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I don’t think many would argue differently, but you didn’t just say ‘other countries’, you used the phrase ‘peers in other countries’ which implies some sort of selective criteria to look at roughly equal starting points.

The intent was to look at poor/lower class in the US and their "peers" in other countries. I'm not sure what you mean by "roughly equal starting points"? My starting point was "poor/lower class" (don't ask me what that means right now as I've not really started that research).

Originally Posted by AlexB

Depends on what you want to discuss, but if you widen the scope to the entire ROW, it leads to a discussion point of when did ‘America is the best country in the world’ change to ‘America is in the top 17%’, and how is that a good change of emphasis?

Good point. I don't know if I'll be able to find that tipping point (if there was one). The "best country" definition is likely more difficult and subjective than "most opportunity".

[Edward64]

I have updated post #2 & #3 with my first analysis.

ROW analysis is forthcoming.

[Edward64]

The 1 of 2 analysis is in post #2 & #3.

This 2 of 2 analysis of US vs ROW is in post #29 & #30 and re:the statement "a minority/lower income in US has a much better chance of doing well in the US vs their peers in other countries"



All,

The following is my analysis of my original post below with thesloppy.

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
Yeah, I agree it hasn't been for 250 years for many groups that are non-white and male. However, I think that argument starts to dry up starting in the 70's and really, for the most part, irrelevant in the 00's.

Is it perfect, no. But it is much better than before and a minority/lower class in US has a much better chance of doing well in the US vs their peers in other countries.

(I switched from "class" to "income" as some class may have negative connotations which I do not mean to imply)

This post #29 provides context and the post #30 provides my conclusion.

Caveats & Approach

There is no comprehensive or even near comprehensive US vs ROW study that I can find for

• Minority/lower income comparison between US and ROW. There were some that had sampling of lower income but none on minorities
• US and ROW even when removing minority/lower income

(Per an earlier post, my definition of ROW is not just NA and Europe which is 17% of population. I do think it needs to factor in Asia, Africa & SA.)

Once I came to this conclusion, I continued my research which is really

• US and small sampling of ROW re: social/economic mobility

1) There are many articles and often contradictory specific to US social/economic mobility, and not being a statistician I was not able to really gauge if one was more valid vs another

2) However, to me Raj Chetty research are the most credible as they are relatively recent and he had access to tax records for his inter-generational comparisons. Apparently the IRS granted him access and other researchers did not have access to this information

3) When I read about him and his research, I did question what the methodology the other researchers followed (e.g. if they did not have access to the tax records) and I put less faith in their work. Lots of Chetty's stuff out there but here's some key charts

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/socia...e-should-know/
Where is the land of opportunity? Intergenerational mobility in the US | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

4) Most of the other studies I found are with US and smaller ROW sampling (majority of ones are with UK, Nordic and other European countries). They "hint" at answers of US vs ROW

Google search terms and sites
us poor vs world poor
america compared to the rest of the world
america upward mobility compared to the rest of the world

Sources & References

1) How Americans compare with the global middle class | Pew Research Center

2015 article. Adjusted for "purchasing power parity dollars"

2) http://www.npc.umich.edu/publication...king-paper.pdf

2016 article. Can Poverty in America be compared to conditions in the World's poorest countries

3) How do Americans stand out from the rest of the world? | Pew Research Center

2015 article.

4) https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...as-Poorest.pdf

2014 Brookings research that confirms #1 but provides for more "context"

5) https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/...e-scandinavia/

Former Pew researcher

6) https://www.brookings.edu/research/e...s-generations/

2007 article. Is a US study but not with ROW

7) Prosperity, Not Upward Mobility, Is What Matters - The Atlantic

2017 article.

8) Is it easier to obtain the American Dream in Europe? | PunditFact

2013 article.

9) http://ftp.iza.org/dp1938.pdf

2006 article. Limited to UK, US and Nordic countries

10) https://milescorak.files.wordpress.c...l-mobility.pdf

2013 article. Inter-generational mobility. The "Great Gatsby Curve"

11) Socioeconomic mobility in the United States - Wikipedia

12) https://inequality.stanford.edu/site...Mobility-3.pdf

2016 article. A little more ROW but not extensive

13) https://www.oecd.org/inclusive-growt...May-4-2017.pdf

2017 article. Most extensive ROW I've found. See pg 2 chart

14) http://www.equality-of-opportunity.o...lity_paper.pdf

No ROW

15) Which countries do migrants want to move to? | World Economic Forum

2017 article. Immigration

[Edward64]

TL;DR summary - Here's my draft conclusion.

Quantitatively, the US as a whole, is not in the top echelons re: "land of opportunity" as defined by inter-generational mobility. That distinction belongs to key select European countries (Nordic). In the US, inter-generational relative mobility is stable but there has been a significant decline in absolute mobility. There are pockets/areas where US mobility compares well with other leading nations and, statistically in "purchasing power parity dollars", US poor ranks higher than most middle-class in ROW.

(Characteristics of these pockets/areas include - level of segregation, inequality, school/test scores, social networks & community involvement, and (strongest) family structure).

Subjectively, the US is perceived to be in the top echelons re: "land of opportunity". This is supported by surveys on "working hard", "controlling own destiny" etc. vs ROW and also by immigration.

I would reword my original statement from

... and a minority/lower income in US has a much better chance of doing well in the US vs their peers in other countries.

to:

... and a minority/lower income in US has a much better chance of doing well in the US vs their peers in majority of ROW, as measured by inter-generational mobility and also by "purchasing power parity dollars"

Key Points

I took a bunch of notes and there is no way I can reasonably distill them down for this thread. Here are some key data points I feel are relevant.

1) Poor in the US is middle-income or better in the majority of world including European countries. This is after adjusting "purchasing power parity dollars". I think we can disagree on how much is how much but I think we can agree that the US poor is generally better than ROW - see #1 & #2

2) The US was the country with greatest % that disagreed with "Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control" and had most that believed "how important working hard is to getting ahead in life". Regardless if actually borned out by facts, Americans vs ROW believe this - see #3

3) 21% of potential migrants named US as the country they wanted to migrate to. Next country was Germany at 6%. Another study showed 23% and UK as second at 7% - see #15

4) Some of Chetty's conclusions (across multiple docs) are fascinating. I highly recommend anyone interested in this discussion to google and read his work. When discussing mobility, it is important to make a distinction between relative vs absolute mobility.

• Relative mobility rates have been flat for decades.
• For absolute mobility, the last few decades have seen a sharp decline, from 1940 to 1980 a decline of 90%+ to 50%
• ... Substantial variation in mobility across areas. To take one example, children from families at the 25th percentile in Seattle have outcomes comparable to children from families at the median in Atlanta. Some cities – such as Salt Lake City and San Jose – have rates of mobility comparable to countries with the highest rates of relative mobility, such as Denmark.
• ... The strongest predictors of upward mobility are measures of family structure such as the fraction of single parents in the area. As with race, parents' marital status does not matter purely through its effects at the individual level. Children of married parents also have higher rates of upward mobility if they live in communities with fewer single parents.

Here's the definition - Absolute mobility measures whether (and by how much) living standards in a society have increased; this is often measured by what percentage of people have higher incomes than their parents. Relative mobility refers to how likely children are to move from their parents' place in the social hierarchy.

4) In another study, when comparing US to UK/Nordics, the US had less mobility. There was a study with samplings of African, Asian, South American countries where US was better

[Edward64]

Whew, I'm done for now.