A lot of the literature and proclamations from those on the centre-left is inspired by the Gatsby Curve, which states there is a relationship between the inequality of income distribution and the lack of social mobility. Social mobility is obviously important because it essentially moots the effects, or sense of injustice, of inequality.

And, as I'm sure we're all aware, since the 1980s income inequality has widened substantially while social mobility has remained relatively flat. Taking data from a study by Raj Chetty et al. we can see that, when comparing regions in the US, the Gatsby Curve doesn't really hold:


There appears to be a much stronger correlation between family structure and social mobility:


(Also, anybody interested should check out Robert D. Putnam's Our Kids, which is a great book about the relationship between inequality and family.)

Indeed, a 2000 paper by the Federal Reserve found that changing family structure accounted for 52pc of of the increase in the 50-10 ratio, and 49pc of the increase in the 95-5 ratio. Which support's Chetty's (et al) conclusion that the single strongest correlate of upward mobility is the proportion of single-parent families.

Isn't this a little embarrassing Meta? The folks in charge of things, working on all the high grade work and graphs, all the social studies, all the funded projects and this and that.

And it takes them this long, to realize that, hey, everybody is partially having a shit time because in modern times, today, the "family" unit doesn't really exist. It just sort of coasts along instead. Anyway. Here's the interesting question.

How would you wager to fix a problem like that?

Quote from: Sandtrap on May 28, 2015, 12:37:49 PM

How would you wager to fix a problem like that?

For the US, an expansion of the EITC, perhaps an expansion of childcare benefits, an emphasis on planned parenthood and not sending people to prison for non-violent crimes.

See, here's the interesting thing. For starters I don't know what the EITC is. Not relevant at the moment for now though.

Expansion of childcare. Oh shit, that's asking to be abused.

Emphasis on planned parenthood, decent start.

Not sending people to prison for violent crimes. Oho shit, that's even asking for more abuse.

The problem, in fixing anything society related, is that you can't just cut out a section, reform it, and stuff it back in and hope that it works. Because right now, part of the reason things are so sketchy, so....shitty, I guess, is that everything, is shitty. Everything needs a reform and adjustment.

There's a logical order that you have to take when solving multiple problems, and a path to follow in order for improvement and shit to get done.

If you want to fix shitty family's, you practically have to tear down everything. I could get into this in length, but I'd butcher it with roundabout statements.

My province is interesting, because it's in the middle of a paradigm shift. One foot in the past, one foot in the present.

You can still see, argueably better functioning remnants of people and families out out here, communities, living in older standards and values, vs new age stuff.

All very interesting. Of course, america is a different case. Different culture, different society.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 28, 2015, 12:43:26 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on May 28, 2015, 12:37:49 PM

How would you wager to fix a problem like that?

For the US, an expansion of the EITC, perhaps an expansion of childcare benefits, an emphasis on planned parenthood and not sending people to prison for non-violent crimes.

Can't happen. Expansion of any benefits is seen as socialism and enabling the welfare abusers, whether it's actually the case or not.

Oh yes, that too. American government would sink that fucker in red tape and screaming politicians faster than a person in the streets saying "allah."

Quote from: Mad Max on May 28, 2015, 01:00:55 PM

Can't happen. Expansion of any benefits is seen as socialism and enabling the welfare abusers, whether it's actually the case or not.

Is that why Republicans are usually the ones calling for EITC to be expanded?

It doesn't particularily matter if one party calls it or not. Because the other party will cock block it to hell, simply because they're the opposing party.

Fuck, even the president, ideally, the head honcho who calls the shots, can't compete with congress. Remember when the government shut down for a bit in the states because both parties in congress threw a hissy fit over some business with the president?

But, now you see what I'm saying right? You try to fix family values, a very, very simple concept, and suddenly, boom. You run face to face with another problem.

Shitty government. Try to fix that?

Boom. You'll bump into another problem.

Quote from: Sandtrap on May 28, 2015, 01:09:27 PM

Fuck, even the president, ideally, the head honcho who calls the shots,

That's not how things work. 

Quote

can't compete with congress.

Nobody's supposed to be competing with each other in government.

Quote

Remember when the government shut down for a bit in the states because both parties in congress threw a hissy fit over some business with the president?

The government shut down because the Republicans refused to come to an agreement on spending because they wanted to get rid of Obamacare.

Quote

But, now you see what I'm saying right? You try to fix family values, a very, very simple concept, and suddenly, boom. You run face to face with another problem.

Shitty government. Try to fix that?

Boom. You'll bump into another problem.

Family isn't the only or even biggest factor when it come to the economy.

Unfortunately Meta buys into pretty much everything some economists say, even if they're totally wrong.

"Nobody's supposed to be competing with each other in government."

You can say that all you like. Doesn't negate the facts. The two party system in the states hardly even operates on their values anymore. They operate on opposition alone. If one party makes a move, the other cockblocks it, completely. And if you want some proof of that,

"The government shut down because the Republicans refused to come to an agreement on spending because they wanted to get rid of Obamacare."

I agree. The government shouldn't operate on competition. But that's not the reality of things as they are today.

Last note, I wasn't neccessarily talking about the conomy here. I was focused primarily on the family and social aspect of things. In which case my point still stands. You can't fix it without bumping into more, and more roadblocks at every corner.

Quote from: Sandtrap on May 28, 2015, 01:22:49 PM

"Nobody's supposed to be competing with each other in government."

You can say that all you like. Doesn't negate the facts. The two party system in the states hardly even operates on their values anymore. They operate on opposition alone. If one party makes a move, the other cockblocks it, completely. And if you want some proof of that,

It's always been like that. Everywhere. There was never a golden age for politics where the parties worked together and got shit done.

Quote

"The government shut down because the Republicans refused to come to an agreement on spending because they wanted to get rid of Obamacare."

I agree. The government shouldn't operate on competition. But that's not the reality of things as they are today.

Last note, I wasn't neccessarily talking about the conomy here. I was focused primarily on the family and social aspect of things. In which case my point still stands. You can't fix it without bumping into more, and more roadblocks at every corner.

Well you're going kind of off topic and always have this defeatist point of view so, I'll leave it here.

I know that for sure. Which is why maybe it'd be nice if things could be refined a little bit. And as for defeatist, I'm not being defeatist.

Take a look at the reality of it. You want to fix the economy? You have to fix everything else first. You want to fix family values? You have to fix everything else first.

It would be a defeatist attitude, if I said there was no point in trying. I have never said that, have I? In fact, a couple replies up above, I stated that when you're faced with multiple problems, all tied together and linked, you have to find the correct sequence to go about solving things in order for fixing anything to work.

I'm not a fucking expert here and I'm in no position to change anything. But I understand that if anybody wants to get shit done, they have to look at a logical order on how to fix things in sequence. And, this is on topic, because Meta is both talking about the economy, and family values.

It's a dual topic of discussion here.

Quote from: challengerX on May 28, 2015, 01:16:47 PM

Unfortunately Meta buys into pretty much everything some economists say, even if they're totally wrong.

You're at a bit of a loss to explain to me why I explicitly reject the work of a lot of economists, or on what grounds the information I've presented is wrong. Who says it's wrong? You?

Now, Challenger can say that it's going offtopic for sure. I question, who says it's right? The people who wrote the paper? People fabricate and bend things all the time. Even you made a thread about it. Climate change results supposedly being skewed to make a different picture and model of how we view it. Even me. I dance round on words and have a tendency to add too much drama to them.

If you honestly believe 100% that just because somebody with a title wrote a paper and are well known in their respective field of work, that there isn't the chance that results are being skewed in favor of something, well, then you're setting yourself up a bit.

Of course, the truest way to verify anything would be to do it yourself. Unfortunately we don't all have access to interesting pieces of data now do we?

I guess we'll just have to take their word on things.

Quote from: Sandtrap on May 28, 2015, 02:31:45 PM

Now, Challenger can say that it's going offtopic for sure. I question, who says it's right?

This is a great way of nullifying every advance we've ever made in any empirical field whatsoever, but the fundamental assumption behind it isn't true. I'm not claiming the break-down of the family is the be all and end all of the lack of social mobility, I'm saying "Look at this paper, and the work by Putnam and research done by the Federal Reserve" and then consider the empirical evidence in favour of this hypothesis over the other.

Of course information can be bent and warped to fit a certain view, but when you have numerous corroborating sources it becomes progressively more difficult to simply reject the information in front of you. Just look at Thomas Piketty's work, it's internally solid, but we know it's flawed because other people have tried and failed to replicate his findings. Saying "Just because an economist says its true doesn't make it true" is not only facile, but it completely denigrates the empirical method in the face of all the evidence in favour of it and whatever hypothesis is on the table.

Quote

If you honestly believe 100%

I don't, I could name you a number of things on which I disagree with when it comes to anybody, be they economist, philosopher or whatever.

Which is primarily why I said, "I guess we'll just have to take their word on it."

Anyway.

Because we're such a hugely networked society, taking a piece out and putting it back in again won't fix things properly. As a whole, what all of these researchers are missing, is collaboration.

The economists are focused on the economy. Those who study social aspects and crime rates and such, are focused on that.

Remember, logical order. Your presented ideas would stand a chance of working, IF, other criteria were filled first. But alone, attempting to modify anything results in an even worse fuck up than before. So, while the study may not be wrong, there is no real source to this problem. What all the people looking into this have to figure out and do, is backtrack.

Collaborate together on their problems, and make a web. Because our society now functions like a web. Backtrack, link problems together, and find the truest, base foundation and source, and start from there to cause a chain reaction.

What I meant was you don't question certain people, namely economists.

I still take issue with that; I'm fairly certain I don't agree with anybody 100pc.

It's not wrong, it's just not the main factor.

I didn't claim it was; I'm just saying it's a better explanation than inequality. I've no doubt things like inefficient welfare systems and an abusive justice system are also massive factors in the lack of social mobility. In fact, I'd wager there is no "main" factor, just a big collection of a lot of fuck-ups.

Working at a school, I've seen and heard a lot of broken, even destroyed families. My family too, I would consider a broken one and does appear it has gotten worse with the age of its members and the morale loss in America.