Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45668
    06 Jul '15 00:43
    Originally posted by sh76
    I work my butt off to get my children a better opportunity. My children's childhoods could best be described as something like middle/upper-ish middle class.

    Good for you.
    Lucky for your children.

    Kind of makes the point that success depends on your parents.
  2. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65586
    06 Jul '15 01:451 edit
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I don't think I overstated my case.
    I admitted to being surprised that US social mobility was worse than UK.
    Europe is better but not perfect.

    It would be interesting to see stats from the 50s and 60s when I believe US
    would top the list. It is a shame that so many Americans are living in the past.
    US is now more class-ridden than most Western countries.
    Stating as fact, "born rich - stay rich" and "born poor - stay poor" is overstating your case.

    That's not overstating a little, that's not stretching the truth, that's not a mild exaggeration, it is gross exaggeration, it is grossly overstating your case.

    wolfgang:
    "The fact is, for American citizens, the US is not the land of opportunity.
    Born rich - stay rich.
    Born poor - stay poor."
  3. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    06 Jul '15 03:52
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Good for you.
    Lucky for your children.

    Kind of makes the point that success depends on your parents.
    Not really. It makes the point that hard work can increase the quality of life from the previous generation.

    If you want to argue that hard work by parents helps the next generation, of course that's accurate, though I hardly think anybody would disagree with that or consider it a bad thing.
  4. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    529726
    06 Jul '15 08:42
    Seems that some of you don't understand statistics. It is not about unique stories of people but of the big numbers.
    There are some things in that: The whole population is 100%. If the whole society would move to higher standards of living the poorest 10% would still be the poorest 10%.

    People dealing with social mobility deal with dezils (10😵 to organize the socity in groups. So probability is high that people who are in the least dezile have parents from the sam dezile. Social upwards mobility is coupled with the same amount of social downwards mobility. So we can't have a society which only goes up. This would only be possible if wealth was distributed from the richest dezile which owns about 85% of wealth.

    Btw mobility between the lowest half of the scoiety is of no consequence to the distribution of wealth in the big numbers, since the accumulated wealth of half of the US society ia abou7t half of a percent of the whole...
  5. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    06 Jul '15 13:04
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    Seems that some of you don't understand statistics. It is not about unique stories of people but of the big numbers.
    There are some things in that: The whole population is 100%. If the whole society would move to higher standards of living the poorest 10% would still be the poorest 10%.

    People dealing with social mobility deal with dezils (10😵 to or ...[text shortened]... nce the accumulated wealth of half of the US society ia abou7t half of a percent of the whole...
    Welcome to Debates, Ponderable (don't recall seeing you here before; sorry if you've been posting on this board for the last 5 years and I've just missed it... 😉) and thank you for the excellent point.

    I'd also like to add, while we're pointing out the social mobility in a vacuum is not necessarily a good or bad thing, that the same is true for "poverty" measurements which also are measured by relative criteria and are calculated before government assistance.

    Here's to using better statistics!
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10109
    06 Jul '15 13:36
    Originally posted by vivify
    https://youtu.be/Y8J7Ug_0N6A?t=1m36s

    Please watch the above link before responding. It has some profanity, but is little more than 2 minutes long.

    Considering factors like standard of living, median household income and crime rates, what is the greatest country in the world?
    What makes a country great?

    Is it wealth, safety, freedom, military power, etc.?

    I suppose your response depends on if you have personal wealth, freedom, safety, etc.

    It's all about you don't ya know.
  7. Standard memberredbadger
    Suzzie says Badger
    is Racist Bastard
    Joined
    09 Jun '14
    Moves
    10079
    06 Jul '15 15:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    What makes a country great?

    Is it wealth, safety, freedom, military power, etc.?

    I suppose your response depends on if you have personal wealth, freedom, safety, etc.

    It's all about you don't ya know.
    Its all about me......I knew that
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10109
    06 Jul '15 16:07
    The greatest nation on earth is the nation that embraces morality. It is the nation that recognizes that passing laws and building prisons does not make a society moral. It is a society that recognizes that electing politicians who vow to make us moral does not make a society moral. it is a society that recognizes that no man is better than another, and so the more power one man is given over another becomes more and more ludicrous.
Back to Top