Do you feel it's difficult to provide a modest middle class life today?

The annual amount of income that would be considered "middle class" probably varies across different regions of the country.

 

I'm sure he's thinking of the burned out inner cities of America that have been strictly liberal for 50 years!! end the idiotic liberalism and end the inequality and low mobility.

 

Ok, so I put no, but there is an except here. That except is depending on where you live. If you live in California for example I think it would be very difficult based upon people that I know that tried to live there. Somewhere in middle America, shouldn't be a problem.

 

A little over 18% of the country's population lives in either California or New York state. Are you saying they should move out to other states?

California alone contains more people than the entire country did during the Civil War, both North and South, btw.

Or, if you would prefer to visualize it this way, of the U.S. population living in states West of Louisiana (i.e. Texas, Kansas, etc., basically the entire geographic Western half of the country) over 1 out of 3 of them are in California.

 

We know that's not true, else they'd have unrivalled social mobility. Crikey, even human capital analysis assumes inequality (with class divides generating differences in education investment purely through access to funds, ie "daddy has promised to pay for me").

You know you're on a loser when even orthodox economics rejects your argument!

 

What's the cost of that social mobility though? You term this "human capital" but keeping in mind the fallacy of composition, what if that is only acting as capital from the standpoint of the single person's own affairs and to the society as a whole? If that sounds a little abstract, let me give you an example: advertising. Advertising helps a business. But does it help society? Does it help the overall economy? If two competitors both spend a lot of money on advertising will they both benefit? I think we have to step back and see the bigger picture, and be a little cautious about trying to automatically transfer micro economic perspectives into macro policies.

 

Your post makes no sense. First, social mobility would merely refer to a meritocracy. Are you stating that there are costs from merit? Are you going to apply something related to your political background, such as the theory of the elites?

Second, human capital refers to anything which increases an individual's productivity. By definition, there is no 'individual vs social, there is only various degree of rates of return and social externalities. You could refer to the commoditisation of education, but I doubt you'll enjoy the left wing sociology involved...

 

Meritocracy is not quite the same as social mobility, since some have more ability than others. And more importantly there can be a disconnect between the type of ability required in the particular meritocratic system and the type of ability that would actually bring economic benefit on the macro level.

No, I am saying there can be costs to putting everyone on an equal mobility in the meritocratic system.

Maybe you can think of something that doesn't involve an educational degree certification.

 

Don't tell Rep Hank Johnson, Ga congressman, or he'll go on a tirade about the continent flipping over.

 

In my comment? It's the same thing. Meritocracy necessarily generates social mobility.

Rubbish! Higher economic benefit translates into higher rate of return, encouraging firther investment. There are issues with social externalities, as I've already mentioned. However, they are easily internalized in investment decisions through education subsidies.

It's perhaps of no surprise that you haven't got a coherent argument in support. Your attempt at referring to macroeconomics ignores how the human capital model operates and the source if any market failure (ie difference between private and social benefits).

As I said, you've really only got open assaults on liberalism, such as the theory of the elites.

You dont have an argument here. Of course human capital does not just refer to education. A productivity enhancement, for example, will refer to factors ranging from experience to mental health. However, it would be folly to ignore the importance of education. Rates of return continue to be high and alternative perspectives, such as the strong screening hypothesis where education just signals ability, are rejected.

 

I agree, students shouldn't go to college expecting a "liberal arts degree" that gets you work at McDonalds.

 

Define the middle class worker, one working in Mayberry RFD and another working in Los Angeles...then tell me how you combine these two workers into a federal middle-class definition?

 

My point is on a federal level, in politics, it's unlikely anyone knows what middle-class actually means. I hate labels since all they do is divide us and pit us against each other. Each person finds their economical comfort zone based on myriad issues and none of them wear t-shirts saying lower-class or middle-class or upper-class...

 

I've already mentioned how straightforward the empirical analysis is. You can simply apply definitions such as SOC

 

They become meaningless labels...

 

Nope, if that was the case variables would always be statistically significant and class would be ignored in hypothesis testing.

 

In the grand scheme of things 'labels' are a detriment. In my world they are meaningless...

 

No, in this circumstance they allow for hypothesis testing and therefore greater understanding. We can all sit on our hands and play righteousness, but it won't achieve much!

 

so are you opposed to labels on food, in voting booths, ?

 

Labels are a detriment! Labels divide! If you wish to test people earning between $7.25/hour and $18/hour then test away but in the process no need to apply a political label to them. Call them Group Y and Group M only to be used for testing purposes...

 

Perhaps you should read a few prior posts to understand what type of labels we are discussing...when we start to discuss labels on ketchup I'll give you a head's up...

 

The use of SOC often shows that we are already divided. Its through understanding those divides that policy making can be improved (e.g. the widening participation debate in education)

 

I don't wish to exaggerate public division and prefer no labels...no forced political labels.

Can't speak for those outside of the US but our policy making is almost 100% politically partisan. Why don't these same idiots harp about the economic class that is below the middle-class?? Answer; because that class would be called lower-class! So we have upper-class, middle-class, and lower-class, all labels to divide us yet the group that needs the most attention and help is the lower-class which the term is too offensive to mention. Whatever the issues are in the US in which government can assist Americans to achieve more should be provided across the board to all Americans with no reference to which economic class someone pigeon-holes us...

 

But it's not exaggeration. It is empirical understanding of differences that already exist.

That a class structure exists is quite revealing. It demonstrates that the American Dream is illusionary. It also shows the consequences of extreme inequality on the inequality of opportunity.

 

Total libcommie confusion. American Dream was based on freedom and capitalism. Democrats killed dream with liberalism and communism and thus created inequality. Now do you understand? If not there is great book you can read called "Restoring the American Dream" Trump wants to make American great again after liberals made it far less than great.