You Probably Won't Do Better Than Your Parents -

[GS 281]

Most of you are from the US or the UK and therefore the odds of you having significanly greater income than your parents (adjusted for inflation) is quite low. Income mobility, especially upwards, is relatively poor in the US, to the point where it is about half that of many European countries and Canada to boot. Steinbeck once said “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires", however the condition is not temporary in most cases. Only 34% of Americans were found to do substantially better than their parents did in terms of income in research concluded in the early-2000s. Current research on wealth distribution informs us that the share of wealth held by the bottom 90% is shrinking (from 36.4% in 1987 to 22.8% in 2012) and the amount held by the top .1% (yes .1%) is growing,currently 22%. So, will education be the panacea? Some say yes, however as the number of people with degrees continues to increase, he competitive advantage that a degree will grant you will wither away.

So, what is the answer? Is this truly a problem?

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

The world wants innovators so you can't get a job simply by majoring in it at college, you have to stand well above the crowd. Knowing what you're doing & being fully educated isn't enough, that's just being brought up to speed. I think a major problem is that we're largely being outrun by our progress. It also doesn't help that our population is always growing which means that your job is less and less important, simply because so many people are doing it.

Honestly, unless we start exporting a new resource, I don't see much potential for having a booming economy again.

 

[Datiko]

I'm probably in the minority since I came from a family that was poor, then got ok, then punched my ticket into the 1% by the time I was 24. I completely agree that a degree alone is worthless. I only went to a state school for financial reasons but I was out performing all of my peers who went to much better schools. They relied too much on the name of their institution or the achievements of alumni for their own success. I just threw everything I had into my effort and when the dust settled I was still standing.

I think the problem is that America and the UK are losing what made them special in the first place. The best and the brightest British would go overseas and make their fortunes by building something from nothing in hostile lands. Americans came to the country to find a better life and kept wandering across the continent until they found it. Now people expect to get a degree and find a job that pays the salary they want in the city they want and gives them "work life balance". Of course you aren't going to succeed like that.

 

[melty]

I'm already doing better than my parents

 

[Derbydollar]

It seems to me that this reflects the culture of the time. Priveleged, whiny, and expectant of handouts.

Eventually those people who grew out of their poverty are going to become parents, and then their kids will have a whatever % chance of going even further or falling back down.
I'd be interested in seeing statistics that show how many people 'fall from grace' when it comes to money, I.E. do significantly worse than their parents.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Although I am still not very far into my life I am already on the path to doing better than my parents
If I fail I have only myself to blame

 

[MrTroll]

It all comes down to the decline of domestic manufacturing and service industries. That's the only thing that ever enabled real generational upward mobility and we let those jobs get sent overseas, permanently, in exchange for cheaper consumer goods.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

It all comes down to the decline of domestic manufacturing and service industries. That's the only thing that ever enabled real generational upward mobility and we let those jobs get sent overseas, permanently, in exchange for cheaper consumer goods.

You do realize that cheaper consumer goods is a major benefit for many people and gives a higher gain for the country than a loss.

 

[MrTroll]

You do realize that cheaper consumer goods is a major benefit for many people and gives a higher gain for the country than a loss.

I never said there wasn't an economic benefit to free trade. That would be stupid. In fact, I specifically said that it resulted in cheaper consumer goods in order to emphasize that fact. But there are winners and losers in a global economy and the working and middle classes that relied on those now-outsourced factory jobs are the losers here. If you need proof of that go look at Detroit or Flint or any of the other Rust Belt cities that have been devastated by the loss of their manufacturing industries.

 

[GS 281]

I would like to ask this. If economies of some countries are mature and firms compete in a global market, the market for low-cost, low-skill labor would be most conducive to developing countries being a service or manufacturing hub (within cost and logistical constraints of a supply chain), right? Also for products that require a robust infrastructure, can't firms work together to influence policy so that the education system will prepare students for specific industries? Overall, some countries compete for businesses by having favorable tax rates. Considering these cherry-picked facts, could the labor force in the US and UK be at a point where there are fewer good positions and less opportunity for entrepreneurs?

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I never said there wasn't an economic benefit to free trade. That would be stupid. In fact, I specifically said that it resulted in cheaper consumer goods in order to emphasize that fact. But there are winners and losers in a global economy and the working and middle classes that relied on those now-outsourced factory jobs are the losers here. If you need proof of that go look at Detroit or Flint or any of the other Rust Belt cities that have been devastated by the loss of their manufacturing industries.

In the long run the producers will move to other industries that they have a comparative advantage in so they will win too

 

[VJ 343]

I was recently talking with a prominent guy from one of the social services councils about this (I unfortunately cannot go into more detail lest people actually figure out who this man is). My country Is currently opening itself up quite liberally to international trade especially with Asia and exporting/importing that has brought insane benefits to our access to consumer goods (Australia's cost of living is high due to a multitude of factors, but geographical isolation and previously strict trade protectionism factored in significantly), however it has meant our manufacturing sector has significantly reduced.

He mentioned that our opening to trade has increased the mobility of income quite dramatically - how? Because we are currently riding out a 'mining boom' and exporting raw materials which require a huge amount of labor to get out of the ground, and these materials are in high demand, so people are willing to pay well to anyone who is willing and capable of working out there. But with it, he noted, the life cycles of incomes have shortened - how much has the 'life cycle' of an income shortened? To about a decade.

See the thing is, previously people would dis-save in early years while they study, get jobs, enter an industry and then save across the course of their lifetimes - that fabled 'nest egg' baby boomers talk about. Then, when they retire and leave the workforce, dis-save again. Now, however, people are instead getting jobs and rocketing to a remarkably high income within a few years, then when the economy's structure changes, finding themselves without work. That in itself is not a problem if the industry did not run dry - but mines become barroscas, and China's economy is slowing down. This kind of unemployment is called structural unemployment (as opposed to cyclical unemployment), and is supposed to be filled as technology and economic conditions open new opportunities, however the global economy means that it is no longer sufficient for technology and economic change to open jobs; labor is not so mobile many people can take up the new mining opportunity in South America, say.

I think one of the core tie ins with income mobility is now that the life cycle of working and careers has changed - they are no longer certainties, and economies in general are very very ill equipped to deal with structural unemployment. @yawning sneasel is talking about the way that most industries are trying to make labor more flexible - through education and upskilling, which is not necessarily a poor form of policy, but in America and (to a lesser extent) the UK, College is prohibitively expensive and has lost much of its value, however in my opinion, to prevent further stratafication, there needs to be new changes to the manner people can trade their labor internationally. Globalisation is not a bad thing, but it is harmful when social and structural policy means we cannot chase that new mine in SA, people cannot take up opportunities that are located elsewhere.

So, my suggestion would actually be that to help people maintain their ability to capitalize on opportunities, several things need to happen globally. A universal language that is taught to a competent degree, education reform to allow equitable access to individuals, and finally, if trade barriers are lessening, immigration barriers need to lessen as well.

I'll quit my sperging, but there you go, that's an outside opinion.

 

[GS 281]

@Geo brings up a few great points, however one thing I would like to question is how does technology play into all this? The increased efficiency that comes from tech gets passed on to consumers and ownership. The workers get the axe or a shorter work week. Back when employment law became a real thing, we were in the late 19th-early 20th century. The vestiges of these laws still remain in the ideation of a workweek being 40 hours and such. Should these things be revisited so workers benefit more from technology?

 

[autisticdragonkin]

@Geo brings up a few great points, however one thing I would like to question is how does technology play into all this? The increased efficiency that comes from tech gets passed on to consumers and ownership. The workers get the axe or a shorter work week. Back when employment law became a real thing, we were in the late 19th-early 20th century. The vestiges of these laws still remain in the ideation of a workweek being 40 hours and such. Should these things be revisited so workers benefit more from technology?

I would say yes. I think that there is a good chance that these laws actually make things worse because corporations may end up not even providing as much as they would without labour regulations because of the regulations getting rid of some of their older tendencies towards efficiency wages

 

[Broseph Stalin]

Too many hipsters majoring in dumb shit like gender studies (lelfukkenkek) instead of learning real skillz.

 

[Pepsi-Cola]

Well, my parents gave birth to me, which almost automatically makes them failures.

 

[feedtheoctopus]

At the end of the day, death catches up with everyone, and all of our worldly accomplishments amount to nothing. That isn't me being dour, I don't think life is meaningless or anything. Just that our societal standards of success are, ultimately, a load of shit. And therefore it is useless to worry about them. If I may be corny for a minute, if I have a roof, some money for the bar, and some good company I'm already the richest man in the world, dear kiwis. What more could I ask for? Some people have far less.

Capitalism is going to continue its death march to oblivion with or without my consent, with or without my engagement. Most anybody can do is try to be good to people. That's about the only thing humanity really has going for it at the end of the day, our capacity for empathy. Lift up others and they will try to lift you up when the shit hits the fan. In the meantime get yourself a six pack, some anarchist literature, a lawn chair, and watch all this shit fall in on itself bit by bit for the next 50 years

 

[SP 199]

Tbh my parents had me and I'm pretty hard to beat

 

[DatBepisTho]

I am definitely not better off than my middle-class parents.

I'm not a spendthrift like my mother and I lack the haggling skills+connections my father has in Hayseed world. On top of that, there's a pretty bad downturn here so my 40+hr a week job does well enough to keep me afloat.

 

[Lachlan Hunter McIntyre]

The trick to becoming part of the 1% is stomping on the fingers of the 99% on the ladder of success. Money doesn't come from nowhere, gotta get it from the pockets of people dumb enough to give it to you. The problem is most people are too complacent or too kind to want to do that. Or too scared of failure. Fortune truly favours the bold, which means you're not going to amount to shit if you're happy clipping papers together behind a desk your whole life.
I'll admit I know fuck all about economics. But I do understand the concept of working smarter, not harder. Find something nobody else wants to do, and you do it. Find something nobody else has thought of doing, and you do it. Find a way to get people to give you their money. Play the game, don't let it play you. Don't let friends and family hold you back. Investing is the best and most volatile way to make money, as well. Buy low, sell high. Too many people are too scared to play stocks. The stock market is how the majority of the 1% got wealthy and stay that way. Smart investing.

Or, just being a nobody; a mindless little drone who diligently stuffs money into their 401k, works their happy little 9 to 5er, comes home to their spouse and 2 boring little kids. And lies to themselves every night before they go to sleep, telling themselves they're happy as they are. That reaching out for opportunities isn't worth the risk. Find a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life, right? It's really your choice.