Re: The 'working poor' scam
From: Jim Blair (see_at_sig.com)
Date: 07/19/04
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: $12 billion buyout of US tobacco industry"
- Previous message: Johhny5: "Re: Wal-Mart and Wages?"
- In reply to: tonyp: "Re: The 'working poor' scam"
- Next in thread: Johnny 5: "Re: The 'working poor' scam"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:52:09 +0000 (UTC)
"tonyp" <tonyp@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>"Jim Blair" <see@sig.com> wrote
>
>> This raises an interesting question: should people's income be compared to
>> the total population or only to other people of the same age? This has
>> been done both ways in income mobility studies. If you want to show that
>> income mobility is low, you compare people only others that either are the
>> same age, or that have aged the same during the comparison time. But if
>> you want to show higher mobility you compare people to the larger
>> population.
>
>
>Jim, if you define "mobility" the second way, ....
Hi,
I say that "mobility" should be measured relative to the entire population
>...then you yourself have already
>described a society with perfect "mobility": one where every person's income is
>a monotonic function of his age and only of his age.
The way mobility should be measured does not depend on the result that
you think would be desirable. And of course the measured result for the
US is not a monotonic function of age. But there is a rough correlation
with age.
>..I doubt you want such a
>society.
One where income is a monotonic function of his age? I would not. Note
that in such a society, income mobility would be very high as measured by
the second way (everyone would spend equal time being poorest, lower,
middle, upper and top in income). But there would be no mobility as
measured by the second way. Everyone would start life as a pauper and end
up a millionire, but do this without "moving up".
>...I bet you want a society with the other kind of mobility: income
>proportional to effort, skill, luck, and so forth. Am I right?
But what I would like is not the issue. The question is what currently
exists?
>
>Now, whether we actually have the second kind of society is a separate issue.
I think it clear that one's income does depend on effort, skill and luck
(if "luck" includes you choice of parents ;-)
>If we were talking about a country neither of us has personal knowledge of, and
>were looking at tables of data about it together, what kinds of data would let
>us agree about how much of either kind of mobility exists in it?
These are not "two kinds of mobility", but rather two ways to express
mobility: relative to everyone else? Or relative only to people of the
same age?
>....For instance,
>would statistical evidence that the average person spends part of his life in
>every one of the income quintiles be enough?
>
>-- Tony P.
>
>
If income were a monotonic function of age, everyone over the age of X
would have spent time in all 5 income quintiles. Clearly not the case.
But the fraction of the population that spends time in more that one
quintile (as determined from the entire population) is an indication of
mobility. And I say that if the median family moves through 3 of the 5
quintiles, that means rather high mobility. In a static society most
would remain in the same quintile all their life. Also not the case.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: $12 billion buyout of US tobacco industry"
- Previous message: Johhny5: "Re: Wal-Mart and Wages?"
- In reply to: tonyp: "Re: The 'working poor' scam"
- Next in thread: Johnny 5: "Re: The 'working poor' scam"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
