yes, that seems to be the case even with that loaded question

poor people stay poor

also wouldn't matter it would fk over poor people if the cost of their cost of food and essentials increased

I think we're operating with irreconcilable presuppositions then. I think the number of people who are genuine charity cases is extremely small and most people are only hurt by being treated like they can't look after themselves.

the presuppositions that poor people stay poor in america?

The presupposition that poor people are helpless.

>poor people stay poor

Remember that poor is relative and the living conditions of poor Americans is well above average for some under developed countries. I don't say that to minimize the hardship of poverty but rather to emphasize that it is not a binary state and while everyone would like to be wealthier there's no unique arbitrary threshold of affluence that it's good to be above and bad to be below.

Until very recently, this statement was a lie

The old saying is that it's three generations from shirt sleeve to shirt sleeve

I don't understand that saying.

People of every generation of my family wear shirts.

Blue to white collar, to suits

Oh, fancy.

Even still, there is great social mobility within and outside of society

uh, I think that america is highly based around where you start is where you will end up

Lel

<#266396659062145025>

That's a fancy way of pushing determinism

No one will deny that it's much easier to be born affluent than impoverished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

You a recent convert to Calvinism or what

shit, we're falling behind the brits!

That's a nice leftist narrative, but it just isn't true. People move up and down in the US. Sure it's harder to become rich than it is to become poor but it's not like we're in a caste system

Wait, so does your graph actually support the idea that there is more social mobility in the US than in the so-called glorious socialist experiments of the Nordic countries?

What do those axes represent? O_o

Yeah, it's way easier to become poor in socialist countries.

If falling isn't mobility I don't know what is.

The higher the number, the more "elastic" social mobility is?

The fuck does that graph even say?

Cause if I'm reading it right

You just BTFO'd yourself

I'm guessing it shows the correlation between parent and child wealth.

It doesn't say that within the graph, though

Just... >Countries

>intergenerational income elasticity

I'm no social scientist but if English still means English on Marxist utopian, that would mean the difference between parents and children, right?

Did @Fondboy just cite a graph that BTFO'd his point?

I think it means the similarity between parents and children.

I need some context here

But some elucidation on the methodology would be greatly appreciated.