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.

im looking for the study but I would assume it is based on the amount of people that end up with the same wealth as their parents

based on their parents

that is what intergenerational income elasticities means

So what does 0.5 and all those other integers mean?

In relation to social mobility?

That one in two people in the UK end up with the same exact wealth as their parents?

Is that what the 0,5 stands for?

Probably the likelihood of remaining in the same social class aroundabout as the parent.

Probably it means knowing the parent's wealth halves the variance of the child's wealth.

That is to say, it's a measure of how informative knowing the parent's wealth is for guessing the child's wealth.

Fair enough

But even a cursory read of that Wikipedia article admits that there has been growth in social mobility as time has gone by

I used to know the exact formula but I'm drawing a blank.