Income Mobility The Same As 5 Decades Ago...

[tonymctones]

So why do the libtards and obama continue to parrot the idea that is has decreased?

Because economic populism is the liberal platform these days.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/28/why-obama-can-t-solve-inequality.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

If there’s one dead-of-winter public spectacle even more soul-sapping and self-congratulatory than the Grammys —now taking its cues, however well-intentioned, from the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon by staging mass weddings —it’s the annual State of the Union address

If past pronouncements are any indication, the president will immediately—and erroneously—conflate growing income inequality with reduced economic mobility. As he said in a speech last December, “The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years.”

This is flatly wrong. Research published last week by economists at Harvard (Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren) and Berkeley (Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez) concludes that rates of mobility among income quintiles have not in fact changed in decades. As the Washington Post summarized it, “Children growing up in America today are just as likely—no more, no less—to climb the economic ladder as children born more than a half-century ago, a team of economists reported Thursday.”

[RRKore]

So why do the libtards and obama continue to parrot the idea that is has decreased?

Because economic populism is the liberal platform these days.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/28/why-obama-can-t-solve-inequality.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

If there’s one dead-of-winter public spectacle even more soul-sapping and self-congratulatory than the Grammys —now taking its cues, however well-intentioned, from the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon by staging mass weddings —it’s the annual State of the Union address

If past pronouncements are any indication, the president will immediately—and erroneously—conflate growing income inequality with reduced economic mobility. As he said in a speech last December, “The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years.”

This is flatly wrong. Research published last week by economists at Harvard (Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren) and Berkeley (Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez) concludes that rates of mobility among income quintiles have not in fact changed in decades. As the Washington Post summarized it, “Children growing up in America today are just as likely—no more, no less—to climb the economic ladder as children born more than a half-century ago, a team of economists reported Thursday.”

Interesting article. 

I liked the parts of this Daily Beast article where the noted libertarian journalist:
- Admits that he thinks economic mobility in this country is "unacceptably low".
- Indicates that he's against federal prosecution of folks for smoking pot.
- Indicates that giving direct cash payments to the less well off is more helpful to the lowest economic classes than giving them help in other ways.

Some of the other points he makes in his article don't seem so well supported when you read the Washington Post article that was the basis of the Daily Beast article, though.

[RRKore]

So why do the libtards and obama continue to parrot the idea that is has decreased?

Because economic populism is the liberal platform these days.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/28/why-obama-can-t-solve-inequality.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

If there’s one dead-of-winter public spectacle even more soul-sapping and self-congratulatory than the Grammys —now taking its cues, however well-intentioned, from the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon by staging mass weddings —it’s the annual State of the Union address

If past pronouncements are any indication, the president will immediately—and erroneously—conflate growing income inequality with reduced economic mobility. As he said in a speech last December, “The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years.”

This is flatly wrong. Research published last week by economists at Harvard (Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren) and Berkeley (Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez) concludes that rates of mobility among income quintiles have not in fact changed in decades. As the Washington Post summarized it, “Children growing up in America today are just as likely—no more, no less—to climb the economic ladder as children born more than a half-century ago, a team of economists reported Thursday.”

This is a link to the Washington Post article that was the basis for the Daily Beast article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-hasnt-changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e845db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html

Note:  Italics indicate quotes from the article.  If it's not in italics the words are mine.

The landmark new study, from a group led by Harvard’s Raj Chetty, suggests that any advances in opportunity provided by expanded social programs have been offset by other changes in economic conditions. Increased trade and advanced technology, for instance, have closed off traditional sources of middle-income jobs.

- So middle income jobs have been lost, which would have decreased economic mobility, but expanded social programs have offset that loss so that economic mobility has remained the same.  The important point here, imo, is:  Expanded social programs good!

The findings also suggest that who your parents are and how much they earn is more consequential for American youths today than ever before. That’s because the difference between the bottom and the top of the economic ladder has grown much more stark, but climbing the ladder hasn’t gotten any easier.
...
The paper suggests that “it is not true that mobility itself is getting lower,” said Lawrence F. Katz, a Harvard economist and mobility scholar who was not one of the paper’s authors but has reviewed the findings. “What’s really changed is the consequences of it. Because there’s so much inequality, people born near the bottom tend to stay near the bottom, and that’s much more consequential than it was 50 years ago.”

- This reminds me of what Krugman was talking about on CNN when he said that the median income of a school bus driver was about $29G/year which, 30+ years ago would have been considered middle-class but these days is just not enough for a someone to purchase healthcare insurance entirely on their own nor to put away enough money to retire on without a robust social security system.  So while economic mobility may have not decreased it's a helluva lot more important these days.

There’s something in the paper to challenge both political parties’ converging approaches to the issue. It suggests that both sides are wrong to talk about mobility declining. It explicitly calls into question the “Great Gatsby Curve” invoked by the Obama administration, the idea that widening inequality will depress mobility over time.  But the findings also suggest that Republicans are wrong to downplay inequality and focus solely on improving mobility.

- So economic mobility seems to be highly dependent on income equality.  Color me not shocked.

Here's a depressing video describing wealth inequality (not income inequality) in the USA.

[RRKore]

So why do the libtards and obama continue to parrot the idea that is has decreased?

...

So Paul Ryan is a libtard now?

As the country struggles through the slow recovery from recession and decades of middle-class stagnation, politicians including President Obama and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have lamented that mobility is getting worse; that it is getting harder to climb out of poverty or into wealth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-hasnt-changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e845db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html

[240 is Back]

So Paul Ryan is a libtard now?

Actually, Paul Ryan has a very liberal voting record on a lot of things.   

I know repubs supported him in 2012 because FOX told them he was a repub and he had palin's speech from 08 on his teleprompter, minus the run-on sentences.   But his voting record shows us a man that in a RINO... at best...

http://www.policymic.com/articles/12804/paul-ryan-record-shows-he-could-be-running-mate-of-obama