Hmm this is a fascinating article on how social mobility is an economic boon for America.
It is certainly plausible that low mobility is a factor behind weaker
growth in the areas of the US identified by Chetty. In metro areas like
Des Moines, Salt Lake City, Santa Barbara, Wisconsin and Pittsburgh, the
chances of someone born into the poorest fifth of the income
distribution making it to the richest fifth is at least 10 per cent. In
Indianapolis, Memphis, Charlotte and Atlanta, the equivalent odds are
less than five per cent. It is unlikely that there are only half as many
able people born into poor families in this latter group.
It would be very interesting to see more data on what the differences are from Des Moines from Memphis for instance. That 5% gap is pretty large and it would be smart of the mayors of the two cities figure out why it exists. Also I wonder what the percentages of the poorest 5th can get into the middle 3/5ths? However the chances of the poorest 5th staying the same are such:
First, the presence of a semi-permanent welfare class is a drain on
public resources. Money going to income replacement programs, fuelled by
multi-generational poverty, could otherwise go to pre-K education,
infrastructure and job programs. The fact that 40% of the children born
into the bottom fifth of households in the US remain there as adults is a
strong signal means that a sizable chunk of welfare payments go to the
children of welfare recipients. The inheritance of poverty is therefore a
fiscal drag, as well as a moral stain.
So it seems that if that if money were spent on education, infrastructure, and jobs programs it would be much better for people to move up into the other 5ths. I think it should be a moral imperative to move people out of that bottom 1/5th into the other 4/5ths of society. 40% of people stay in poverty from generation to generation unacceptable. That number should get down to 20% or less and politicians and academics need to figure out a way to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment