~97 percent of new US jobs are part-time [Report]

DEAD7

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,961
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,048
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
acri1 said:
This has nothing to do with anything and is a deflection.
Click to expand...

:what:Scrutinizing research has nothing to do with bias, nor is it deflection.

But since you wish to play the appeal to authority game, and rely on fancy charts. That's what we'll do. :smugfavre:

Here is a better look at the complex system of economic mobility around the world. The idea that whether you make more than your dad could some up global economic mobility should have been an indicator that something was amiss.



International comparisons of economic mobility are useful in terms of providing an important perspective, as they are in other fields such as education and health care. But they can also be misleading when used by analysts and journalists to rank mobility or economic opportunity in various countries. Furthermore, drawing inferences from the basic numbers can be dangerous. As Brookings Institution fellow Scott Winship points out:
In some cases, these authors examine inequality in America in light of findings from developing countries, failing to acknowledge that the circumstances of those other nations are so different from ours that they render this research inapplicable to the United States. In still other cases, these economists carelessly mistake correlation for causation.[4]
Some journalists have been careful to note the challenges involved in making international comparisons. In the article“Harder for Americans to Rise from Lower Rungs”in The New York Times, for instance, Jason DeParle delved into some of the minefields involved.[5] And indeed, there are many pitfalls awaiting the analyst or journalist using international comparisons to draw conclusions about the state of mobility and economic opportunity in the United States. Serious analysts and journalists need to be cautious.
The following are examples of some of the major issues involved in using cross-country data on economic mobility.
Absolute, Relative, or Intergenerational Mobility?
When discussing income mobility and analyzing experiences in different countries, it is easy to confuse measures of progress compared with a monetary starting point and measures of progress relative to other people (who may or may not also be progressing). That is why there are quite different definitions of mobility, implying different things about opportunity.
  • Absolute mobility measures actual financial progress over time <-- what we should be looking at
  • Relative mobility measures changes for one group compared with a moving average of all groups;
  • Intragenerational mobility looks at how much a person’s income changes when compared with earlier points in his or her life <-- what it really comes down to when discussing capitalism and wages
  • Intergenerational mobility examines the economic condition of adult children relative to that of their parents, which can also be a measurement based on absolute or relative differences. <--your study
Each measure tells a different aspect of the story, and the story—and knowing which story we are actually examining in each country—gets even more complicated when international data are involved. It is very easy to end up mixing mobility apples and oranges.

yF6MU6a.gif


eXicgIw.gif


http://www.heritage.org/research/re...nternational-comparisons-of-economic-mobility












Side by side comparisons with other nations are always problematic, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
:ufdup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top