If we took the chart in the OP and sorted it by population, it would look almost the same with the US being the obvious outlier
Income mobility across generations (the American dream)
- Thread starter OfTheCross
- Start date
JetFueledThoughts
Superstar
If we took the chart in the OP and sorted it by population, it would look almost the same with the US being the obvious outlier
Obvious outlier how?
JavariesBrown
Rookie
Tbh I have to disagree China will catch up to the US in living standards within 30-40 years when I compare where
breh wtf China is light years ahead of us at this point look at cities China built in 30 years and what America built…. The US can’t even build a high speed rail between DC and NYC lol. People in the US really paying $500,000 for a house built in the 70s
It has a high population and good upward mobility.
Reality
Make your own luck.
Brehs run to the “b-b-but population differences” argument without any discussion of why population should matter. Like these Nordic countries are resource economies where a giant oil field subsidizes the entire population or something.
Any of you care to explain why population matters? Consider that tax revenues scale as population scales before answering, thanks.
Any of you care to explain why population matters? Consider that tax revenues scale as population scales before answering, thanks.
JavariesBrown
Rookie
Lol that Breh earlier in the thread talking about China not being socially mobile had me going wtf.
Shyt is crazy to me that China turned a fishing village into a modern nyc in only 30 years. Meanwhile compare any American city to thirty years ago and they’ll look exactly the same except for a few new strip malls and suburban developments. Even Nyc and LA look like shyt compared to the video I shared
JavariesBrown
Rookie
Not to mention wouldn’t a large population be good thing it also gives a larger tax base to work with
1. Population size applies pressure to both infrastructure and resources, making poor planning a bigger issue.
2. America is significantly decentralized so Washington may top the list in the OP, while Arkansas could fall at the bottom of the list.
3. In America we have a system designed to keep certain demographics immobilized and at the bottom making side by side comparisons with other nations dubious at best.
What is with the infatuation with comparing America to peaceful, homogeneous countries the size of florida that lack our social constraints
You can shyt on America just fine without saying look how the whites over there love each other and mind their own business.
You can argue for universal healthcare without incorrectly asserting nordic countries are socialist.
You can bemoan military spending without comparing us to nations unobligated to defend every inch of NATO territory.
etc.
Bonus: tax revenue doesnt fund shyt
#mmt
Last edited:
The early industrialisation of the Nordic countries was based on some key natural resources. Finland, Norway and Sweden had large forest resources, and, thus, timber and pulp and paper have been important export products. Sweden also has significant iron ore reserves, which brought wealth to the country even prior to modern industrialisation. Norway’s most important industries have been forestry, fishing and hydropower, and since the 1970s the vast oil and gas deposits in the North Sea have enriched the country. In Iceland, fishing has been by far the most important single industry: in the early years of the twenty-first century the fishing industry has produced about 40% of the country’s export earnings and contributes to more than % of GDP. Other important natural resources in Iceland are aluminium, hydropower and geothermal power. Denmark’s resource endowment has been somewhat different. The country’s arable land made agriculture important for the whole Danish economy and as a result the food industry has also been significant.
They've always had good natural resources.
Reality
Make your own luck.
1. Population size applies pressure to both infrastructure and resources, making poor planning a bigger issue.
Infrastructure investment should scale as population scales due to broader tax base. Where and why does this break down? The logic here doesn’t make sense as presented.
2. America is significantly decentralized so Washington may top the list in the OP, while Arkansas could fall at the bottom of the list.
This logic doesn’t follow either. The metric in the original post is an aggregate metric. Of course there will be variance by city, region, etc. Do we throw out the Nordic results because they won’t be uniform by city? No.
3. In America we have a system designed to keep certain demographics immobilized and at the bottom making side by side comparisons with other nations dubious at best.
This is the entire point breh. Why would we NOT look at the systems of countries with better outcomes here.
What is with the infatuation with comparing America to peaceful, homogeneous countries the size of florida that lack our social constraints
You can shyt on America just fine without saying look how the whites over there love each other and mind their own business.
You can argue for universal healthcare without incorrectly asserting nordic countries are socialist.
You can bemoan military spending without comparing us to nations unobligated to defend every inch of NATO territory.
etc.
Bonus: tax revenue doesnt fund shyt
#mmt
Breh. You haven’t provided a good explanation of why tax revenue doesn’t scale as population scales. I’m not sure how you can make that argument without also suggesting our system is unsustainable.
I believe our current system is absolutely unsustainable.
1. Scaling doesnt matter if planning is poor... and consumption seems to always(at least in america) outpace tax revenue.
Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math | Sports, Hip Hop & Piff - The Coli
The vid here touches on how poorly America is planned today in relation to other nations.
2. No. I believe that larger a population is, and the more diverse it is, the harder it is for a central gov. to chart a path to success for everyone. The more starting points you have to account the for more difficult it is.
3. Oh we can look at them... but we shouldnt place them side by side and compare. We must reach our goals(whatever those may be) in a different way, one that accommodates our unique set of circumstances.
Last edited:
JetFueledThoughts
Superstar
@OfTheCross
Where does this idea that population size doesnt matter come from?
China literally wouldnt allow families to have more than one child to alleviate the pressure.
Where does this idea that population size doesnt matter come from?
China literally wouldnt allow families to have more than one child to alleviate the pressure.
@OfTheCross
Where does this idea that population size doesnt matter come from?
China literally wouldnt allow families to have more than one child to alleviate the pressure.
China, India, US, Brazil, Japan, Russia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria etc...all large population countries are distributed randomly as hell in the results of the study.
That's not the determining factor it was being portrayed to be. I'm sure it matters, but it's not the one thing to point at in trying to understand why some nations are better for upward mobility than others.
If it takes 5 generations in America, does that mean Blacks can expect to catch up somewhere around the year 2090?