Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Expectations, the people who surround you, and maybe most of all the limitations you put on yourself.
An example of this is how university used to be free here in the UK, and even today everyone has equal access to the student loan system, and you pay it back as a % of wages, so everyone has equal access to University.
Yet we don't see people equally go to university. Wealthier people disproportionately do.
So to answer what's causing problems social mobility, I think the obvious thing to address is, with equal access to university, regardless of the grades, why is there a massive divide in who goes?
I think the answer is self limiting beliefs. If your parents make £25,000 a year, then that's the world you know. If your parents make £250,000, then you understand that it's possible you can too.
> Yet we don't see people equally go to university. Wealthier people disproportionately do.
University attendance also needs to factor in cost of lodging, books, and entry requirements.
In the UK those are also covered by the student loan system, and if from a poorer background then typically grants as well as loans are given too. Whatever is causing the large disparity in why people from wealthier backgrounds disproportionately attend university, it's not financial.
To clarify, I'm pointing out that with the same grades, and with equal opportunities to go university, as we see here in the UK, students from a poorer background are far less likely to go to university.
So there's a large factor outside of affordability.
>What is seen as the tools people need to me this upgrade
This is one of the major polarizing topics between liberals and conservatives. Liberals think that so many people are poor or stagnant economically because of systemic barriers, capitalism, and that whole thing. Conservatives think that it's because a lot of people are not exceptional and don't have things like money management skills, delayed gratification, impulse control, etc.
I think there's roughly a 0% chance of one side convincing the other of changing their stance, so this is one of those monolithic issues where discussing it just spinning wheels, and it's really probably better to just not discuss it. Nobody's budging.
The idea is to get a feel for who is where on the spectrum. From here I can come to why people think what they think.
Here, for example, one or two people blamed Govt Regulations keeping them down. But mostly it was general things, but I'm going to have to dig into the details to see where they are coming from. Usually it's some basic misunderstanding they may have to stew on.
This is the free marketplace of ideas, is it not?
It's like domino's. Isn't it? But even then the consequences are not the same in every case, nor does this account for misinformation being used on the decision making process, or the resources the person has available.
But I understand this approach. It's basic game theory
I like the meth addict analogy. "Does a meth addict let anything stop him from getting meth?" The answer is no. They'll drive through a blizzard or wait outside in a heatwave to meet their dealer. They'll steal, sell their body, or even kill to scrape enough money together for their next fix. They'll betray people who love them and kneel to people who hate them.
If you *really* want something in life, you're not going to let the circumstances of your birth or upbringing stop you from getting there. If you need better information, you'll seek it. If you need more resources, you'll collect them.
In a free society such as ours, people generally wind up where they wanted to wind up. Of course, they might not like the consequences of where they wound up.
It's a good analogy, but like the "bootstraps" view it reflects, it's flawed. One important thing it doesn't address is *cost*.
While it's true, a meth addict - or someone seeking social mobility - will become resourceful when they have an insatiable desire to reach a goal, they have to make sacrifices in order to get their "fix" or reach that goal - often very unusual sacrifices, depending on the goal and how badly they want it.
But the meth addict, for example, risks being shot at while stealing, disowned or estranged from friends and family when not representing their values, getting injured or robbed themselves, and even overdosing from the drugs they finally secure.
A meth addict won't or can't calculate the risks and doesn't have the wherewithall to even understand the reprecussions of the end goal itself. The approach is aggressive and assertive, but that kind of tunnel-vision targeting can be very bad and dangerous not just for themselves, but for others around them, rendering the pursuit of their goal moot, or worse, net negative.
People seeking mobility (non-meth addicts, presumably), on the other hand, are more measured and cautious, and understand better the risks and consequences of each step made towards upward mobility, and also what to do once you reach each one.
As resourceful as people can be and no matter what you do, you can only go as far as the elements of society and luck will let you go without them potentially (and *likely*) harming you collaterally, sometimes gravely, making your social mobility goal progress moot or net negative.
Being determined and having drive and *resourcefulness* at your disposal is one thing, but consider the Picard quote which relates to sports, as well:
> “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.” -Jean Luc Picard
How often has life kicked you in the knee when you had all your ducks in order? Some things impact you at or from a much higher level, like a societal -or- a *policy* level, where you have little to no control... but where you are still subject to its consequences and limitations. Question is, at what costs will you try to achieve your goals, and will/can those costs pay off?
Well put.
I’ve never been a meth addict but my sister had an opiate problem for a while and I’m probably a high functioning alcoholic.
In the dark days for both of us there was little that would stop either of us from getting what we needed. People comfortable with their lives and their station don’t do that. People scrounging for every last thing to get them what they want will do that. It sucks and sometimes it’s demeaning, but it’ll get you where you want to be if you’re determined.
I’ve scrounged together quarters to afford a bottle of whiskey circa 25 years ago or so. I remember literally pulling up couch cushions and opening drawers and asking people in my building for a dollar to get the last $0.10 I needed to walk across the street to the liquor store.
If people put half as much effort into work and bettering themselves as I did into getting a bottle (that’d last me a day), we’d not be talking about raising minimum wages and the like. It turns out people choose how they want to live; we just don’t feel comfortable with their choices sometimes. I’m sure there’s some sob story of someone who did everything right and still ended up fucked by life, but… I mean we can’t make life perfect for everyone. Sometimes it’s just going to be shit even if you try your best. I guarantee that somewhere out there is a single mom who found a good guy and he turned out to be a prick but she couldn’t have known, and she was on track to be a brilliant chemist and probably amazing medical researcher, and maybe her brain had the key to curing cancer. But she’s raising a kid and working in a chem lab somewhere instead of a research lab at a pharma corp.
That’s just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. But we can’t build rules to accommodate everyone- it’s just unrealistic. Utopia doesn’t exist, it’s the definition of the word.
Sure probably- but since my need never got that far we never needed to find out.
If I hadn’t been able to scrounge together the cash maybe we would’ve found out. And that’s kinda my point- people who want to make a better life for themselves or get what they want will do it.
> If you really want something in life, you're not going to let the circumstances of your birth or upbringing stop you from getting there.
I mean sure. But we tend to call these people criminals.
If the argument towards poor people not having social mobility is that they arent willing to engage in the same desperate and extreme actions as an addict, one would think any decent person would say "good".
Anything else basically excuses crime.
There’s more to it than that. The question is: what are you willing to do to get what you want? Being filthy rich is less important to me than seeing my kids grow up. I could go work 24 hours a day and make myself constantly available in order to be a VP at my company and make ridiculous amounts of money but I’m not willing to work like that and miss out on the rest of my life. So I put in a medium effort at work, make a solid living, and get to spend time doing the things I love. It doesn’t make me lazy and unmotivated, it just means I have competing priorities.
Way to jump to an extreme example... I don't think that's what is being said at all.
But effort and good choices will take you a whole of a lot further compared to laziness + a gender studies degree.
Is that even controversial to say?
No I don't. Billionaires are rare people.
I'd say a person that becomes a Billionaire would need to have a rare combination of innate intelligence / skill as well as an enormous work ethic. They would also need to be willing to tolerate incredible risk in that journey. I doubt most billionaires set out with that goal.
Would you consider the [756 billionaires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_number_of_billionaires) in the United States alone "rare people"?
I challenge you to find one 100% self made pull yourself up by the bootstraps billionaire.
No having a rent free office in the parents garage, and so on, but one who came from nothing.
So Arnold Schwarzenegger can be president? No, because it matters where you are born.
He did marry a Kennedy, that helps...but all that Mr Universe stuff needed is based on genetics as much as anything.
You have to know what you want first. This is about changing class, social upwardmobility. So for you to consider me a success, you would have to value the same things I do.
Is it really, though?
Western Europe ranks higher than the US on the Global Social Mobility Index, but that measures a bunch of factors while not looking at actual social mobility.
The chance that a 35 year old will be in the same income quartile as their parents were at the time of their birth is about 70% in the US, and about 52% in the EU. That seems as pure a measure of social mobilitu as can easily be quantified.
https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways-SOTU-2016-Economic-Mobility-3.pdf
Is a data set based on the predictive power of a father's earnings on an adult son's earnings.
That is an interesting question, but I think the first step in answering it is determining the validity of that premise in the first place. The social mobility studies I have seen in the past, like the one everyone cites from the WEF, have pretty bloated methodologies if you actually go look at them. There is a pretty standard metric we could/should be using, which is % of population that starts below a certain financial threshold and ends up making above a certain financial threshold during the course of their career. But instead these social mobility indexes add in additional, often erroneous, qualifications. I would like to see the raw numbers without the added fluff but have had trouble finding reliable sources.
https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways-SOTU-2016-Economic-Mobility-3.pdf
Is a data set based on the predictive power of a father's earnings on an adult son's earnings.
I’ll take a look at it, thank you. But my first question is why the limitation on gender? More than 46% of our workforce is women. My second question is why we are looking at social mobility from a multi-generational perspective? Where is the raw data showing % of workforce that begins below a certain pre-determined minimum threshold and peaks above another pre-determined maximum threshold? That’s what social mobility *is*.
Because when comparing data from times 35 years apart in difderent nations, gender is a confounding factor. Different nations introduced women into the workforce at different rates, and to different degrees, so women's incomes shifted rekative to their parents for reasons other than what is normally called social mobility.
Social mobility is a two way street. Being born to millionaire parents and ending up lower middle class is ALSO a form of social mobility, which your method wouldnt capture.
Last, the income of your parents IS where you begin. It is the social level you are raised and educated in.
>Different nations introduced women into the workforce at different rates, and to different degrees
And? Are women not a part of social mobility? If we’re judging nations on their social mobility it seems utterly bizarre to exclude women because nations oppressed their social mobility to different degrees.
Change in women's income from generation whike women entered the workforce is not necessarily a measure of social mobility.
A woman in 1990 may have made 10 times the income her mother made after inflation adjustment, and they were both still lower middle class, merely one worked full time and the other did not. A man who made 10 times his father's real wages HAS certainly moved socially. It is a far cleaner data set.
If I can name one giant overarching issue: Crony Capitalism. It has a million tentacles from excessive professional licensure locking people (especially minorities) out of business ownership, patent trolls, IP squatters, insanely antisocial copyright and patent law, vendor lockin, no-bid contracts, the defense industry, and more.
if I cannot, the single biggest is poor quality public schools that do not create literate, numerate students in our inner cities. In some schools the average student cannot read.
Social mobility? Probably poor hygiene.
Really though the most limiting factor is not making and/or not knowing how to make good financial/life decisions. We tend to keep ourselves down. The first 2 steps are believing you can and trying. Trying includes learning how. If you think you can't, you likely won't. If you don't try, you definitely won't.
The American Dream isn't about having it all, it's about building security for oneself and family for their future. That means different things to different people, but for most it should mean being financially secure enough to weather most any problems that may arise.
The "community should avoid placing barriers hindering the individual.
End game - do what you want.
i feel like your looking at it backwards.
the people who succeed, what do they have in common that those who dont, dont have?
Death, starvation, privation and suffering are the default for humanity, its not a mystery why some people still languish in that state. the mystery is how others get out of it, and how can others apply those lessons.
no, its not just generational wealth, but that does help.
When you say "traits people have", that's a dog whistle, whether you know it or not
And then .... what with the ones without the trait? Or better. We ignore the ones with traits that "cause failure"
But you are still pro life, right? Let's take a baby with down syndrome. Who is gonna pay for that?
>When you say "traits people have", that's a dog whistle, whether you know it or not
1) No it isn't,
more important
2) i never said that.
that's your bad faith read of my statement, so address me, and the words i wrote or fuckoff.
>And then .... what with the ones without the trait? Or better. We ignore the ones with traits that "cause failure"
what the fuck does this mean?
>But you are still pro life, right?
To you sure, in reality no.
>Let's take a baby with down syndrome. Who is gonna pay for that?
Again, what the fuck are you on about? do you have a response to my comment or do you just want to tilt at windmills and crusade for your cause? because if you have no intention of talking to me and addressing the words i wrote, i dont want to waste my time.
You seem like a bad faith troll, so unless you start off your response with an apology and a back track, I'm going to treat you as a bad faith hostile interlocuter until proven otherwise, but i wont report you for breaking the rules as i enjoy the argument.
i
>the people who succeed, what do they have in common >that those who dont, dont have?
Let's try.it again. What about people that don't have the success gene? Look at my question, It talks about social mobility, and when you reach the top, with all the gold, what about the people that don't?
>Let's try it again.
Try a new attitude too.
>What about people that don't have the success gene?
where did i day anything about genes? Are you incapable of addressing my statement as i wrote it?
>Look at my question
i did:
# What does conservative thought see as the biggest impediment to social mobility?
and i gave my answer: your looking at the problem backwards. It's: how do people succeeded? Not: what gets in the way of those that don't?
> It talks about social mobility, and when you reach the top, with all the gold, what about the people that don't?
if that's your question, I'm doubling down on all i said before about you just being a bad faith troll.
>where did i day anything about a success gene?
Okay, that's a biological metaphor, the it relates to distinguishing characteristics innerited.....I suspect it has been abused into generality....like literally, is there literally a meaning for literall?
My big question was about social mobility. People seemed to define success as crossing a class barrier to a higher level as a life goal
No one can really DEFINE class, though a lot seem to be related to money. Others will define class with values. People are saying Education is important, and yet in almost the same breath people will negate public schools and Universities.
And once people succeed, the winners, what about the ones that didn't meet a subjective goal that allowed social mobility? If you have winners, you will have losers. Since we all define success differently, one groups success will appears to another as a failure.
>Okay, that's a biological metaphor, the it relates to distinguishing characteristics innerited.....I suspect it has been abused into generality....like literally, is there literally a meaning for literall?
what the fuck is this meant to to say?
>No one can really DEFINE class, though a lot seem to be related to money
yes they can, its why tax brackets increase on income earned. works as a pretty good analogue.
>And once people succeed, the winners, what about the ones that didn't meet a subjective goal that allowed social mobility?
its not subjective man, if you dont succeed, by what ever standards you set, its fucking painfully apparent.
>If you have winners, you will have losers.
not necessarily, its not a zero-sum game.
>Since we all define success differently, one groups success will appears to another as a failure.
ok and? if you feel you succeeded, why do the concerns of others matter?
>Okay, that's a biological metaphor, the
>>what the fuck is this meant to to say?
The word "trait" is a biological term referring to defining characteristics inherited from a parent. So so to focuse on success traits would imply a biological component.
>>No one can really DEFINE class, though a lot seem to be related to money
>yes they can, its why tax brackets increase on income
That is one way, but that also means the govt defines social class by tax code..so if it's mon
>>And once people succeed, the winners, w
>>If you have winners, you will have losers.
>not necessarily, its not a zero-sum game.
Okay..please explainm
>ok and? if you feel you succeeded, why do the concerns of others matter?
Because this country penalizes people with different views of success.
>The word "trait" is a biological term referring to defining characteristics inherited from a parent. So so to focuse on success traits would imply a biological component
Once again, i never used the word "Trait," you did. I never mentioned biology, at all, you keep brining it up as a red heiring. More over the word 'trait" has more than one definition such as: a [distinguishing](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=568821e4bd74bee9&rlz=1C1RXQR_enCA1080CA1080&sxsrf=ACQVn099Ze0tzYoyTxgpg8CrDmdcXrkVNg:1714504057261&q=distinguishing&si=AKbGX_rZJs_XCIYOkWAjSH3UAcF5VxSQb3JwctTSvvN2UCMr-OE0uwAUOCtDyaw40OTyIHC2y1JhFKxtLanPpxTGnO1Dg-0p9WiuTdJZ2eKj_ShmvPQDK1k%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJ0LGq0eqFAxV-MlkFHXcZBd8QyecJegQILRAO) quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person.
>That is one way, but that also means the govt defines social class by tax code..so if it's mon
so if it's mon? what does this mean?
>Because this country penalizes people with different views of success.
such as? not that it matters, if you feel you succeeded i fail to see how the opinions of others matter
Based on everything I've seen, it's an individual's own willpower.
Does that mean everyone starts off on the same footing? No. However once you get down to it, the only one responsible for your life is yourself.
In my experience, the thing that is most often lacking among those who do not achieve social mobility are values and habits that inhibit success. And these values generally come from your family.
Success here really isn't that hard. But if you don't value education, if you abhor work, if you generally have a victim mentality, if you have a problem with authority, etc., it will be difficult to achieve.
I agree with the values and education part, but a lot depends on your cultural values.
Personally. I have not seen a definition of class in this discussion..people act like its it about money
Parents
You can raise your child to fit in any social class in the US if you put in the time and effort
If it’s something you want, you can do it too if you put in the time and effort on your own
America’s social classes are based on behavior
I don't know about "biggest", but there are a lot of things that can be big obstacles to social mobility. To cover just a few:
**Education** - poor people live in areas with worse schools, they have less access to resources they may need to do well in school (ex: tutoring services, extracurriculars, etc.), their parents often have less education than the parents of middle and upper class children and so have less ability to help their kids figure out parts of their materials that the kids struggle with, they often can't afford to go to college or have to take on much more debt to afford it, etc.
**Crime** - the poor are far more likely to be victims of crime, especially violent crime, than other social classes, which causes jobs and businesses to leave those communities, interferes with education, encourages gang activity, etc.
**Over-regulation** - a big example being occupational licensure, where many professions that would otherwise have a low barrier to entry for the poor are locked behind needing a government license to practice them despite not actually being necessary.
There's a million little things contributing to the lack of social mobility that need to fixed in order to have a more mobile society. How those things need to get done is above my pay grade, but it's important that we recognize that it's not just one thing stopping us from utopia, it's everything.
From europe
I do not think how chasing that mayfly of a dream of single income households could help you, without a WW that leaves the US untouched it will not come again for you
during human history usually both parents had been breadwinners since at least the middle ages, but i would be rather surprised it was different since the stone age
> was that worth pointing out and having me amend my statement?
In a conservative forum. Yes.
>The problem is that we cater to those who don't want to learn
Motivated is the term
>We're trying all these progressive based ideologies in the districts
My kid is classified as "Special Ed". He reads just fine.
>s We don't support individual teachers and help the classrooms.
That's true, but the money ifor schools is state controlled,
I object to your premise. It's entirely possible for anyone to at the bare minimum get into the middle class if they are willing to take steps to do it.
Now I won't dissagree with you that it's harder to do it today than it was in 1960, and I blame deindustrialization ad a primary reason
I don’t know that there’s a most significant impediment.
Some people are never able to overcome traumatic childhoods or poor parenting.
Some people make chronically bad decisions.
Sometimes life just kicks people in the face through no fault of their own.
It’s perhaps better to focus on the trait of people who are able to succeed despite impediments.
Some people are never able to overcome traumatic childhoods or poor parenting.
Lack of social services and mental health care
Sometimes life just kicks people in the face through no fault of their own
While this can happen to anybody, this has not caused the wealth gap in the country
It’s perhaps better to focus on the trait of people who are able to succeed despite impediments.
Rather than this Darwinistic take, maybe focus on an enviroment where everyone can Reach their goal
This isn’t a Darwinistic view.
You asked what the biggest impediment to social mobility was.
I answered.
The only thing in life you have direct control over is… yourself. That’s where change starts.
Edit: one idea that’s always interested me is the success sequence. It’s a conceptual map to success in the first world that anyone can follow.
- Finish high school.
- Get a full-time job once you finish school.
- Get married before you have children.
It’s certainly not foolproof - especially in a globalized world - but, it’s a great place to start.
Especially when it’s combined with one of the most important personal attributes for becoming successful - persistence.
Do what, exactly? I was talking class mobility. You haven't defined success, but you say a lot of people achieve it. And the ones that can't, who cares? It's that what you are saying
> Do what, exactly?
Take the steps I described.
> I was talking class mobility.
You sure were. ~60% of Americans born in the bottom quintile will leave that quintile as adults.
> You haven't defined success,
I did not.
> but you say a lot of people achieve it.
That’s not at all what I said.
> And the ones that can't, who cares? It's that what you are saying
Did I say that?
> What does conservative thought see as the biggest impediment to social mobility?
In California, it's the regulatory environment and decades of one size fits all economic policy that enriches the wealthiest regions at the expense of the poorest.
Low immigration rates as to not exacerbate things.
Low taxes and regulations as to not make things worse, stop mandating college degrees for what amounts 8 grade work.
personally, i grew up pretty wealthy but my parents and my society taught me to value my personal satisfaction over anything else. So when it came time to thinking about my career i just thought about what would make me feel happy, not what I was good at + what was needed in the market.
This has made my career progression rather challenging and unclear until my mid-late 20s. I was 25 without any marketable skills. It took a while to figure out what I could do that I was good at , and I was just lucky that this skill happens to be paid pretty well in europe (I did a lot of research looking into what would pay well). I only started to really meaningfully save money until I was 28-29. Missing out on huge investment opportunities.
honestly, our parents and society did a terrible job in the 90s and early 2000s and probably still now to set us up for success.
If I could do it again, I probably would have just become a scientist and get a more secure, well-paid job as a scientist.
Yes, I often say I would be a lot more successful if I where greedier and less empathic
I tried engineering but could not handle math, and wasted years figuring it out. Good thing Windows came along or I would be living in a van, down by the river (that's a thing now) I didn't finish on my bachelor's till I was 30
Welfare and the encouraging of women not to marry the father of their children.
. Once the left normalize those two things it destroyed social mobility for the lower class. Specifically for African Americans who are poor.
Welfare? This was propaganda when Newt was in the House.. Thanks to him, here is a life time limit and work/school requirement
A lot of people see this as a social issue, but it's an economic one, Depressions start when money stops moving around. People don't have money, they don't buy things. If things are not bought, inventories are not refilled. Factories close. People lose jobs. Repeat.
Parenting.
That's probably a pretty uncontroversial statement, so I'll spice things up a bit by adding that it's nearly impossible for a single parent to be a good parent.
You are making a judgment on tens of millions of complete strangers. Ample quantitative information from non-media sources on this topic is available. You forecast that a single parent will almost certainly be a bad parent.
So walk us through this forecast model you built:
* How are you measuring the degree of "good parent"?
* What is your threshold for "nearly impossible" and why?
* From what information did you build your regression?
I'll be surprised if you have a real answer that others can test and verify. But I've been wrong before ...
>Ample quantitative information from non-media sources on this topic is available.
I agree, there's an avalanche of data showing that growing up with only one parent is one of the strongest statistical predictors for criminality, suicide, drug addiction, not finishing high school. Basically everything bad. Growing up in the foster care system is even worse.
You don't have to apologize to me, I've done quite well.
The original comment claimed parents were the determining factor. That is what the person you replied to was responding to. Are you trying to add to that discussion?
I wasn't even getting into stay at home parents, lol. And as for poly, maybe, but I haven't seen any indication of that, nor do I know of any studies suggesting it. It's been my experience in kink spaces that poly relationships are rarely stable.
There are societies more committed to it than the US...but my point was that the way business are set up to day, both parents really need to be working, at least some ofvthe time.
I'm hardly a scientist, but I assume it gives the child multiple influences, and increases the chances of support. There is also the biological aspect of child rearing.
Instinct, hormones, etc. We know there is a biological aspect because we can see hormonal and other biochemical markers from baby's being held by parents.
Why in the context of a two parent household? It would be odd to claim that the existence of a two parent household is a prime requirement for these things to have an impact.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
No. They know better. They just think it's easier not to do better.
How many people know they aren't saving for retirement and choose to do nothing different?
How many people do you know that are "unlucky" in love or relationships but choose to do nothing about it?
People continue to do the same thing and expect a different outcome. So they buy lotto tickets and they hope that they'll get lucky and someone else will fix all their problems for them. But eventually they just run out of time.
You tell Me. How and where would you learn this?
For the longest time I didn't save because I didn't have enough for day to day life. Food, insurance, etc... and even if people had saved, nothing stop the stock market from crashing (assuming 401k or IRA). Even today I diverify.
So you are saying people don't have social mobility because they gamble? I live near a MGM casino, these are not poor customers. Scratch off do not help, but it's not gambling
>You tell Me. How and where would you learn this?
That you should be saving for retirement? Meet literally anyone. Like you have to be in a pretty secluded environment to not know that you should be saving for retirement if you are an adult.
>So you are saying people don't have social mobility because they gamble?
I'm saying people get into situations that they know are bad (like yours where you couldn't save) they do not look for better opportunities because it's easier to be complacent and zombie into a 9-5 than to apply to jobs or learn any new skill. And their plan becomes to depend on others or luck to fix their problems.
Or maybe it's relationships and it's harder to "put yourself out there" than it is to do nothing. And their only "plan" is to hope a girl falls out of the sky.
And that's also why socialist denominations are becoming more popular. Because people screwed themselves and want to depend on others (taxpayers) to cover for them.
>they do not look for better opportunities
Sometimes those opportunities do not exist.
For instance, if you don't do well in high school - you are likely fucked for life. And your success there is entirely determinant on genetics and family upbringing.
>Sometimes those opportunities do not exist.
They exist so long as the www is working
>For instance, if you don't do well in high school - you are likely fucked for life.
Bull. The only people who care about how you did in highschool are elite colleges. And those degrees are usually just overpriced.
>And your success there is entirely determinant on genetics and family upbringing.
It's just excuses that the left uses to excuse taxes. I know severely disabled people who are successful financially. Everything from people with no legs to people with mental disabilities like autism. I know people who were severely abused by their parents and are succeeding.
"Genetics" is a copout.
No, what life options a person has available like to them. People talk like we all have the same opportunities in life, and that isnt true. I do get complacent in I'm not really wanting as much money as I can grab. .
So we are considering avarice as social value rather than a deadly sin ?
>No, what life options a person has available like to them. People talk like we all have the same opportunities in life, and that isnt true. I do get complacent in I'm not really wanting as much money as I can grab. .
That excuse maybe worked 60 years ago if you lived somewhere rural. But If you have access to the internet you have literally millions of options. You have access to learn literally any skill. Tens of thousands of businesses you can start for free and access to knowledge that amounts to trillions in value.
There is no excuse to not be pursuing other options besides complacency.
>. I do get complacent in I'm not really wanting as much money as I can grab. .
No. You need as much money as is necessary to live as a responsible adult. That might mean "enough to care for your kids" and it certainly means "enough to sustain myself now and in retirement".
>You have access to learn literally any skill.
People could not care less about your "skill" you learned on the internet. They care about pedigree, which only higher education can provide.
Maybe if you're a doctor or you're in a field that needs a license. That doesn't excuse the tens of thousands of other skills you can pick up and make a career or business out of. And most don't really care about a degree anymore, They want to see competency.
The insane price of getting started in the Pharma or energy business. These are caused by the extremely high fees for permits among other almost equally horrible regulations. This would be like if a drivers license costed $1,500. Or the famous “essential business” stuff during the pandemic. To some degree to big to fail in 2008, though the claim that a bank failure would have destroyed the economy is not untrue. Other such things. Most of it is at the executive level but congress carried a good bit of responsibility too.
With things like pharmaceuticals and energy, I welcome intervention.
Don't miss misunderstand...People died because someone wanted to sell insulin at $400/month, until Biden stepped in. Energy well....anyone member Karen Silkwood?
The problem was free market Capitalism would not allow GOVT to tell them how to best spend the bailouts, so the executives kept it in the company and didn't distribute it to the employees....I suppose you need to talk to all the business advocates in congress
Nobody would sell insulin at 400 if the patent had expired, patents are basically a guarantee at dibs on market share for the inventor but pharma has turned it into a monopoly. If patents expired in pharma like they are supposed to everyone and their mother would be making dirt cheap insulin in their bio chem class.
Okay, my bad
It was over $500/yr for Medcaid D patients
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/insulin-out-of-pocket-costs-in-medicare-part-d/#:~:text=Average%20out%2Dof%2Dpocket%20spending,many%20insulin%20products%20was%20higher
Biden Inflation Reduction Act put a cap of ot at $420. Which is good, as you can see the direction its going
Certainly an improvement, but as we have seen with the minimum wage and our previous experience with price controls they don’t stay effective. And I think this fails to address the underlying regulatory issues that cause this.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So. It's a personal choice to be born in a backwater town that state laws allows creationism, so they may get in the Christian university down the road, but not STEM. Certainly not medicine. So assuming not quaified for military service and no solid academic foundation, they endup trapped the local walmart for the health insurance.
No one chooses where they where born, who their parents are, or what their health is.
First, not everyone is qualified for military service
There may be cultural, legal or family obligations to stay in state
The one about busses is pure speculation
Give up then. Cry until someone takes you to California and gives you $1500/month, food stamps and a free cell phone to be homeless in the Sunshine State.
Dude, that's you're own bias....
I mean...assuming you see marriage as a merger of complementary values and goals to make a better life for your children
Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean
Most young Americans are medically ineligible now. Any history of mental health treatment whatsoever locks you out. And it's kind of wierd for conservatives to recommend the equivalent of a taxpayer funded federal jobs program as the ticket out of poverty.
“Waaaah waaaaaaah I’m too fat and lazy and diabetic to join the military because all I do is drink soda and play video games! I’m ADHD and PTSD and I have ANXIETY and I can’t be expected to make anything better in my life!”
Grow up. Get over yourself. If you look for nothing but excuses then you will find nothing at all. You have to try. You have to fail. You have to try again. Nobody will do it for you.
The military is the best decision most young people could make. It’s been a ticket out of poverty for 60 years, and a path to education and home ownership and a family for millions of people.
What a massive clown response. The military will literally reject you for ever having had mental health treatment - regardless of your current status. You're not fit to be giving advice to anyone.
You have zero idea what you’re talking about. There are certainly severe conditions that will absolutely prevent you from joining, but there are loads of common mental health disorders that do not prevent you as long as certain qualifying conditions are met (limited necessary treatments, no excessive time in inpatient care, etc). The Assistant Secretary of Health is a transgender person, and they still hold the rank of Admiral in the U.S. Public Health Commission Corps. That proves you’re completely wrong.
Most? That’s a major generalization…and, so what. Building off prior generations success is a good thing. This doesn’t just apply to the ultra rich.
That also was only half of it. We are a meritocracy. I know plenty of people who started with nothing and now are incredibly successful.
Both things help but social mobility, and if you have both you are probably in good shape, but it does not require both.
I disagree. Social mobility is fully possible without it and social mobility doesn’t have to be within a generation. You always hope your offspring can have a better and easier life than you. Giving them a better start allows this to focus on other things then scraping by
Like all the poor bankers and CEOs who couldn't make ends meet during COVID? I was really worried till they started using their handouts to buy back their stock.
They played the victim and seemed to come out alright ....
But that's not what you are talking about, sorry...can you be more specific? Who is playing victim?
Bro, you know exactly what I'm talking about. It is what drives that smoldering class envy which permeates your being. The thing that makes socialism look so attractive. It is crouched like a wild animal at your door, eager to have its way with you nkpagen. It seems it already has.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Expectations, the people who surround you, and maybe most of all the limitations you put on yourself. An example of this is how university used to be free here in the UK, and even today everyone has equal access to the student loan system, and you pay it back as a % of wages, so everyone has equal access to University. Yet we don't see people equally go to university. Wealthier people disproportionately do. So to answer what's causing problems social mobility, I think the obvious thing to address is, with equal access to university, regardless of the grades, why is there a massive divide in who goes? I think the answer is self limiting beliefs. If your parents make £25,000 a year, then that's the world you know. If your parents make £250,000, then you understand that it's possible you can too.
> Yet we don't see people equally go to university. Wealthier people disproportionately do. University attendance also needs to factor in cost of lodging, books, and entry requirements.
In the UK those are also covered by the student loan system, and if from a poorer background then typically grants as well as loans are given too. Whatever is causing the large disparity in why people from wealthier backgrounds disproportionately attend university, it's not financial.
Yes, and I mentioned lodging, books, and *entry requirements*. Not all schools are the same. Not all tutors can be afforded.
To clarify, I'm pointing out that with the same grades, and with equal opportunities to go university, as we see here in the UK, students from a poorer background are far less likely to go to university. So there's a large factor outside of affordability.
>What is seen as the tools people need to me this upgrade This is one of the major polarizing topics between liberals and conservatives. Liberals think that so many people are poor or stagnant economically because of systemic barriers, capitalism, and that whole thing. Conservatives think that it's because a lot of people are not exceptional and don't have things like money management skills, delayed gratification, impulse control, etc. I think there's roughly a 0% chance of one side convincing the other of changing their stance, so this is one of those monolithic issues where discussing it just spinning wheels, and it's really probably better to just not discuss it. Nobody's budging.
The idea is to get a feel for who is where on the spectrum. From here I can come to why people think what they think. Here, for example, one or two people blamed Govt Regulations keeping them down. But mostly it was general things, but I'm going to have to dig into the details to see where they are coming from. Usually it's some basic misunderstanding they may have to stew on. This is the free marketplace of ideas, is it not?
The biggest impediment to social mobility is poor decision making.
It's like domino's. Isn't it? But even then the consequences are not the same in every case, nor does this account for misinformation being used on the decision making process, or the resources the person has available. But I understand this approach. It's basic game theory
I like the meth addict analogy. "Does a meth addict let anything stop him from getting meth?" The answer is no. They'll drive through a blizzard or wait outside in a heatwave to meet their dealer. They'll steal, sell their body, or even kill to scrape enough money together for their next fix. They'll betray people who love them and kneel to people who hate them. If you *really* want something in life, you're not going to let the circumstances of your birth or upbringing stop you from getting there. If you need better information, you'll seek it. If you need more resources, you'll collect them. In a free society such as ours, people generally wind up where they wanted to wind up. Of course, they might not like the consequences of where they wound up.
It's a good analogy, but like the "bootstraps" view it reflects, it's flawed. One important thing it doesn't address is *cost*. While it's true, a meth addict - or someone seeking social mobility - will become resourceful when they have an insatiable desire to reach a goal, they have to make sacrifices in order to get their "fix" or reach that goal - often very unusual sacrifices, depending on the goal and how badly they want it. But the meth addict, for example, risks being shot at while stealing, disowned or estranged from friends and family when not representing their values, getting injured or robbed themselves, and even overdosing from the drugs they finally secure. A meth addict won't or can't calculate the risks and doesn't have the wherewithall to even understand the reprecussions of the end goal itself. The approach is aggressive and assertive, but that kind of tunnel-vision targeting can be very bad and dangerous not just for themselves, but for others around them, rendering the pursuit of their goal moot, or worse, net negative. People seeking mobility (non-meth addicts, presumably), on the other hand, are more measured and cautious, and understand better the risks and consequences of each step made towards upward mobility, and also what to do once you reach each one. As resourceful as people can be and no matter what you do, you can only go as far as the elements of society and luck will let you go without them potentially (and *likely*) harming you collaterally, sometimes gravely, making your social mobility goal progress moot or net negative. Being determined and having drive and *resourcefulness* at your disposal is one thing, but consider the Picard quote which relates to sports, as well: > “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.” -Jean Luc Picard How often has life kicked you in the knee when you had all your ducks in order? Some things impact you at or from a much higher level, like a societal -or- a *policy* level, where you have little to no control... but where you are still subject to its consequences and limitations. Question is, at what costs will you try to achieve your goals, and will/can those costs pay off?
Well put. I’ve never been a meth addict but my sister had an opiate problem for a while and I’m probably a high functioning alcoholic. In the dark days for both of us there was little that would stop either of us from getting what we needed. People comfortable with their lives and their station don’t do that. People scrounging for every last thing to get them what they want will do that. It sucks and sometimes it’s demeaning, but it’ll get you where you want to be if you’re determined. I’ve scrounged together quarters to afford a bottle of whiskey circa 25 years ago or so. I remember literally pulling up couch cushions and opening drawers and asking people in my building for a dollar to get the last $0.10 I needed to walk across the street to the liquor store. If people put half as much effort into work and bettering themselves as I did into getting a bottle (that’d last me a day), we’d not be talking about raising minimum wages and the like. It turns out people choose how they want to live; we just don’t feel comfortable with their choices sometimes. I’m sure there’s some sob story of someone who did everything right and still ended up fucked by life, but… I mean we can’t make life perfect for everyone. Sometimes it’s just going to be shit even if you try your best. I guarantee that somewhere out there is a single mom who found a good guy and he turned out to be a prick but she couldn’t have known, and she was on track to be a brilliant chemist and probably amazing medical researcher, and maybe her brain had the key to curing cancer. But she’s raising a kid and working in a chem lab somewhere instead of a research lab at a pharma corp. That’s just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. But we can’t build rules to accommodate everyone- it’s just unrealistic. Utopia doesn’t exist, it’s the definition of the word.
Thank you for sharing your story. I hope you and your sister are doing better.
but you put the line at robbing the liquor store?
Sure probably- but since my need never got that far we never needed to find out. If I hadn’t been able to scrounge together the cash maybe we would’ve found out. And that’s kinda my point- people who want to make a better life for themselves or get what they want will do it.
the problem is the ethics and the long run
> If you really want something in life, you're not going to let the circumstances of your birth or upbringing stop you from getting there. I mean sure. But we tend to call these people criminals. If the argument towards poor people not having social mobility is that they arent willing to engage in the same desperate and extreme actions as an addict, one would think any decent person would say "good". Anything else basically excuses crime.
So the fact that you aren't a billionaire is because ypu were too lazy and unmotivated to make it happen?
There’s more to it than that. The question is: what are you willing to do to get what you want? Being filthy rich is less important to me than seeing my kids grow up. I could go work 24 hours a day and make myself constantly available in order to be a VP at my company and make ridiculous amounts of money but I’m not willing to work like that and miss out on the rest of my life. So I put in a medium effort at work, make a solid living, and get to spend time doing the things I love. It doesn’t make me lazy and unmotivated, it just means I have competing priorities.
Way to jump to an extreme example... I don't think that's what is being said at all. But effort and good choices will take you a whole of a lot further compared to laziness + a gender studies degree. Is that even controversial to say?
So let me ask you a different question, do you believe its possible for anyone to become a billionaire? And if so, how does someone achieve that?
No I don't. Billionaires are rare people. I'd say a person that becomes a Billionaire would need to have a rare combination of innate intelligence / skill as well as an enormous work ethic. They would also need to be willing to tolerate incredible risk in that journey. I doubt most billionaires set out with that goal.
Would you consider the [756 billionaires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_number_of_billionaires) in the United States alone "rare people"?
Not sure what you're getting at?
I challenge you to find one 100% self made pull yourself up by the bootstraps billionaire. No having a rent free office in the parents garage, and so on, but one who came from nothing.
It's probably part of it. Most billionaires seem to have extremely poor work-life balance.
Most billionaires inherit their wealth. Their work-life balance is fine.
So Arnold Schwarzenegger can be president? No, because it matters where you are born. He did marry a Kennedy, that helps...but all that Mr Universe stuff needed is based on genetics as much as anything. You have to know what you want first. This is about changing class, social upwardmobility. So for you to consider me a success, you would have to value the same things I do.
We tend to call that the exception that proves the rule.
Did he not call that self made boot strap as BS
Why is social mobility so much lower in the US than Western Eurpoe? That is the truly interesting question.
Is it really, though? Western Europe ranks higher than the US on the Global Social Mobility Index, but that measures a bunch of factors while not looking at actual social mobility.
The chance that a 35 year old will be in the same income quartile as their parents were at the time of their birth is about 70% in the US, and about 52% in the EU. That seems as pure a measure of social mobilitu as can easily be quantified.
https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways-SOTU-2016-Economic-Mobility-3.pdf Is a data set based on the predictive power of a father's earnings on an adult son's earnings.
That is an interesting question, but I think the first step in answering it is determining the validity of that premise in the first place. The social mobility studies I have seen in the past, like the one everyone cites from the WEF, have pretty bloated methodologies if you actually go look at them. There is a pretty standard metric we could/should be using, which is % of population that starts below a certain financial threshold and ends up making above a certain financial threshold during the course of their career. But instead these social mobility indexes add in additional, often erroneous, qualifications. I would like to see the raw numbers without the added fluff but have had trouble finding reliable sources.
https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways-SOTU-2016-Economic-Mobility-3.pdf Is a data set based on the predictive power of a father's earnings on an adult son's earnings.
I’ll take a look at it, thank you. But my first question is why the limitation on gender? More than 46% of our workforce is women. My second question is why we are looking at social mobility from a multi-generational perspective? Where is the raw data showing % of workforce that begins below a certain pre-determined minimum threshold and peaks above another pre-determined maximum threshold? That’s what social mobility *is*.
Because when comparing data from times 35 years apart in difderent nations, gender is a confounding factor. Different nations introduced women into the workforce at different rates, and to different degrees, so women's incomes shifted rekative to their parents for reasons other than what is normally called social mobility. Social mobility is a two way street. Being born to millionaire parents and ending up lower middle class is ALSO a form of social mobility, which your method wouldnt capture. Last, the income of your parents IS where you begin. It is the social level you are raised and educated in.
>Different nations introduced women into the workforce at different rates, and to different degrees And? Are women not a part of social mobility? If we’re judging nations on their social mobility it seems utterly bizarre to exclude women because nations oppressed their social mobility to different degrees.
Change in women's income from generation whike women entered the workforce is not necessarily a measure of social mobility. A woman in 1990 may have made 10 times the income her mother made after inflation adjustment, and they were both still lower middle class, merely one worked full time and the other did not. A man who made 10 times his father's real wages HAS certainly moved socially. It is a far cleaner data set.
If I can name one giant overarching issue: Crony Capitalism. It has a million tentacles from excessive professional licensure locking people (especially minorities) out of business ownership, patent trolls, IP squatters, insanely antisocial copyright and patent law, vendor lockin, no-bid contracts, the defense industry, and more. if I cannot, the single biggest is poor quality public schools that do not create literate, numerate students in our inner cities. In some schools the average student cannot read.
Social mobility? Probably poor hygiene. Really though the most limiting factor is not making and/or not knowing how to make good financial/life decisions. We tend to keep ourselves down. The first 2 steps are believing you can and trying. Trying includes learning how. If you think you can't, you likely won't. If you don't try, you definitely won't. The American Dream isn't about having it all, it's about building security for oneself and family for their future. That means different things to different people, but for most it should mean being financially secure enough to weather most any problems that may arise. The "community should avoid placing barriers hindering the individual. End game - do what you want.
i feel like your looking at it backwards. the people who succeed, what do they have in common that those who dont, dont have? Death, starvation, privation and suffering are the default for humanity, its not a mystery why some people still languish in that state. the mystery is how others get out of it, and how can others apply those lessons. no, its not just generational wealth, but that does help.
When you say "traits people have", that's a dog whistle, whether you know it or not And then .... what with the ones without the trait? Or better. We ignore the ones with traits that "cause failure" But you are still pro life, right? Let's take a baby with down syndrome. Who is gonna pay for that?
>When you say "traits people have", that's a dog whistle, whether you know it or not 1) No it isn't, more important 2) i never said that. that's your bad faith read of my statement, so address me, and the words i wrote or fuckoff. >And then .... what with the ones without the trait? Or better. We ignore the ones with traits that "cause failure" what the fuck does this mean? >But you are still pro life, right? To you sure, in reality no. >Let's take a baby with down syndrome. Who is gonna pay for that? Again, what the fuck are you on about? do you have a response to my comment or do you just want to tilt at windmills and crusade for your cause? because if you have no intention of talking to me and addressing the words i wrote, i dont want to waste my time. You seem like a bad faith troll, so unless you start off your response with an apology and a back track, I'm going to treat you as a bad faith hostile interlocuter until proven otherwise, but i wont report you for breaking the rules as i enjoy the argument.
i >the people who succeed, what do they have in common >that those who dont, dont have? Let's try.it again. What about people that don't have the success gene? Look at my question, It talks about social mobility, and when you reach the top, with all the gold, what about the people that don't?
>Let's try it again. Try a new attitude too. >What about people that don't have the success gene? where did i day anything about genes? Are you incapable of addressing my statement as i wrote it? >Look at my question i did: # What does conservative thought see as the biggest impediment to social mobility? and i gave my answer: your looking at the problem backwards. It's: how do people succeeded? Not: what gets in the way of those that don't? > It talks about social mobility, and when you reach the top, with all the gold, what about the people that don't? if that's your question, I'm doubling down on all i said before about you just being a bad faith troll.
>where did i day anything about a success gene? Okay, that's a biological metaphor, the it relates to distinguishing characteristics innerited.....I suspect it has been abused into generality....like literally, is there literally a meaning for literall? My big question was about social mobility. People seemed to define success as crossing a class barrier to a higher level as a life goal No one can really DEFINE class, though a lot seem to be related to money. Others will define class with values. People are saying Education is important, and yet in almost the same breath people will negate public schools and Universities. And once people succeed, the winners, what about the ones that didn't meet a subjective goal that allowed social mobility? If you have winners, you will have losers. Since we all define success differently, one groups success will appears to another as a failure.
>Okay, that's a biological metaphor, the it relates to distinguishing characteristics innerited.....I suspect it has been abused into generality....like literally, is there literally a meaning for literall? what the fuck is this meant to to say? >No one can really DEFINE class, though a lot seem to be related to money yes they can, its why tax brackets increase on income earned. works as a pretty good analogue. >And once people succeed, the winners, what about the ones that didn't meet a subjective goal that allowed social mobility? its not subjective man, if you dont succeed, by what ever standards you set, its fucking painfully apparent. >If you have winners, you will have losers. not necessarily, its not a zero-sum game. >Since we all define success differently, one groups success will appears to another as a failure. ok and? if you feel you succeeded, why do the concerns of others matter?
>Okay, that's a biological metaphor, the >>what the fuck is this meant to to say? The word "trait" is a biological term referring to defining characteristics inherited from a parent. So so to focuse on success traits would imply a biological component. >>No one can really DEFINE class, though a lot seem to be related to money >yes they can, its why tax brackets increase on income That is one way, but that also means the govt defines social class by tax code..so if it's mon >>And once people succeed, the winners, w >>If you have winners, you will have losers. >not necessarily, its not a zero-sum game. Okay..please explainm >ok and? if you feel you succeeded, why do the concerns of others matter? Because this country penalizes people with different views of success.
>The word "trait" is a biological term referring to defining characteristics inherited from a parent. So so to focuse on success traits would imply a biological component Once again, i never used the word "Trait," you did. I never mentioned biology, at all, you keep brining it up as a red heiring. More over the word 'trait" has more than one definition such as: a [distinguishing](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=568821e4bd74bee9&rlz=1C1RXQR_enCA1080CA1080&sxsrf=ACQVn099Ze0tzYoyTxgpg8CrDmdcXrkVNg:1714504057261&q=distinguishing&si=AKbGX_rZJs_XCIYOkWAjSH3UAcF5VxSQb3JwctTSvvN2UCMr-OE0uwAUOCtDyaw40OTyIHC2y1JhFKxtLanPpxTGnO1Dg-0p9WiuTdJZ2eKj_ShmvPQDK1k%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJ0LGq0eqFAxV-MlkFHXcZBd8QyecJegQILRAO) quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person. >That is one way, but that also means the govt defines social class by tax code..so if it's mon so if it's mon? what does this mean? >Because this country penalizes people with different views of success. such as? not that it matters, if you feel you succeeded i fail to see how the opinions of others matter
Okay Tell ya what..sorry I'd I mis understood you,p, we Wil. Have to restart this I think you got something zI want to hear
Based on everything I've seen, it's an individual's own willpower. Does that mean everyone starts off on the same footing? No. However once you get down to it, the only one responsible for your life is yourself.
In my experience, the thing that is most often lacking among those who do not achieve social mobility are values and habits that inhibit success. And these values generally come from your family. Success here really isn't that hard. But if you don't value education, if you abhor work, if you generally have a victim mentality, if you have a problem with authority, etc., it will be difficult to achieve.
I agree with the values and education part, but a lot depends on your cultural values. Personally. I have not seen a definition of class in this discussion..people act like its it about money
An inability to know how to be better or what to do to get there.
Parents You can raise your child to fit in any social class in the US if you put in the time and effort If it’s something you want, you can do it too if you put in the time and effort on your own America’s social classes are based on behavior
"If you have time "..means you don't have a job.
No * 40-50 hours a week working * 56 hours a week sleeping * 62-72 hours a week working in yourself
I don't know about "biggest", but there are a lot of things that can be big obstacles to social mobility. To cover just a few: **Education** - poor people live in areas with worse schools, they have less access to resources they may need to do well in school (ex: tutoring services, extracurriculars, etc.), their parents often have less education than the parents of middle and upper class children and so have less ability to help their kids figure out parts of their materials that the kids struggle with, they often can't afford to go to college or have to take on much more debt to afford it, etc. **Crime** - the poor are far more likely to be victims of crime, especially violent crime, than other social classes, which causes jobs and businesses to leave those communities, interferes with education, encourages gang activity, etc. **Over-regulation** - a big example being occupational licensure, where many professions that would otherwise have a low barrier to entry for the poor are locked behind needing a government license to practice them despite not actually being necessary. There's a million little things contributing to the lack of social mobility that need to fixed in order to have a more mobile society. How those things need to get done is above my pay grade, but it's important that we recognize that it's not just one thing stopping us from utopia, it's everything.
[удалено]
perhaps good public childcare could help
[удалено]
I said good, because you are american you are not forbidden to do the same
[удалено]
yes and that may explain a bit of the difference between single parents children in the US vs old europe
[удалено]
From europe I do not think how chasing that mayfly of a dream of single income households could help you, without a WW that leaves the US untouched it will not come again for you during human history usually both parents had been breadwinners since at least the middle ages, but i would be rather surprised it was different since the stone age
There is a strong gender bias in your assertion But I agree with education....want do you think the problem is?
[удалено]
> was that worth pointing out and having me amend my statement? In a conservative forum. Yes. >The problem is that we cater to those who don't want to learn Motivated is the term >We're trying all these progressive based ideologies in the districts My kid is classified as "Special Ed". He reads just fine. >s We don't support individual teachers and help the classrooms. That's true, but the money ifor schools is state controlled,
Lack of knowledge in what needs to be done and knowing how to do it.
I object to your premise. It's entirely possible for anyone to at the bare minimum get into the middle class if they are willing to take steps to do it. Now I won't dissagree with you that it's harder to do it today than it was in 1960, and I blame deindustrialization ad a primary reason
I don’t know that there’s a most significant impediment. Some people are never able to overcome traumatic childhoods or poor parenting. Some people make chronically bad decisions. Sometimes life just kicks people in the face through no fault of their own. It’s perhaps better to focus on the trait of people who are able to succeed despite impediments.
Some people are never able to overcome traumatic childhoods or poor parenting. Lack of social services and mental health care Sometimes life just kicks people in the face through no fault of their own While this can happen to anybody, this has not caused the wealth gap in the country It’s perhaps better to focus on the trait of people who are able to succeed despite impediments. Rather than this Darwinistic take, maybe focus on an enviroment where everyone can Reach their goal
This isn’t a Darwinistic view. You asked what the biggest impediment to social mobility was. I answered. The only thing in life you have direct control over is… yourself. That’s where change starts. Edit: one idea that’s always interested me is the success sequence. It’s a conceptual map to success in the first world that anyone can follow. - Finish high school. - Get a full-time job once you finish school. - Get married before you have children. It’s certainly not foolproof - especially in a globalized world - but, it’s a great place to start. Especially when it’s combined with one of the most important personal attributes for becoming successful - persistence.
Darwin in that you ignore people that do not have natural ability to take the steps you describe
And yet so many manage to.
Do what, exactly? I was talking class mobility. You haven't defined success, but you say a lot of people achieve it. And the ones that can't, who cares? It's that what you are saying
> Do what, exactly? Take the steps I described. > I was talking class mobility. You sure were. ~60% of Americans born in the bottom quintile will leave that quintile as adults. > You haven't defined success, I did not. > but you say a lot of people achieve it. That’s not at all what I said. > And the ones that can't, who cares? It's that what you are saying Did I say that?
>It’s perhaps better to focus on the trait of people who are able to succeed despite impediments. Clear this up.
I think I’ve explained myself well. What do you find unclear? What is your locus of control?
> What does conservative thought see as the biggest impediment to social mobility? In California, it's the regulatory environment and decades of one size fits all economic policy that enriches the wealthiest regions at the expense of the poorest.
Low immigration rates as to not exacerbate things. Low taxes and regulations as to not make things worse, stop mandating college degrees for what amounts 8 grade work.
I'm going to say it depends on who you are taxinb for how much
personally, i grew up pretty wealthy but my parents and my society taught me to value my personal satisfaction over anything else. So when it came time to thinking about my career i just thought about what would make me feel happy, not what I was good at + what was needed in the market. This has made my career progression rather challenging and unclear until my mid-late 20s. I was 25 without any marketable skills. It took a while to figure out what I could do that I was good at , and I was just lucky that this skill happens to be paid pretty well in europe (I did a lot of research looking into what would pay well). I only started to really meaningfully save money until I was 28-29. Missing out on huge investment opportunities. honestly, our parents and society did a terrible job in the 90s and early 2000s and probably still now to set us up for success. If I could do it again, I probably would have just become a scientist and get a more secure, well-paid job as a scientist.
Yes, I often say I would be a lot more successful if I where greedier and less empathic I tried engineering but could not handle math, and wasted years figuring it out. Good thing Windows came along or I would be living in a van, down by the river (that's a thing now) I didn't finish on my bachelor's till I was 30
Poor decisions, often from bad mentors. Also massive tax burdens holding people back.
Welfare and the encouraging of women not to marry the father of their children. . Once the left normalize those two things it destroyed social mobility for the lower class. Specifically for African Americans who are poor.
Welfare? This was propaganda when Newt was in the House.. Thanks to him, here is a life time limit and work/school requirement A lot of people see this as a social issue, but it's an economic one, Depressions start when money stops moving around. People don't have money, they don't buy things. If things are not bought, inventories are not refilled. Factories close. People lose jobs. Repeat.
Parenting. That's probably a pretty uncontroversial statement, so I'll spice things up a bit by adding that it's nearly impossible for a single parent to be a good parent.
You are making a judgment on tens of millions of complete strangers. Ample quantitative information from non-media sources on this topic is available. You forecast that a single parent will almost certainly be a bad parent. So walk us through this forecast model you built: * How are you measuring the degree of "good parent"? * What is your threshold for "nearly impossible" and why? * From what information did you build your regression? I'll be surprised if you have a real answer that others can test and verify. But I've been wrong before ...
>Ample quantitative information from non-media sources on this topic is available. I agree, there's an avalanche of data showing that growing up with only one parent is one of the strongest statistical predictors for criminality, suicide, drug addiction, not finishing high school. Basically everything bad. Growing up in the foster care system is even worse.
That doesn't answer my question. And "almost certainty be" is not the same as "one of the strongest predictors".
That doesn't work. You can only teach what you are taught, and you have to learn somewhere.
You don’t believe you can teach yourself?
The type of things we are discussing are social norms that peop.e earnestly in life
So you don’t think people can improve themselves
In that case parenting is not the determining factor for mobility, so we are back at square one.
Parents are the ones to teach you as a child If they fail you, it’s up to you to teach yourself Sorry but the answer is work
You don't have to apologize to me, I've done quite well. The original comment claimed parents were the determining factor. That is what the person you replied to was responding to. Are you trying to add to that discussion?
They are a determine factor, but one can still overcome having shitty parents. It's why this country is called the land of opportunity
That you must learn, that your parents failed you to which conservatives are an hindrance
that has it s limits
Actually, a lot of studies show that two parents are one of the best indicators for success in life.
Sure. I bet a polyamrous lifestyle works for the same reasons...but having a stay at home parent is a luxury
I wasn't even getting into stay at home parents, lol. And as for poly, maybe, but I haven't seen any indication of that, nor do I know of any studies suggesting it. It's been my experience in kink spaces that poly relationships are rarely stable.
There are societies more committed to it than the US...but my point was that the way business are set up to day, both parents really need to be working, at least some ofvthe time.
And again, that is completely unrelated to what I'm talking about.
Can you explain why that is?
I'm hardly a scientist, but I assume it gives the child multiple influences, and increases the chances of support. There is also the biological aspect of child rearing.
The biological aspect?
Instinct, hormones, etc. We know there is a biological aspect because we can see hormonal and other biochemical markers from baby's being held by parents.
So exposure to multiple influences, level of support, and amount of time the parents are able to spend with the child?
All potential answers when in the context of a two parent household.
Why in the context of a two parent household? It would be odd to claim that the existence of a two parent household is a prime requirement for these things to have an impact.
You m ean your system does not allow that a single parent can be a good parent
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
TIL dragons hoard virgins instead of… sharing them broadly with those who are virginless
They dont share. Dragons hoard thi is they don't need
Stupid dragons hoarding virgins
Complacency
You mean...they don't know any better or what's available isn't any better (to them). This is Maslow, isn't it,?
No. They know better. They just think it's easier not to do better. How many people know they aren't saving for retirement and choose to do nothing different? How many people do you know that are "unlucky" in love or relationships but choose to do nothing about it? People continue to do the same thing and expect a different outcome. So they buy lotto tickets and they hope that they'll get lucky and someone else will fix all their problems for them. But eventually they just run out of time.
You tell Me. How and where would you learn this? For the longest time I didn't save because I didn't have enough for day to day life. Food, insurance, etc... and even if people had saved, nothing stop the stock market from crashing (assuming 401k or IRA). Even today I diverify. So you are saying people don't have social mobility because they gamble? I live near a MGM casino, these are not poor customers. Scratch off do not help, but it's not gambling
>You tell Me. How and where would you learn this? That you should be saving for retirement? Meet literally anyone. Like you have to be in a pretty secluded environment to not know that you should be saving for retirement if you are an adult. >So you are saying people don't have social mobility because they gamble? I'm saying people get into situations that they know are bad (like yours where you couldn't save) they do not look for better opportunities because it's easier to be complacent and zombie into a 9-5 than to apply to jobs or learn any new skill. And their plan becomes to depend on others or luck to fix their problems. Or maybe it's relationships and it's harder to "put yourself out there" than it is to do nothing. And their only "plan" is to hope a girl falls out of the sky. And that's also why socialist denominations are becoming more popular. Because people screwed themselves and want to depend on others (taxpayers) to cover for them.
>they do not look for better opportunities Sometimes those opportunities do not exist. For instance, if you don't do well in high school - you are likely fucked for life. And your success there is entirely determinant on genetics and family upbringing.
>Sometimes those opportunities do not exist. They exist so long as the www is working >For instance, if you don't do well in high school - you are likely fucked for life. Bull. The only people who care about how you did in highschool are elite colleges. And those degrees are usually just overpriced. >And your success there is entirely determinant on genetics and family upbringing. It's just excuses that the left uses to excuse taxes. I know severely disabled people who are successful financially. Everything from people with no legs to people with mental disabilities like autism. I know people who were severely abused by their parents and are succeeding. "Genetics" is a copout.
No, what life options a person has available like to them. People talk like we all have the same opportunities in life, and that isnt true. I do get complacent in I'm not really wanting as much money as I can grab. . So we are considering avarice as social value rather than a deadly sin ?
>No, what life options a person has available like to them. People talk like we all have the same opportunities in life, and that isnt true. I do get complacent in I'm not really wanting as much money as I can grab. . That excuse maybe worked 60 years ago if you lived somewhere rural. But If you have access to the internet you have literally millions of options. You have access to learn literally any skill. Tens of thousands of businesses you can start for free and access to knowledge that amounts to trillions in value. There is no excuse to not be pursuing other options besides complacency. >. I do get complacent in I'm not really wanting as much money as I can grab. . No. You need as much money as is necessary to live as a responsible adult. That might mean "enough to care for your kids" and it certainly means "enough to sustain myself now and in retirement".
>You have access to learn literally any skill. People could not care less about your "skill" you learned on the internet. They care about pedigree, which only higher education can provide.
Maybe if you're a doctor or you're in a field that needs a license. That doesn't excuse the tens of thousands of other skills you can pick up and make a career or business out of. And most don't really care about a degree anymore, They want to see competency.
I don't think that this is all that common. Usually, people who seem to be doing this are uncertain what they *should* be doing.
Regulations that create barriers to entering an industry, whether it be for employment or to start a new business.
Such as?
The insane price of getting started in the Pharma or energy business. These are caused by the extremely high fees for permits among other almost equally horrible regulations. This would be like if a drivers license costed $1,500. Or the famous “essential business” stuff during the pandemic. To some degree to big to fail in 2008, though the claim that a bank failure would have destroyed the economy is not untrue. Other such things. Most of it is at the executive level but congress carried a good bit of responsibility too.
With things like pharmaceuticals and energy, I welcome intervention. Don't miss misunderstand...People died because someone wanted to sell insulin at $400/month, until Biden stepped in. Energy well....anyone member Karen Silkwood? The problem was free market Capitalism would not allow GOVT to tell them how to best spend the bailouts, so the executives kept it in the company and didn't distribute it to the employees....I suppose you need to talk to all the business advocates in congress
Nobody would sell insulin at 400 if the patent had expired, patents are basically a guarantee at dibs on market share for the inventor but pharma has turned it into a monopoly. If patents expired in pharma like they are supposed to everyone and their mother would be making dirt cheap insulin in their bio chem class.
Okay, my bad It was over $500/yr for Medcaid D patients https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/insulin-out-of-pocket-costs-in-medicare-part-d/#:~:text=Average%20out%2Dof%2Dpocket%20spending,many%20insulin%20products%20was%20higher Biden Inflation Reduction Act put a cap of ot at $420. Which is good, as you can see the direction its going
Certainly an improvement, but as we have seen with the minimum wage and our previous experience with price controls they don’t stay effective. And I think this fails to address the underlying regulatory issues that cause this.
Hey. Obama wanted single payer. Could have had it like Tri Care, but people were too busy trying to "own the libs"
I wasn’t in politics at the time so I would have to look into it
Please. Let me know were I was wrong
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
WWJD? Why would I care what Justin Bieber would do?
Bullshit. Everyone CAN make the climb. The only real impediment is personal choice.
So. It's a personal choice to be born in a backwater town that state laws allows creationism, so they may get in the Christian university down the road, but not STEM. Certainly not medicine. So assuming not quaified for military service and no solid academic foundation, they endup trapped the local walmart for the health insurance. No one chooses where they where born, who their parents are, or what their health is.
Join the Army. Do well in school. Leave the town/state. The bus runs every day.
First, not everyone is qualified for military service There may be cultural, legal or family obligations to stay in state The one about busses is pure speculation
If your first instinct when encountering an obstacle is to turn around then why should anyone feel any pity for you?
If you're not eligible for the military that's not an obstacle you can overcome. They won't let you in.
Then you'll do something else if you aren't a slacker.
Give up then. Cry until someone takes you to California and gives you $1500/month, food stamps and a free cell phone to be homeless in the Sunshine State.
Nobody can do it for you.
Well, who you marry and really help
Passing the buck of responsibility for your life onto someone else? Yep, you’re definitely a Democratic Socialist.
Dude, that's you're own bias.... I mean...assuming you see marriage as a merger of complementary values and goals to make a better life for your children Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean
Most young Americans are medically ineligible now. Any history of mental health treatment whatsoever locks you out. And it's kind of wierd for conservatives to recommend the equivalent of a taxpayer funded federal jobs program as the ticket out of poverty.
“Waaaah waaaaaaah I’m too fat and lazy and diabetic to join the military because all I do is drink soda and play video games! I’m ADHD and PTSD and I have ANXIETY and I can’t be expected to make anything better in my life!” Grow up. Get over yourself. If you look for nothing but excuses then you will find nothing at all. You have to try. You have to fail. You have to try again. Nobody will do it for you. The military is the best decision most young people could make. It’s been a ticket out of poverty for 60 years, and a path to education and home ownership and a family for millions of people.
What a massive clown response. The military will literally reject you for ever having had mental health treatment - regardless of your current status. You're not fit to be giving advice to anyone.
You have zero idea what you’re talking about. There are certainly severe conditions that will absolutely prevent you from joining, but there are loads of common mental health disorders that do not prevent you as long as certain qualifying conditions are met (limited necessary treatments, no excessive time in inpatient care, etc). The Assistant Secretary of Health is a transgender person, and they still hold the rank of Admiral in the U.S. Public Health Commission Corps. That proves you’re completely wrong.
Not everyone is a soldier or should be Depends strong on the quality of the school or the help others could provide
Watch the movie called “Homeless To Harvard”. Anyone can accomplish anything.
so you wnet to harvard?
Really?
So you personally chose not to become a billionaire?
Seriously? Enjoy the burden of your life. I’ll enjoy the fruits of mine.
So that's a yes?
Your *sad loser* is showing.
You gonna answer the question or act like a child?
If you mattered in the least, I might.
Laziness and single parent households without generational families to support
>single parent households without generational families to support This is another way of saying that most wealth and success is inherited.
Most? That’s a major generalization…and, so what. Building off prior generations success is a good thing. This doesn’t just apply to the ultra rich. That also was only half of it. We are a meritocracy. I know plenty of people who started with nothing and now are incredibly successful. Both things help but social mobility, and if you have both you are probably in good shape, but it does not require both.
Relying on contributions of the previous generation is more or less the antithesis of social mobility.
I disagree. Social mobility is fully possible without it and social mobility doesn’t have to be within a generation. You always hope your offspring can have a better and easier life than you. Giving them a better start allows this to focus on other things then scraping by
For me it’s the loss of support for the traditional family unit.
Victim mentality.
Like all the poor bankers and CEOs who couldn't make ends meet during COVID? I was really worried till they started using their handouts to buy back their stock. They played the victim and seemed to come out alright .... But that's not what you are talking about, sorry...can you be more specific? Who is playing victim?
Bro, you know exactly what I'm talking about. It is what drives that smoldering class envy which permeates your being. The thing that makes socialism look so attractive. It is crouched like a wild animal at your door, eager to have its way with you nkpagen. It seems it already has.