I agree that it is peculiar given that the data is presented as the number of generations “it would take”. There is absolutely nothing related to access in Scandinavia (and presumably not in a number of other countries as well) that would prevent someone from the lowest social rung from becoming a top earner as a lawyer, doctor or whatever. I can only assume that the data is mislabeled; it must account for more intangible, personal and interpersonal social factors as well, and it must be based on historical data rather than opportunity in the here and now.
My parents went to museums with us. We went to summer camps that provided educational activities (fun physics experiments and the like). We got home schooling for learning instruments and our parents were able to help with homework and satisfy our scientific curiosity. And of course we learned the soft skills of how to move in the upper middle class environments, how to approach job interviews and so on.
These aspects help tremendously in striving for a higher education and well paying job. It is also quite interesting to see in my families history, where my parents were the first to get an academic degree, but the grandparents of my parents were already skilled craftsmen, one with 4 master titles in different metal working crafts.
There is only so much the government can do and i’d say that two to three generations are probably the bottom line for how fast it can go on a societal level. In the other countries like Germany there is systemic class discrimination to keep the lower classes low.
even though opportunities might be equal, family culture has a large role in what happens in practice, for example if your parents have gone to university, you are far more likely to do so also.
If you worked in any larger company as well as looked at some of the people you studied with that somehow made the degree, and somehow got a well paying job even though they are idiots in that field, you should find plenty examples where it is not about trying or merit, but connections and favourable circumstance.
Daddy is in middle management? Well he’ll get his idiot son in a nice paying position. Danny really did not understand what his uni class was about, but he could just learn everything by repetition, while Michael was working night jobs to afford food and could not take all the exams that semester. Maria is really smart and aced in school, but instead of going to Uni in a different city she took a local job because her parents cant take care of themselves anymore and their retirement money barely covers the rent and utilities…
I found it very eye opening when talking with two people from Uni once. The one was talking about his side job. The other one was getting everything payed by her parents, went to travel to very nice places and always prepared well for exams. She then said she also thought about getting a student job so she gets some relevant experience and a foot in the door. We had to explain to her that we dont work for that,but because we have to pay our bills and that it is taking quite a toll on finishing the studies in time.
Incomes don’t follow a bell curve, so the choice of mean income is a red flag to me. Imagine you had 9 citizens making 100k and one billionaire, the mean is now 100,090k.
Relatedly, being in the bottom 10% doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing in these different countries, in some of them that might not be below the poverty line so it’s comparing apples and oranges.
Or could it be people already at the mean income look down on the poor and tend to choose someone from the mean income and above over someone below when the two people are otherwise equal?
It is sad that it takes so many generations.
deleted by creator
I agree that it is peculiar given that the data is presented as the number of generations “it would take”. There is absolutely nothing related to access in Scandinavia (and presumably not in a number of other countries as well) that would prevent someone from the lowest social rung from becoming a top earner as a lawyer, doctor or whatever. I can only assume that the data is mislabeled; it must account for more intangible, personal and interpersonal social factors as well, and it must be based on historical data rather than opportunity in the here and now.
deleted by creator
My parents went to museums with us. We went to summer camps that provided educational activities (fun physics experiments and the like). We got home schooling for learning instruments and our parents were able to help with homework and satisfy our scientific curiosity. And of course we learned the soft skills of how to move in the upper middle class environments, how to approach job interviews and so on.
These aspects help tremendously in striving for a higher education and well paying job. It is also quite interesting to see in my families history, where my parents were the first to get an academic degree, but the grandparents of my parents were already skilled craftsmen, one with 4 master titles in different metal working crafts.
There is only so much the government can do and i’d say that two to three generations are probably the bottom line for how fast it can go on a societal level. In the other countries like Germany there is systemic class discrimination to keep the lower classes low.
even though opportunities might be equal, family culture has a large role in what happens in practice, for example if your parents have gone to university, you are far more likely to do so also.
It’s time to mean income, not stable living wage.
deleted by creator
If you worked in any larger company as well as looked at some of the people you studied with that somehow made the degree, and somehow got a well paying job even though they are idiots in that field, you should find plenty examples where it is not about trying or merit, but connections and favourable circumstance.
Daddy is in middle management? Well he’ll get his idiot son in a nice paying position. Danny really did not understand what his uni class was about, but he could just learn everything by repetition, while Michael was working night jobs to afford food and could not take all the exams that semester. Maria is really smart and aced in school, but instead of going to Uni in a different city she took a local job because her parents cant take care of themselves anymore and their retirement money barely covers the rent and utilities…
I found it very eye opening when talking with two people from Uni once. The one was talking about his side job. The other one was getting everything payed by her parents, went to travel to very nice places and always prepared well for exams. She then said she also thought about getting a student job so she gets some relevant experience and a foot in the door. We had to explain to her that we dont work for that,but because we have to pay our bills and that it is taking quite a toll on finishing the studies in time.
deleted by creator
Incomes don’t follow a bell curve, so the choice of mean income is a red flag to me. Imagine you had 9 citizens making 100k and one billionaire, the mean is now 100,090k.
Relatedly, being in the bottom 10% doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing in these different countries, in some of them that might not be below the poverty line so it’s comparing apples and oranges.
Or could it be people already at the mean income look down on the poor and tend to choose someone from the mean income and above over someone below when the two people are otherwise equal?
It doesn’t even make sense.