The issue is not that these cases exist, but that they are sold as being the standard, which they're clearly not. To became wealthy coming from a poor background requires a lot of effort, sense of opportunity, and frankly, luck. But all this is sold as something at grasp to anyone in this country, which is clearly false.
Of course luck plays a role in everything. It's merely luck that I've never been run over by a bus, or any number of other problems. But can you help me understand how a lot of effort and a sense of opportunity is not available to the common person?
The amount of opportunity available to a given person can vary greatly. For example, one person could have college paid for by parents, another could work to pay for college, and another could not have the opportunity to work to pay for college (e.g. perhaps they are taking care of younger siblings or sick family members).
Available effort could likewise vary. For example, someone with a disability might have much less effort available or their effort may be significantly less efficient. Someone who has to expend a great deal of effort on other matters (e.g. providing for basic needs, self protection, caring for others, etc.) may have less effort to expend towards things like career advancement or education.
The argument as I see it is that a person expending a roughly average amount of effort should be able to achieve a reasonable quality of life with the luck and opportunities that are available to them. (There will of course always be some variance in the effort required and the outcome received, but that's fine as long as it stays within a reasonable distance of this goal.)
The increasing anger over inequality seems to me to be because people are being asked to give above average effort (e.g. working multiple or demeaning jobs) in exchange for a low quality of life (e.g. difficulty affording healthcare, housing, retirement, raising a family, etc.).
42% of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution ("quintile") remain in the bottom, while 39% born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top.
Okay, more than half of the people at the bottom rise up out of it. And less than half of the people at the top stay at the top. What are you hoping for? Please be as specific as possible.
And what does this have to do with whether a lot of effort and a sense of opportunity is available to the common person?
Advocates of big government love these metrics that have been put through the academic ringer, so-as to spit out whatever tortured output is expected. Why look at this kind of esoteric figure at all? Why not look at, you know, real numbers?
Spending as percentage of GDP:
Denmark - 52% of GDP
Norway - 55% of GDP
Finland - 53% of GDP
Sweden - 50% of GDP
Iceland - 42% of GDP
Average - 50.5%
USA - 22% of GDP
What does all that extra spending get them?
Poverty rates: [0]
Denmark - 13%
Norway - Not reported
Finland - Not reported
Sweden - 15%
Iceland - Not reported
USA - 15%
Unemployment rates (2017): [0]
Denmark - 5.7
Norway - 4.2
Finland - 8.5
Sweden - 6.7
Iceland - 2.8
USA - 4.4
Household Incomein US dollars (2018) [3]
Denmark - $34,712
Norway - $39,555
Finland - $34,497
Sweden - $34,301
Iceland - Not reported
USA - $50,292
Household Debt as % of disposable income (2015-2018): [1]
Denmark - 281%
Norway - 239%
Finland - 145%
Sweden - 189%
Iceland - Not reported
USA - 105%
Household Net worth as % of net income (2014): [2]
Denmark - 553%
Norway - 318%
Finland - 359%
Sweden - 526%
Iceland - Not reported
USA - 601%
Interesting numbers. Where are the spending per GDP from? IMF numbers in Wikipedia put US spending at 35%.
Also should comparing the spending numbers take into account that healthcare, schools and universities are paid by government spending in the Nordics and not from household income?
Honest questions, I'm really interested in these differences between systems.
The US poverty rate is very misleading. It’s not the percent of people in poverty. It’s the percentage of people below a level of income at which not being impoverished is impossible.
“ The Census Bureau determines poverty status by using an official poverty measure (OPM) that compares pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963 and adjusted for family size.”
Regarding my definition in the previous comment, I’m unable to find my original source. Sorry.
Okay, but are they worse off because they can't afford as much stuff? They don't seem to be in more poverty, they're healthier, more fit and highly educated.
I can spend an extra 20k as well or poorly as I like.
Now that we've addressed your off topic question. Could you please try to explain how hard work and a sense of opportunity is not available to the common person?
It's the classic Trump small loan of a million dollars scenario. Sure not many are as lucky as Trump was. But even t hese examples of blue collar success have a bunch of luck in them.
Not everyone can start a machine shop with their dad, or own or even operate a taco restaurant. You need to be at the right place, the right moment, have the right amount of money and or the right equipment, interests and skills. And only then your sense of opportunity and effort will take you places.
For the common person it's a lottery just to be allowed to play the game.
> You need to be at the right place, the right moment, have the right amount of money and or the right equipment, interests and skills. And only then your sense of opportunity and effort will take you places.
If you flip that around, you get "Anyone, anywhere, any time, with any amount of money and any (or no) equipment, interests or skills should be able to be start and own a successful business." Does that really sound like a reasonable expectation?
For the common person it's a lottery just to be allowed to work at Taco Bell and do what the Taco Bell handbook tells you? And then, once you become a manager to save your pennies until you have a down payment on your own store?
This was just the result of a quick Google search so perhaps the numbers aren't accurate, but this website suggests that you need a net worth of 1.5 million to open a Taco Bell franchise.
I think that would be out of reach for many if not most Taco Bell managers. Presumably it would be even harder in parts of the United States with higher costs of living.
The vast majority of America cannot get 1.5 million dollars in funding to start a Taco Bell franchise. In fact, very few people would be able to get a 1.5 million dollar loan to start a Taco Bell franchise.
VC is not the norm. It is very much the exception.
How many people do you think working the counter FT at Taco Smell can save enough money to afford their own franchise location?
> The cost of opening a new Taco Bell restaurant is between $1.2 million and $2.6 million. Taco Bell also charges a $45,000 franchise fee, an ongoing royalty fee equal to 5.5% of gross sales, and a marketing fee equal to 4.25% of gross sales.
I expect about 0% of people to go from the bottom level position at Taco Bell directly to owning one. But I'm sure you're smart enough to have known that. So why did you feel it would be useful to frame the scenario in such a disingenuous way?
I am 100% dialing it back in good-faith to explain why I just framed it as you put it.
1. I read tinco's comment to state (paraphrasing): "it is difficult to start a business, and for the common person it is a game of chance." Which, I absolutely agree with when I measure it against my life experiences/knowledge.
2. You replied with two questions, also paraphrasing: "It's a lottery to work at Taco Bell?", and, "And assuming you do work at Taco Bell, that you would become a manager who could save up to own their own store?"
---
Given that scope of the conversation, I assumed you were positing that someone could seriously start working at a Taco Bell, start saving their money, and then some day afford their own franchise location.
The first question of 2 is an absolute possibility, ie: it is not a lottery to work at Taco Bell and it would be silly to assume otherwise. That may have confused me leading into the second question, asked rhetorically, as something that you deemed possible. This is to say, "A person could absolutely work at Taco Bell, and they could also save to own their own some day."
The "Gimme a break man" in reply to someone saying something that I deem 100% rational (#1) with two rhetorical questions that seem to paint the situations that they posit as rational possibilities confuses the crap out of me.
Simply put: You submitted two arguments, seemingly painted as possible realities, in an adversarial way to something I saw as a rational and relevant statement. I fired back thinking you thought that was possible because there's not much context to figure otherwise.
If I confused your comment I apologize.
Quick Edit: When I posted this reply I saw another person, harimau777, answering similar to myself with another credible source (also with a much higher caliber quality of language - I'm goof sometimes). What I'm trying to say is I'm not the only one who took your statements this way.
Well that's at least impressive. Was it a good investment for him to have spent his saved pennies on a Taco Bell franchise? If it hadn't worked out, could he do it again on another restaurant? I still feel he was lucky to have been able to save so much, you'd need to save like $400 every month for like 10 years, on a small salary. But you're right there was likely a very large amount of self determination at play.
