From this morning’s perusal of the fresh academic literature (the papers are gated, but worth perusing should you track down a free version). In my less bloggy retired days I’d pull out excerpts for you.
I suspect #6 can be explained by the relative cost of living, which I imagine is higher in high-inequality areas. Remember that wealth is perceived, and perception is relative. If I get some free time today I’ll look for data on this.
Thanks once again from one freeloading on your efforts to keep up. I was surprised, and I will read more..
The progressive income tax people have been sore ever since Reagan lowered rates, giving me and my doctor big raises, relatively speaking. I thought if you worked hard you were supposed to get ahead, and keeping forty percent of the next dollar earned made it worth the effort.
Wow. That educational (well, social-cognitive) intervention is a HUGE result! Thanks for sharing.
Looking forward to the Chetty/inequality article.
Mobility has not changed for fifty years? Before I throw in my two cents, please let me observe I was taught by a great company I worked for not to believe anything you hear and only half of what you see, practical advice that through experience has proven wise.
Given that preposterous assertion, what does it say about the Progressives and the a Communists who were supposed to save us from this impossibly unfair world, where now our president exhorts us to eliminate inequality?
Not that I thought that eliminating inequality was such a great idea, even when I was husbanding my pocket change. If you are hungry, the object is to make yourself not equal to other hungry people, and this is accomplished by working.
I question that assertion about mobility not changing since 1954; it runs counter to intuition, and forgets the period after the Jimmy Carter recession, post 1982, when a rising tide lifted all boats.
a few amateur reactions…
1. the metric is indeed quite creative, and I imagine a cost-effective form of legitimate data collection.
2. Surprise!
4. Someone please tell the commander in speech.
7. I don’t see why ‘trust’ as described in number 7 should really impact immigration policy. Perhaps I am missing something? Immigrants from high environment may be more likely to invest with new partners, more friendly, etc. But couldn’t someone who trust the world less be just as well off, by being more likely to fend for themselves? I guess I don’t understand why ‘trust and generosity’ and inherently ‘good’ for the country.
8. Could be a sign that the folks down under have built a much higher alcohol tolerance than folks up here, or it could mean they have more access to public transportation…or it could mean that perhaps intoxicated driving, or just drinking for that matter, isn’t as evil as we are meant to believe. I once had a professor tell me that during the majority of American history the majority of people were drunk.
10. I find to be the most ‘exciting’ surprising fact. But this highlights the importance of individual responsibility in a way that would make supporters of progressive policy uncomfortable.