Jamie Whyte, whose has been at various times an academic philosopher (and winner of the Analysis prize for the best paper by a philosopher under 30), a consultant to the banking industry with Oliver Wyman, a foreign currency trader, the leader of New Zealand’s ACT political party, the research director at the Institute for Economic Affairs, the author of several books that every thinking person should read, a frequent contributor to the European edition of the Wall Street Journal and other publications of that ilk, the incoming editor of Standpoint Magazine, an occasional guest poster on this very blog — and the deliverer of one of the most thought-provoking and entertaining lectures I’ve ever heard when he visited Rochester a few years back — will be here again next week, with two events open to the general public. They are:
Is There Too Much Social Mobility?, Tuesday April 9 at 5:30 in Goergen 101 at the University of Rochester
and
How to Make the Case for Liberty, Wednesday April 10 at 3:30 in Schlegel 102 at the University of Rochester.
If you’re in the vicinity, I hope you’ll stop in.
I read his editorial on social mobility:
https://www.ft.com/content/6ce0dad0-8e13-11dc-8591-0000779fd2ac
If he gave that speech and I were presenting a rebuttal, I would say:
– He says social mobility is zero-sum in terms of relative placement, and is negative-sum in practice because of the frictional costs of shifting between quartiles. However, there may be positive externalities to having more citizens who have experienced live at different income quartiles and are thus better informed.
– Also, the studies measured mobility from one generation to the next. If the second generation graduates school and *starts* their career in a different quartile from the previous generation, then that probably doesn’t incur a lot of “frictional costs” of shifting quartiles, because your life already changes so dramatically when you finish school and get a job. The frictional costs of changing quartiles will be larger if it happens mid-career.
– But anyway, that whole point is pretty silly, because nobody, regardless of their views on progressive income taxation, believes that mobility is a goal in and of *itself*. (Even in the most progressive income redistribution schemes, after the redistribution, the people who were at the top are still at the top, and the people who were at the bottom are still at the bottom. If “mobility” is what you wanted, you’d just pick people at the bottom at random to be the recipients of giant payouts that push them into the top quartile.) As he says, mobility is a *consequence* of having a meritocratic society, and a more meritocratic society means everyone has incentive to be more productive if it has more bearing on which quartile they’ll end up in.
Can’t read the article…
The best argument why low/decreasing social mobility is bad is that it means that people will fail to move to the positions within society which best match their skills, where they are most productive.
America’s history is replete with self-made men who came from humble backgrounds and went on to build industries.
In a society with low social mobility, that happens much less often.
This is of course an extreme example.
The much more typical example would be someone with above-average talents, perhaps in a specific area, who is unable to pursue his ambitions to become a doctor or start a business and ends up managing a McDonalds restaurant or something.
To put it simply – lack of social mobility means that you have incompetent people being in high positions, and talented people in low positions where their potential is wasted.
Advo it will let you read the article if you answer one survey question.
No, it won’t. The FT does not seem to be interested in my opinion. That option is probably location-based.
Will there be a livestream or transcript of either talk?
Did everybody read THIS, by the way?
Larry Summers:
On falling neutral real rates, fiscal policy, and the risk of secular stagnation
https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/on-falling-neutral-real-rates-fiscal-policy-and-the-risk-of-secular-stagnation/
The biggest macroeconomic story of the century, with vast implications.
“That option is probably location-based.”
Hey, maybe it is personal. I am not getting that option. Maybe I have already answered? Anyway, I can’t read the article for now, which is a shame.
Here is one that distinguishes between upward and downward mobility.
https://theconversation.com/britains-social-mobility-problem-has-been-misunderstood-education-is-not-the-great-leveller-109125
Overall mobility is about the same for those born in he 1980s as those born in the 1940’s, but downward mobility is much higher.
“He says social mobility is zero-sum in terms of relative placement.”
This is the case, but not only what we are interested in. We must consider upward and downward mobility.
” If “mobility” is what you wanted, you’d just pick people at the bottom at random to be the recipients of giant payouts that push them into the top quartile.” Or randomly select those at the top and take their money away? Or both.