What proof is there that the formula used to compile that ranking actually reflects real world economic mobility?
Just because statistics say you shouldn't be poor doesn't mean you can't be poor. Just because statistically there is no racism in your area doesn't mean you won't get discriminated and deprived of opportunities.
Because the when certain metrics are used to compile a formula that leads to any ranking, then those parameters are subject to gaming in order to meet an expected result so those statistics are meaningless at the end of the day when you can't move past a certain wage/social class due to the artificial barriers set by a feudal leadership.
Statistically, the unemployment rate in my country should be about 2% while realistically it's much higher since the government doesn't count certain classes of people in odder to make the numbers look god in statistics for the EU.
Anecdotally, my acquaintances who emigrated from the former soviet bloc to North Ameriac and Australia ended up with much more wealth to their name including their own houses vs the ones who moved to Western Europe who basically ended up as serfs to be renters for life.
Do you see the problem with statistics as evidence? They don't tell the whole story.
Take the bottom 50% (or whatever) in generation A. Count what percentage of their children end up in the top 30% (or whatever). Thats' mobility. And it's highest in Northern Europe, by any reasonable standard.
> Take the bottom 50% (or whatever) in generation A. Count what percentage of their children end up in the top 30% (or whatever). Thats' mobility. And it's highest in Northern Europe, by any reasonable standard.
Except that this isn't true. You are basing this assertion on mobility indexes which account for more than this raw mobility. It's the reverse. By raw mobility, the US does outperform Europe. But, importantly, and accounted for by the indexes are referenced in the follow-up comment to your other respondent, people in Europe do not backslide between generations the way they do in the US. Europe has higher economic stability, but lower mobility, due to broader social support systems and much more heavily progressive taxation.
Any study that goes back before WW2 shows a different story in the US, and that's partly because post-WW2 was a major economic shift between the US and Europe, and also because the US has to account for its (relatively short) history of discrimination affecting economic mobility, especially in the South.
A more honest take is that economic mobility is different in both places based on various demographic factors /other/ than economics. If you're college educated and white or college educated and an immigrant your economic mobility in the US is very high, if you are not college educated or not white (but a non-immigrant) your economic mobility in the US is very low. In the EU there is less disparity, but less overall mobility, which can be accounted for partly by the broader parts of society receiving higher education, and partly by the more progressive taxation which prevents massive jumps in wealth accumulation and is used to ensure a higher minimal standard of living for the poorest in society.
You do realize that this has been widely studied and reported on for longer than you have been alive, don't you? It literally takes seconds to pop 'economic mobility' into any search engine and within one or two links you are looking at widely cited academic studies using standard methods for measurement of this mobility and all ending up at similar conclusions regarding how economic mobility in the US was never as great as people claimed in the first place and has diminished significantly over the last two or three decades. The field is so broad and deep that papers which we would now describe as meta-analysis go back to the 70s and a quick bounce through citeseer led to a couple of papers from the 50s that might even qualify as such.
In Australia, laws are very biased to the landlord (despite the opinions of Australian landlords). It's an absolute pain in the arse to rent there.
In Germany, laws are very biased to the tenant. Renting is a totally viable option, people can and do rent their entire lives.
I've lived in both, and seen people trapped in shitty mortgages in Australia because they didn't want to rent, spending half their lives commuting to work. And people paying tiny rents in Berlin because they started the rental contract 10 years ago and the landlord can't raise the rent.
Let me correct you: People who started renting 10 years ago pay tiny rents in Berlin. Pople who will start renting now or in the future, not so much. Unless you're lucky or have connections, the waiting lists are huge to visit a decent apartment in Berlin unless you pay huge markups.
Yeah, it's all getting more expensive. Still waaaay cheaper than rent in Perth, though ;)
My awesome German GF just got us a new 3-room apartment at 900/month in Wedding. I was paying roughly that for a 1-room shitty flat in Perth a few years ago during the "rental boom".
> Anecdotally, my acquaintances who emigrated from the former soviet bloc
It's difficult to generalize the wealth of Europe, so this is not strictly wrong, but it's not strictly correct, either.
Northern countries (at the end of the spectrum, Scandinavian nations) are typically far richer and with more stable job positions than the eastern/southern.
Look at Germany, it's the country and the mega conglomerates with their executives that are rich. The median wealth of Germans is among the lowest in EU:
That statistic is highly misleading. The median wealth in Germany is low due to a low rate of home ownership. But disposable income (purchasing power adjusted) is the highest in the entire EU (data missing for some countries, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Norway may be higher): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/graph.do?tab=graph&plugin=...
If home ownership is not the standard mechanism for long-term wealth accumulation and rental laws are such that they strongly favor the renter it makes no sense to use home ownership as your yardstick for measuring wealth. The ability to take on a huge chunk of debt with which you will speculate on real estate asset appreciation is not an indicator of income.
Due to renter-friendly laws, home ownership is not as culturally ingrained in Germany as elsewhere. Many people who could afford buying simply choose not to.
That data seems really suspicious as looking at salaries in Italy/Spain I find it hard to believe Germany is so much poorer (even in the mean, let alone the median).
Just because statistics say you shouldn't be poor doesn't mean you can't be poor. Just because statistically there is no racism in your area doesn't mean you won't get discriminated and deprived of opportunities.
Because the when certain metrics are used to compile a formula that leads to any ranking, then those parameters are subject to gaming in order to meet an expected result so those statistics are meaningless at the end of the day when you can't move past a certain wage/social class due to the artificial barriers set by a feudal leadership.
Statistically, the unemployment rate in my country should be about 2% while realistically it's much higher since the government doesn't count certain classes of people in odder to make the numbers look god in statistics for the EU.
Anecdotally, my acquaintances who emigrated from the former soviet bloc to North Ameriac and Australia ended up with much more wealth to their name including their own houses vs the ones who moved to Western Europe who basically ended up as serfs to be renters for life.
Do you see the problem with statistics as evidence? They don't tell the whole story.