[FRIAM] More on social mobility

[Marcus Daniels]

It could be that the social status hypothesis is just wrong.   To me it is a different kind of hypothesis.
The play by the rules, do your job, be white and Christian, was enough to get respect.   Clearly there are reasonable bounds on income to achieve this, but if everyone is sort of from the same mold then that's an sustainable economy.    And the growth after WWII was kind of artificial anyway.  Why shouldn't adjusted income be flat?   The factor of 5 or more in the cost of similar properties depending on location in the country says to me the U.S. has fractured into different economies.  I don't see any sign of inequality slowing down.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:06 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] More on social mobility

I think the Kurer quote on automation addresses that:
"that it is voters who are and remain in jobs susceptible to automation and digitalization, so called routine jobs, who vote for the radical right and not those who actually lose their routine jobs. The latter are much more likely to abstain from politics altogether."

... something we discussed relative to materially open (robots vs. unskilled human labor) requirements for a permanent underclass.

On 12/9/20 7:00 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> ..that there was once a “sufficient” level to achieve?


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/