Talk:Socioeconomic mobility in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 June 2019 and 3 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flatif126.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Dear CorenSearchBot, I think you have made a mistake.

First off, http://www.localcolorarts.com/social_mobility/encyclopedia.htm includes the latest lead in the wikipedia Social Mobility article -- which I rewrote fairly recently, (most of this article is lifted wholesale from Social Mobility article and will be rewritten, inshallah) ... so I think the localcolorarts.com page is a simple case of copying wikipedia, not the other way around.

There is much in the article I didn't rewrite, but judging from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_mobility#Give_it_time. this comment] is not copyright violation. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

tag removed
Have deleted --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Plans to rewrite
I created this article as a fork from Social Mobility as that article was loaded with studies and comments from/about the US in violation of wikipedia policy. I am the first to admit that in its current state this article is no prize and I plan to rewrite it, adding and subtracting material. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BoogaLouie, that's fine, but in order for us to fulfill our licensing requirements you should have noted that the original content was from Social mobility when you created the page. We have to give credit to the contributors to that article and we have to make sure that article's not deleted or its history will be gone as well. For more information, please see Splitting. I'll take care of this for you with a Copied template on both articles' talk pages. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! &mdash; madman 20:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Socio-economic mobility in the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Socio-economic mobility in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cbo": From Income inequality in the United States: Congressional Budget Office: Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007. October 2011. From Immigration to the United States: "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments (December 2007)". /Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Education section
" 'Second, because K–12 education is financed largely at the state and local level, resources devoted to education are closely linked with where people live and with the property wealth of their neighbors' " contradicts the theme of the article and further research makes it seem as if this article is written with a pre-determined narrative. The article, in general, supports the claim economic mobility has declined in recent years. However, the claim that education is funded primarily at a local level as support/reasoning for the claim that economic mobility is declining is illogical for the narrative at hand, because in the same years that socio-economic mobility has decreased, funding for public schools has been ever increasingly come from the federal level, rather than state or local. Source: http://educationnext.org/the-phony-funding-crisis/ [National Center for Education Statistics, 2008] 50.37.86.254 (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Tommy

incorrect conclusions in introduction
This quote from the article "US wealth is increasingly concentrated in the top 10% of American families, so children of the remaining 90% are more likely to be born at lower starting incomes today than the same children in the past." is mathematically incorrect. It's drawing a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence (that the lowest 90% have a lower income than the lowest 90% in the past) -- the fact that the difference between the top and bottom is bigger doesn't mean anything about the actual value of the bottom. The article in footnote 11 explicitly states the opposite in fact -- that median family income is 12 percent higher today than in 1980. The article in footnote 12 is not available.

I plan to edit the article, but since it's a significant change to the introduction, and I haven't edited Wikipedia much recently, I thought I'd see if anyone wants to discuss it here first.

Mom2jandk (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction mentions a "large academic study released in 2014" that would show no decline in social mobility. I'm not sure which reference is meant by it, but one of them - Chetty et al - was followed by another study in 2016 (which indeed partly utilizes the same data and methodology as the previous one) and yielded rather different conclusions. In fact, the Opportunity Insights website now features the other study very heavily. I reckon there should then be at least some mention of the 2016 study as it makes both strong, but legitimate claims that (absolute) mobility has in fact fallen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanracesvice (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Intragenerational Mobility
I would like to add the following in response to the Krugman editorial references on lifetime (i.e. multi-year, not annual) income inequality:

"Economist David Splinter of the United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation claims that using panel data (i.e. following the same people over that time period) is more accurate for estimating distribution of economic growth, as "mobility reshuffles adults across income groups, meaning cross-sectional comparisons provide inaccurate measures of the incidence of growth." Up to three-quarters of the increase in annual income inequality is explained by the widening gap between annual and multi-year income inequality. Economist Russ Roberts claims that further adjustments on Splinter's numbers for age shows the largest percentage gains from the past few decades go to the poorest workers "

These sources are at least at the level of the Krugman editorial (one is a working paper from an economist who has been on the United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation since 2012, and the other is a similar style editorial to Krugman's that references many different studies). Given that these are all reputable professionals (none are "fringe") with different takes on the data, I believe all should be included or, failing that, the Krugman editorial should also be excluded. I'm proposing something similar over at Talk:Income inequality in the United States.Barnhorst (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I have evidence that intragenerational mobility grew for both sexes since 1969 and even rebounded after the recession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.87.171 (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)