World's richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder. Calls for lower minimum wage and tax cuts

[Immortal]

Kasz216 said:

Immortal said:

I know it's a bit stupid to ask this now, but what is the exact thing being measured here? Yearly income at the age of 18 or something to that effect? I'd need to know if I'm going to decide how useful it is here.

I'm actually rather impressed if this is a reliable statistic, though. I thought the situation was significantly worse in the US. At least for the top quintile. I expected way more than 25% to maintain their position.

The fact that Denmark is better than the other Scandinavian countries is interesting, as well. From how you describe it, it only seems to be half for the general right-wing economic argument, though. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the huge social safety net seems to be something that's actually aiding the way their system works.

Thanks for looking this up, by the way.

Seems to be.   Nobody in the US though is really going to be for "Greatly increase the saftey social net mostly by vastly increasing taxes on the middle class and poor."

 

Also worth noting by the way.... which isn't really mentioned... the US has a LOT more wealth then your average country... and way more super billionaires and such.   There are far fewer Bill Gates in Denmark then there are the US.    It's hard to lose Bill Gates money.

 

As for what it's measuring.   Basically Fathers earnings were measured in 1978, and compaired with their sons incomes between 1995-2001.

It's problematic that they only used Fatehrs and not household income, but, IRS numbers using household info come up with similar numbers, and are a bit more flattering towards US Economic mobility if I remember correctly.

They did a report with Daughters as well, but it's not as interesting... Daughters being pretty much all right by each other and waaaaay more mobile then sons... and actually absolutely fascinating.

Suggesting there is some social problem essentially with the boys of the poorest parents, espiecally those on welfare.

For example the lowest quintile for Daughters in the US, had their salary earnings work like this.

26/21/25/18/10

Second lowest

And very intrestingly, the richset women seem to have a huge chance for dropping.

22/12/13/22/31

Nearly 1/4th of rich women fall into the lowest level of poverty.  If your born in the highest quintile, you are MORE likely to be in the lowest level of poverty then if you were born poor, middle class or "Low rich"

 

Infact, daughters who end up extreme poverty go like this

26/17/16/19/22

If your born Rich and are a woman, you are MORE likely to be in the poorest quintile then if born somewhat poor or Middle class.    If I had to guess, I would say this is due to the Rich girls not being trained to follow in their fathers footsteps and being sheltered from the world.  

As for why the poorest women are so bad off?   I'd guess teen pregnancy honestly.

That methodology does seem to leave room for a host of errors. A lot of the children could still be studying, given the time period, and could still be relying on their parents to some extent. I'm not sure how much that constitutes "income". I guess you can't really do anything much better, though. If they were very specific with what they measure and what they classify it as, they probably wouldn't come up with anything presentable that you can really conclude anything from.

Also, the statistics for the daughters are even more surprising. For the lowest quintile, given what I'd guess is a significant margin of error, it's more or less equally probable for them to end up in any of the first four quintiles.It's harder to make a general statement about the top quintile, but it also seems fairly decent, really.