Re: More on social mobility

Posted by gepr on Dec 10, 2020; 4:51pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/More-on-social-mobility-tp7599833p7599843.html

Your proposal(s) is (are) too densely formed. Replacing the social status hypothesis with a discontinuous ("fractured") collection of different economies rings true to me. But hybrid (cyber-physical) systems are common, I think. (Common in the Ulam sense of non-elephant animals.) If "economy" already naturally includes mechanisms for the integration of discontinuous sub-economies, then can it explain this political polarization? Maybe it's necessary but insufficient?

On 12/9/20 8:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> 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.

--
↙↙↙ 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/