Discussion of The 9.9 Percent is the New American Aristocracy (Atlantic Monthly)

[maizefolk]

I think Trump finally rattled Europe enough to where they will invest heavily in their own defenses going forward. That Russian Bear is currently too strong and emboldened, remember there is only Poland between it and Germany.

I suppose if you count Belarus as enough of a satellite of Russia that it counts as part of the same country. Or are you proposing Russia would launch an invasion from Kaliningrad where supply lines would need to go through at least one of the baltic republics, none of which are particular fans of Russia?

[John Galt incarnate!]

ugh...it is disappointing (although not entirely unexpected) to see people defensively justifying their privilege here.  It shows much of the truth in the article (e.g. blind spots).

I have it, and it is a privilege.  I am grateful for it.  While I did a lot of hard work to get where I am, and don't come from a family of wealth, much of it was simply luck.  In some ways, I don't really want to give up what I have, but I strongly support policies that will reduce my privilege over others.  I think our society would be much better off.

All that said, I do agree that the article has a number of weaknesses, but I don't think the fact that is is telling a familiar tale is among them...apparently it hasn't gotten through effectively yet (and while I doubt this telling will make a significant difference on that front, perhaps it might help a bit).

 

The privilege is being born with a lot of intellectual aptitude and high conscientiousness, both of which are highly heritable,

I agree.

When discussing "privilege" and class differences, omitting  psychometrics is as erroneous as failing to take into account that the reason the Corvette always beats the VW in the 1/4-mile drag race is that  the  Corvette  has a 400 HP engine while the VW's is only 40.



 Mainstream Science on Intelligence was published in the WSJ in December 1994.

It was written by Linda Gottfredson and signed by "a group of academic researchers in fields associated with intelligence testing that claimed to present
those findings widely accepted in the expert community."

The article mentions  the heritability of IQ and succinctly elucidates  the crucial nexus between one's IQ and its effect on  a variety of life outcomes.

I highly recommend it  for its relevance to this discussion.

Here are some of the intelligence researchers' key findings:

Wikipedia

"IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance"

"A high IQ is an advantage because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making"

"The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life’s settings become more complex"

"Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and complex jobs ... but intelligence is often the most important"

"Certain personality traits, special talents, [etc] are important ... in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or ‘transferability’ across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence"

"Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 ... indicating genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences"

[MayDay]

^^ I think there is a freakonomics podcast on the subject too.

[maizefolk]

"Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 ... indicating genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences"

If if heritability is > 0.5 genetics determines the majority of variation in IQ. If heritability is <0.5 (say at 0.4) the majority of IQ is determined by non-genetic factors (such as environment).

There's also the question of whether we're talking about broad sense or narrow sense heritability. Broad sense estimates tend to be substantially higher since they capture epistatic and nonadditive genetic interactions, but in humans can basically only be estimated from twin studies, while narrow sense estimates basically only capture additive genetic variance but can be estimated in any population where you have trait data (IQ scores) and genotype calls for a bunch of individuals.

[Leisured]

There is a saying: ‘rags to riches to rags in three generations.’ True for a lot of people, but not everybody, hence the existence of a class of Old Money. Old Money, in any society, may endure through the centuries for genetic reasons; irresponsible wasters born into Old Money families drop out of that social class by their own actions, a form of natural selection.

The online magazine Aeon has a good article about inequality throughout the ages, suggesting that inequality grows until major wars or plagues reset economic conditions.

https://aeon.co/essays/are-plagues-and-wars-the-only-ways-to-reduce-inequality

Old definitions of social class still hold, with the addition of a Governing class. I have read the suggestion elsewhere that any society, whether large like the US, or small like Denmark, is run by about 5000 people. This class is rich and well connected, and is above the Upper class. So:

Governing class
Upper class. A Jane Austen world of rich people living the good life on rents and dividends.
Middle class. Knowledge workers, who traditionally wear a suit and tie because they do not work with their hands. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, bankers, engineers, salesmen.
Artisan class. Carpenters, brick layers, plumbers, perhaps even electronics technicians.
Working class. Laborers.

Mechanization shifted laborers out of the Working class, and the more capable laborers became artisans, salesmen or accountants. The Working class shrank, and the Middle class grew, as we saw fifty years ago. Upper and Governing classes remained largely unchanged.

Automation cuts deeply into the Artisan and Middle class. Upper and Governing classes remain largely unchanged.

An excellent quote from Maizeman, May 26:

‘The percentage of humans who going to be able to perform productive work in a subsistence agricultural society > the proportion of humans who are going to be able to perform productive work in a manufacturing society > the proportion of humans who are going to be able to perform productive work in a white collar, service focused economy > the proportion of humans who can still be perform productive work in a world rule of robotics and AI.’


The world may divide into a minority living in advanced automated societies, and a majority living in deliberately retro societies, with mechanization deliberately restricted to sixties levels to  create employment. The latter are Trump societies.

[TempusFugit]

"Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 ... indicating genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences"

If if heritability is > 0.5 genetics determines the majority of variation in IQ. If heritability is <0.5 (say at 0.4) the majority of IQ is determined by non-genetic factors (such as environment).

There's also the question of whether we're talking about broad sense or narrow sense heritability. Broad sense estimates tend to be substantially higher since they capture epistatic and nonadditive genetic interactions, but in humans can basically only be estimated from twin studies, while narrow sense estimates basically only capture additive genetic variance but can be estimated in any population where you have trait data (IQ scores) and genotype calls for a bunch of individuals.

duh. 

[maizefolk]

Sorry about that. Mini-rant on a topic that was really had very little relevance to the topic at hand.

[RetiredAt63]

mak1277 - no disrespect, but I can't resist this one.

Easier to do when your big brother takes care of your national defense for you.

LOL - We can't have universal healthcare because we have a big defense budget?
Defense is beginning to come down to who has the best hackers - maybe we should just have an exchange program with North Korea since their hackers consistently win all the trophies at the world hacking conventions in India. We could use some help defending ourselves from the Russian hackers. Oh wait, NK Korea and Russia are friendly already:), right?


Canada is the one no longer embraced in our New World Order?
I think Trump finally rattled Europe enough to where they will invest heavily in their own defenses going forward. That Russian Bear is currently too strong and emboldened, remember there is only Poland between it and Germany.

Interesting times we live in.
We are smart enough to implement our own programs and borrow from ideas elsewhere in the world that work for us.
The question is what will those changes look like for us - can we agree upon them - find support within the ranks of the 9.9%?

Canada has 39 million people.  We do our bit in NATO and the UN.  We were in WWI and WWII from the beginning, and Korea.  We are in Afghanistan.  We have a new peace-keeping force in Mali.  And who is likely to attack us?  At home our biggest worry is that something aimed at the US will hit us.

ETA now that I have had my caffeine - we spend less per capita for health care than the US.  Our health care is not "free", someone has to pay for it, and we all do through our taxes.  The basic principle is that if we all have access to basic health care we will be a healthier country, because people will get their health looked after before it becomes an issue.  A side benefit is that we are not tied to jobs because of health insurance.  Health insurance is for extras, not for basics.  You are having a baby? No problem.  You need your gall bladder out? No problem.  Plus there is so much discussion on these forums about health care in retirement, and it is all the American posters.  Not people from Canada, not Australia, not New Zealand, not the various European countries.  The US has the money for universal health care, and is already spending more on health care than universal coverage would cost, the political will to rearrange things is just not there.  It's not like examples of how to do it don't exist.

[NorthernBlitz]

Easier to do when your big brother takes care of your national defense for you.

My understanding (from 2016 data below) is that the US spends more than 50% more per capita on public health care than Canada does. Then they double that with private spending. This shocked me when I learned it.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-u-s-similar-public-spending-private-sector-spending-triple-comparable-countries

To convert to $ per capita, you need to know that Canada's GDP in 2016 was $42.2k USD per capita and US GDP was $57.5k per capita in 2016 (from google).

So I think that health expenditures per capita (public + private = total):

Canada: $3,123 + $1,308 = $4,431 USD/capita
US:        $4,888 + $5,050 = $9,938 USD/capita

Dan Carlin has a really good podcast on this too.
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-314-unhealthy-numbers/

I moved from Canada to the US in 2013. Since I've been here, it seems to me that most of the discussion is on who should pay. I think this shows that the issue should be about why the US spends so much more per person without seeing much tangible benefit.

If the costs were the same as in Canada, the US could presumably (i) dramatically reduce private spending, (ii) deliver the same system Canada has, and (3) increase spending in other areas with the savings (or maybe just reduce the deficit).

My guess is that costs in Canada are lower because (1) the single payer system puts downward pressure on inflation of medical costs and (2) Canada's public system probably uses more palliative care at end of life instead of spending vast amounts of money for small gains in life extension (particularly for the elderly). I think one main argument against this is that (1) might stifle innovation in health care. I don't know if this is true or not.

[Rosy]

mak1277 - no disrespect, but I can't resist this one.

Easier to do when your big brother takes care of your national defense for you.

LOL - We can't have universal healthcare because we have a big defense budget?
Defense is beginning to come down to who has the best hackers - maybe we should just have an exchange program with North Korea since their hackers consistently win all the trophies at the world hacking conventions in India. We could use some help defending ourselves from the Russian hackers. Oh wait, NK Korea and Russia are friendly already:), right?


Canada is the one no longer embraced in our New World Order?
I think Trump finally rattled Europe enough to where they will invest heavily in their own defenses going forward. That Russian Bear is currently too strong and emboldened, remember there is only Poland between it and Germany.

Interesting times we live in.
We are smart enough to implement our own programs and borrow from ideas elsewhere in the world that work for us.
The question is what will those changes look like for us - can we agree upon them - find support within the ranks of the 9.9%?

Canada has 39 million people.  We do our bit in NATO and the UN.  We were in WWI and WWII from the beginning, and Korea.  We are in Afghanistan.  We have a new peace-keeping force in Mali.  And who is likely to attack us? At home our biggest worry is that something aimed at the US will hit us.

ETA now that I have had my caffeine - we spend less per capita for health care than the US.

Our health care is not "free", someone has to pay for it, and we all do through our taxes.

The basic principle is that if we all have access to basic health care we will be a healthier country, because people will get their health looked after before it becomes an issue.

A side benefit is that we are not tied to jobs because of health insurance.  Health insurance is for extras, not for basics.

You are having a baby? No problem.  You need your gall bladder out? No problem. 

Plus there is so much discussion on these forums about health care in retirement, and it is all the American posters.
Not people from Canada, not Australia, not New Zealand, not the various European countries.

The US has the money for universal health care, and is already spending more on health care than universal coverage would cost, the political will to rearrange things is just not there.
It's not like examples of how to do it don't exist.

You said it - I have nothing to add. I've no idea what it will take to get Universal Health Care in the US. All I hear every time it is mentioned is how it is a socialist idea - liberal bleeding thing to do. Coming from a country that has a similar system to Canada it never ceases to amaze me that people put up with all this inequality
By that I mean that government employees, for instance, have access to good health insurance choices - so why aren't these choices made available to all?
You wouldn't have to change a thing, no new program - just allow everyone access.

There are plenty of other options under discussion - but I guess we should leave that discussion for the thread on "what comes after ACA?"

[Leisured]

It's kinda the problem. If all these privileged people were actually the best choice for their roles, then we'd probably be pretty happy at how things were working out. We wouldn't have greedy bankers ruining the economy because they'd know better. Our politics might actually make a little sense. But no, the aristocracy is entrenched again.

Good point, Omachi. Reminds me of Plato’s Philosopher Kings, able people who govern with wisdom and in the best interests of the State. Donald Trump has shown us that the ‘swamp’ as he calls it, the senior apparatus of state, but not Congress, is not far off Plato’s ideal: clever, very well educated people, with integrity, and imbued with what the ancient Romans called ‘gravitas’. Plato could hardly have dreamed of the knowledge and education available today.

But I agree that bankers and lobbyists lack integrity and gravitas.

I find this discussion better than the original article in the Atlantic.

[backandforth]

Is it just me or it's really the chart in the end doesn't add up to 100%??? See the 0.1 and 99% each have 20% so that's 40%, and 90% has obviously less than 60% of wealth... eyeball it around 55%... so where did the rest of 5% go? For something supposed to rely on hard data, this seems off.

I am not saying I don't observe or agree with a lot of the things in the article. But the chart did throw me off a bit.

I wanted to highlight what I thought was the most interesting thing about the article: how the 9.9% serves as a courtier class to the 0.1%.  The article makes the case that the 0.1% have grown significantly richer over the last few decades relative to even the 9.9%, but they have mostly left the 9.9% alone.  Their wealth has been transferred from the bottom 90%.  We talk about this quite a bit here.  The stock market that helps the 0.1% is a key component of wealth building for MMMers as well, and the 9.9% have seen their fortunes rise along with those at the very top.  The 9.9% is also quite useful to the class above it (above us, I guess I should say).  We excise their tumors, admit their children to Ivys and teach the classes there, write the apps they use, and serve as their most faithful managers.  The more attractive and charming among us can make suitable spouses for their children.

It's an interesting interplay.  The 0.1% and the 9.9% have different political interests.  For example, much of the 9.9% has no political stake in an inheritance tax, at the current or previous levels.   Even wealthy surgeons don't care about the carried interest loophole.  However, neither class has statistically enough members to capture the government.  So, they align with various different members of the 90% to strap on ill-fitting ideologies, and they mutually point fingers at each other.  The most chilling section of the article pointed out that, as soon as the 9.9% is an inconvenience, we'll be thrown to the wolves.  It's already started to happen.  The change in SALT treatment in the recent tax law is aimed squarely at  members of the 9.9% living in gilded zip codes.  And we are a very unsympathetic target, so it's not like anyone is going to care that the taxes on our expensive houses are no longer fully deductible. 

I have a prevailing theory that class resentment is strongest for the class directly above and adjacent to your own, just based on familiarity and the resentment for people we see as being most like ourselves, only more successful. And class snobbery is strongest against the class directly below your own (maybe the own you came from or your parents came from).  That's why we 9.9%ers are bickering about Ivy vs. UCLA in this thread.  It speaks to our own anxieties. The 0.1% bickers about Dalton vs. Collegiate.

I also found the interactions between the 9.9% and the 0.1% to be the most interesting part of the article. 

It will be interesting if the 9.9% will be able to hold on to the same level of wealth (decreased around 1980).

[MishMash]

I hadn't read this before, glad it popped up in the feed.  This EXACTLY sums up a topic of conversation DH and I have had.  He grew up in a generational wealth family, with a never present lawyer for a father and a rotating supply of nannies and au pairs.  Me, I grew up poor as dirt, in a sometimes government aid family due to my fathers illnesses and injuries over the years.

My husband works HARD, I will never chagrin him that.  However he received the abilities for his intelligence and athletic prowess due to the upbringing he received.  He could pursue whatever he wanted, cost was no object.  So he pushed to be the best at everything, because he could.  He lived in one of the wealthiest counties in the US with one of the best school districts. He didn't have to go home and care for his siblings so mom could work, or find a job at 14 to help pay bills.  Success was pretty much a guarantee from the start.   All of children landed in elite private schools and or Ivy League colleges, at least one on a full ride including DH.  DH however is the black sheep because he bounced to the military.

We are the 9.9.  And I appreciate it every. single. day.  Yes we both worked hard to get here, me with paying off my student loans and working in a tech field, him with his career.  But I am in no way delusional that luck (for me) and a "perfectionist" mentality hasn't played a significant part.