Americans are the Wealthiest People in the World on an Individual Basis as Well

America has the Highest Levels of Economic Opportunity and Absolute Mobility (American Dream)

We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” — The Declaration of Independence, 1776.

93% of those in the bottom quintile have incomes greater than their parents’, as do 84% of Americans across all income levels. As Schneider says, “In sum, relative mobility depicts a glass that is half empty, whereas absolute mobility depicts a glass that is half full.” Ideology, of course, will determine which view of the “glass” is more politically useful. But the material amenities and comforts enjoyed by the statistical poor suggest that the visions of Dickensian deprivation conjured by progressives are misleading.

In a Brookings Institution paper, “International Comparisons of Economic Mobility,” Julia Isaacs summarizes longitudinal earnings data contrasting “rags to riches” mobility in Denmark and the United States. The data, for 2004, examine a sample of men whose fathers were in the bottom fifth of the earnings distribution.In Denmark, 14 percent of such men successfully made the climb from bottom to top, whereas only 8 percent of Americans did so.Expanding the scope to encompass the chance to reach the top two fifths yields 33 percent for Danish sons starting in the bottom fifth versus 18 percent for American sons starting in the bottom fifth.

What exactly does this mean? That the opportunity to rise is less available in America? That is not necessarily the case from the data, because it turns out that one has to acquire a lot more riches in the United States to be at the top of the pile. As Isaacs correctly notes, “Americans who climb from bottom to top in one generation are climbing further in absolute dollars than their counterparts in Europe and Canada”.

Exploring this point further, journalist Reihan Salam demonstrated the actual income growth that would be required to replicate the rags-to-riches scenario. Using data from four-person households, Salam found that:

In 2004, Danish households at the 10th percentile earned $25,500, considerably more than the $19,968 income of American households at the 10th percentile. Danish households at the 50th percentile earned around $45,340 against around $53,344 in the U.S. And Danish households at the 90th percentile earned around $70,838 against just under $113,474 in the U.S. Making it from $25,500 to $70,838 is, for obvious reasons, easier than making it from $19,968 to $113,474.

Thus, while “rags to riches” in Denmark required income growth of about $40,000, achieving the same quintile mobility result in the U.S. would have required income growth of about $90,000. Due to the varying widths of the income quintiles, one cannot deduce, based on the 14 percent to 8 percent comparison alone, whether one country yields more upward mobility as we might readily understand the term. Moreover, it is especially important to note that any attempt to compress the distance between quintiles artificially does not create any more economic opportunity or upward mobility, much as redistributing wealth does not create any more of it.

The successful American child is more than twice as rich as the successful Danish child. The competent and motivated Danish child is more likely to want to play in America.

Income distributions are different in different countries. Countries with extended welfare systems tend to have lower median incomes, but less variance in incomes. Countries organized around market principles have higher median incomes, but more variance. This suggests the following question: is there more economic mobility in welfare states than in market-oriented states?

Relative economic mobility is illustrated by the probability children from the bottom 10th of the distribution can move to the top 10th within their working life. Since this trip normally takes multiple generations, the probability is quite low worldwide. The first thing to notice about this comparison is it is a zero-sum process — someone must fall as you rise.

Absolute economic mobility is illustrated by the probability low income children will earn more real income than their parents. This probability remains quite high, around 80 percent. If economic growth shifts the entire income distribution to higher incomes, this is what is meant by “a rising tide lifts all boats”which can only be true if nobody has holes in their boat. We know many people have holes and some appear to be busy putting holes in their boats.

The “American dream” is the promise that children will have more income than their parents, which is an absolute not a relative economic mobility concept. Relative economic mobility also means absolute economic mobility only if the economy is stable or it is growing.

At this point, gentle reader has deduced what is needed for international measures: the probability a child from the bottom 10th percentile can increase his income by a fixed amount (say $30,000) for each country. This would be a direct measure of how difficult absolute mobility is in each country and it is normalized for direct comparisons. Since the U.S. remains the favored destination for the world’s “best and brightest,” I suspect the odds are better here than over there.

Since relative mobility measures are low in the U.S. (due to the wide distribution of income) and are available from multiple studies, they are reported as ample evidence the American dream is dead. The problem is the American dream is an absolute economic mobility dream; relative mobility tells us nothing.

Remarkably, not only do 84 percent of all Americans exceed their parents’ family income, but 93 percent of Americans raised in the bottom quintile do so as well, which gives an important twist on the stickiness concern for those at the bottom of the income spread.In contrast, despite stickiness at the top, only 70 percent of all Americans who were raised in the top quintile were able to surpass their parents’ family income.

It’s possible for a child to experience absolute mobility but decline in relative mobility. This would occur if the grown child has higher family income than his or her parents (i.e. an increase in absolute mobility), but this increase was less than the average change in income across generations for all families.

Each of these mobility concepts can be related to different elements of the American dream. Absolute mobility measures the extent to which opportunities and living standards for each generation exceed those of the generation before. Relative mobility is more ambitious; it assesses the extent to which the sky is the limit and all opportunities are available to everyone, regardless of where they start in life.

So is the American dream still alive? In terms of absolute mobility, the answer is yes. Between 1968 and 2006, 81% of children had a higher inflation-adjusted family income than their parents did, with intergenerational income growing by an average of 84%. Income increased somewhat more rapidly (92%) for families in the highest income decile, but income increased across generations for families at every income decile by at least 61%. Pew’s computations are also quite conservative and almost certainly understate the amount of absolute mobility in the U.S.

The data on relative mobility are more mixed. Forty-seven percent of children born to parents with bottom-third income levels climbed into the middle or upper thirds, while 53% remained in the bottom third. This is less upward relative mobility than would be expected if capabilities were distributed randomly across the population and there were no barriers to economic advancement.

Thomas Sowell has frequently reiterated the fact that most people who are in the bottom quintile of the income spectrum tend not to stay there, and people in the top quintile of the income spectrum tend not to stay at the top. The following graphs illustrate this point clearly:

Social mobility is measured as probability of getting from lower quartile to top quartile or from lower quintile to top quintile or some such thing.

That probability is higher in countries like Sweden or Canada or Germany than in US because the distance to travel is too damn short in those countries.

Take your favorite profession that require a degree: computer programmer, civil engineer, accountant then go salary comparison sites such as glassdor-dot-com

Glassdoor Job Search | Find the job that fits your life

And compare these salaries.

US would be a clear winner over Canada, Germany, France and even very competitive against Sweden, and that is before we factor in income tax.

So yes it is easy to get from lower quartile to high quartile in France when the distance to travel is so pathetically short.

More-so Economic Mobility is not necessarily economic opportunity.

Scandinavian Americas have higher Earnings in terms of Per Captia GDP then their counterparts back in Scandinavia, indicating more economic oppritunity due to culture in the United States.

According to the 2010 US Census, the median household income in the United States is $51,914. This can be compared with a median household income of $61,920 for Danish Americans, $59,379 for Finish-Americans, $60,935 for Norwegian Americans and $61,549 for Swedish Americans. There is also a group identifying themselves simply as “Scandinavian Americans” in the US Census. The median household income for this group is even higher at $66,219.

The levels of economic opportunity for descendants of Scandinavians living in America is considerably higher than their cousins in Scandinavia. We cannot draw definitive conclusions from these figures, since household composition may differ, but there is prima facie evidence that Scandinavians who move to the US are significantly better off than those who stay at home.

Scandinavian culture coupled with US-style policy translates to low levels of poverty, in the same way that Scandinavian culture coupled with large welfare states translates to low levels of poverty.

Opportunity to move up the Economic Ladder are there. Even if Americans don’t interact with them. The Median Income for Asian Americans is 75,245. Largely because of the culture that Persists with Asian Americans. Every Immigrant has the Opportunity to do well in America, as shown with American Median Incomes by Ethnicity. American Median Incomes outperform everyone in their home nations aside from petro-states like Qatar and Noway.

Education is emphasized more than anything else in the Asian household. Get good grades, go to college, or else be a disappointment. Ever wonder why there are so many Asian dentists, doctors, and lawyers? More education is correlated with higher income and wealth. A 2013 Nielsen Research Report found that Asian American households have a median net worth of $89,300 compared to $68,800 for overall US households, a 30% difference. Meanwhile, roughly 49% of Asian Americans have Bachelor’s degrees vs. 28% of the general US population, a 75% difference. This website describes the cultural factors here.

The United States has the Highest Household Income, and 7th highest Nominal GDP Per Captia with the 11th highest GDP PPP Per Captia. The Average American has the opportunity to to make the same amount of wealth as their fellow Americans, as reflected in their average incomes. More or so than any other nation off of solely Household Income.And only less opportunity in terms of GDP Per Captia then city states and petro states. However in terms of Per Captia GDP immigrants in America outperform those in their birth nations, showing higher levels of Economic Opportunity.

The Founding Fathers created a nation in which every individual was guaranteed an equal opportunity. They did not create a country in which every individual would have the same level of talent, the same intelligence, or the same capacities for certain skills. Because of this, through the Declaration of Independence and the framing documents that followed, the Founding Fathers created a nation in which every individual who desired to achieve the American Dream would have the same opportunities to do so. This does not guarantee that individuals would achieve the same outcomes. That would also be dependent upon an individual’s innate and learned skills.

America is the land of opportunity. In many nations, oligarchs control wealth and inherit success, but in America, rags-to-riches stories are not uncommon with people such as Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, and Oprah Winfrey overcoming their poverty and making meaningful contributions to society.

The government of the United States was not created to aid equality of outcome. It was not created to ensure that upon seeking the American Dream, every individual achieves the same goals. Essentially, that is the fundamental principle of a communist society. In a capitalist society as created by the framers, individuals must work to achieve their American dreams. The government’s job is to ensure that the equality of opportunity stays in place and that no individual or group obstructs that right.

Conservatives believe in the American Dream. Not only that. They believe that every individual should have the same opportunity to achieve their own version of the American Dream. This does not mean, though, that every individual will have the same outcome. Not everyone who tries will achieve the American dream and live in pure equality next to their neighbors. That’s where empowerment of the individual comes in. This nation was designed to provide the opportunity for success.

These fundamental principles of the nation have not changed since the Founding Fathers created this country. The government, including Presidents, Congressmen, and local officials, whether Democrat or Republican, make a promise to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Their job is to ensure the general welfare of the United States. Ensuring equal opportunity and fundamental rights is the purpose of the government, the Constitution, and all of the framing materials of this country. To argue that, because the government does not or should not hand out jobs, money, and others people’s hard earned savings, they “don’t believe in equality” is a faulty argument based on a biased opinion of equality. A level playing field does not mean that every player will make it to home base. The nation provides the equal opportunity. It is up to the individual to create, build, and work for the outcome.

However you measure it Americans have considerably more economic opportunity than any other nation, as reflected by cross-country comparisons of Household incomes.

All-in-all, most average Americans have a lot of money, access to high-quality products at low prices, and unprecedented opportunity to excel (high social mobility). Many economists argue that inequality at the level we’re witnessing in the US is a natural and healthy outcome of a thriving economic system — the very system that has produced a thriving middle-class, the innovation that has improved our lives ten-fold, and coincidentally lifted billions of people out of abject poverty worldwide. Americans are rich, have ample opportunities, and anyone who denies this is in fact in denial of the evidence.

The average American is significantly richer than the average Swede, but furthermore the average American of Swedish descent is significantly richer than the average American. Culture is a very important economic factor, as evidenced by accounting balances in the Eurozone, and folks from cultures the world round seem to do much much better in the US.

In America the only thing that matters is how hard/smart you work, not your skin color, name or class. If you analyze all of the demographics in America, you realize that groups whose values focus on education and family prosper.

In America we don’t believe in equal outcomes.Equal outcomes are NOT an American idealthey are a Communist & Socialist ideal. We in America are rooted in Meritocracy what you do and earn is based on your willingness to do anything within the legal limits to gain more knowledge, learn faster, better and cheaper than your peers and do more to train your mind body and soul for the difficult journey ahead.

All this does not equal your desired outcome either it just prepares you to take advantage of all your efforts when it intersects with the right opportunity! Equal Justice & Equal Opportunity to succeed or fail as you see fit as an individual.

America offers more opportunity and social mobility than any other country. In much of the world, even today, if your father is a bricklayer, you become a bricklayer. Most societies offer limited opportunities for and little chance of true social mobility. Even in Europe, social mobility is relatively restricted. When you meet a rich person, chances are that person comes from a wealthy family. This is not to say that ordinary citizens cannot rise up and become successful in France and Germany, but such cases are atypical. Much more typical is the condescending attitude of the European “old rich” toward the self-made person, who is viewed as a bit of a vulgar interloper. In Europe, as in the rest of the world, the preferred path to wealth is through inheritance.

Not so in America. Success stories of people who have risen up from nothing are so common that they are unremarkable. Nobody bothers to notice that in the same family, one brother is a gas station attendant and the other is a vice president at Oracle. “Old money” carries no prestige in America-it is as likely to mean that a grandparent was a bootlegger or a robber baron. Rather, as the best-selling book The Millionaire Next Door documents, more than 80 percent of American millionaires are self-made.

Indeed, America is the only country that has created a population of “self-made tycoons.” More than 50 percent of the Americans on the Forbes 400 “rich list” got there through their own efforts. Only in America could Pierre Omidyar, whose parents are Iranian and who grew up in Paris, have started a company like eBay. Only in America could Vinod Khosla, the son of an Indian army officer, become a leading venture capitalist, a shaper of the technology industry, and a billionaire to boot.

The critics complain that equal opportunity is a myth in America, but there is more opportunity in this country than anywhere else in the world. European countries may have better mass transit systems and more comprehensive health care coverage, but nowhere does the ordinary citizen have a better chance to climb up the ladder and to achieve success than in the United States.

What this means is that in America, destiny is not given but created. In America, by contrast, you get to write your own script. When American parents ask, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” the question is not merely rhetorical, for it is you who supplies the answer. The parents offer advice or try to influence your decision: “Have you considered law school?” “Why not become the first doctor in the family?” It would be very improper, however, for them to try to force their decision on you. Indeed, American parents typically send their children away to college, where they can live on their own and learn to be independent. This is part of the process of developing your mind, deciding your field of interest, and forming your identity. What to be, where to live, whom to love, whom to marry, what to believe, what religion to practice-these are decisions that Americans make for themselves.

In America, your destiny is not prescribed; it is constructed. Your life is like a blank sheet of paper, and you are the artist. The freedom to be the architect of your own destiny is the force behind America’s worldwide appeal. Young people, especially, find the prospect of authoring the narrative of their own lives irresistible. So the immigrant, too, soon discovers that America will permit him to break free of the constraints that had held him captive while offering the future as a landscape of his own choosing.

If there is a single phrase that captures this, it is the “pursuit of happiness.” Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul analyses it in this way:

It is an elastic idea; it fits all men. It implies a certain kind of society, a certain kind of awakened spirit. So much is contained in it: the idea of the individual, responsibility, choice, the life of the intellect, the idea of vocation and perfectibility and achievement. It is an immense human idea. It cannot be reduced to a fixed system. It cannot generate fanaticism. But it is known to exist; and because of that, other, more rigid, systems in the end blow away.

America built through capitalism and private iniative the most productive economy on earth. By an accident of hitpry, America was founded in the same year Scottish economit Adam Smoth published Wealth of Nations (1776). But it was no accidebt tht no country emvraced capitalism and privaste initive ro the degree that America did. America at the turn of the 19th centurywas a still basically agricultural country. Within only a few decades, America developed not the greatest industrial economy in the world, but was out competing the majoe European powers, Britain, France, and Germany. Of all the indusyrial powers, America had the mot capitalit economy with the fewest governmental restictions and taxes.

Most people understand how American industry exceed not only European production in quantitative terms, but also in efficiency. Less well known is that American wages were the highest in the world. American industrial workers received measurably higher wages. That is a major reason why European emigrants flocked to America. It was capitalist America that offered high ways, nit the more controlled European economies. And this continued in the 20th century as the Europeans adopted socialism and the Russians turned to Communism. In simple fact, the worker’s paradise was in America. While European workers cycled to work and farmers had horse drawn carts, American workers had automobile and farmers had trucks and tractors. The phenomenal growth of American industry would be a major factor in the world war II defeat of the Axis.

The United States Has the Freest Labor Market in the World

According to the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, the United States has the Freest Labor Market in the world, next to Somalia.

Labor markets that generally link workers and jobs unimpeded by large trade unions, state-owned enterprises, or excessively restrictive labor regulations. In the private sector, less than seven percent of the labor force is unionized. There are virtually no state-owned enterprises. While labor laws and regulations affect working conditions and hiring rules, they are much less onerous than in Europe Canada Australia New Zealand and even Switzerland .State level licensing rules are the probably the most serious barrier to job changing and to interstate mobility.

America has the Most Influential Culture in the world