Income distribution in America - Quintile breakdowns.

[Devout Pessimist]

get a job that can't be outsourced or make yourself invaluable to a company.. entry level jobs aren't supposed to be a career

Canada has a temporary foreign workers program which means they can bring cheap labor from other countries into Canada. There is no need to outsource when you can bring the cheap labor to your business.

 

[ABACA]

Private ownership of a computer or a shovel is the actual issue? Forgive me for not wanting to go down to Uncle Joe's state operated lawn maintenance depot to check out my Comrade rake to get some leaves for myself or a customer.

Yes, this is a shovel.

Spoiler

Mods, do your job and ban OldGoat already.

 

[panamaican]

Well it's either that or you're just constructing a giant straw man.
Who uses income quintiles in that manner to construct an argument?
"economic mobility" between quintiles is simply used for it's correlation with social mobility.
As a relative measure. Not as a means of measuring the absolute changes in economic situation between generations.
As for the increased size of the quintile...
Do you really think that decreasing mobility would disappear if the population was divided into smaller brackets?
It wouldn't matter if one generation was entirely subsistence farmers and the next generation they'd pulled off an industrial revolution, with the bottom quintile including everything from subsistence farming to clerks and factory hands. If there wasn't any intergenerational relative change, there'd be a systemic reason for the lack of social mobility.
Looks to me like you're just trying to make the old argument that economic growth outweighs social mobility in terms of improving lives.
Problem with that is, even if you could demonstrate a degree of trade off, as wealth and the benefits of economic growth become further concentrated, the benefit of that trade off would obviously be declining along with social mobility.

Plenty of people use income quintiles when discussing economic mobility. Whether it's correlated to social mobility or something else doesn't change that the use of income quintiles doesn't have much value for imparting useful information about changes within society or between nations. You cannot claim that social mobility is decreasing because of changes in economic mobility when the method of measuring economic mobility is income quintiles that themselves are changing.

Second, if the income brackets were smaller, of course mobility would increase. I shouldn't even have to explain this. Quintiles separated by $5k are easier to move through than quintiles separated by $500k. That's just generic math.

As for the entire conversation about social mobility, there are many different ways to measure social mobility. Education for example. But if you want to make arguments about social mobility and base it off of income quintile comparisons then it's a pointless comparison. If you are using some other metric...go right ahead.

As for the conclusion: I specifically said I wasn't challenging anything related to the concentration of wealth.

 

[TheMMAn]

shareholders by nature of being shareholders are inherently greedy.
voters by nature of being the general public will inherently provide an answer on what the public of the state most wants.

LOL at the college lib babble that comes through this forum.

Please define "greedy".

Are you saying that the we don't have laws and policies that the majority of the "public" opposes? That's rich....

Depending on the definition for greedy that you come up with, do you assert that the term does not apply to the "voters" as well?

 

[Ruprecht]

Plenty of people use income quintiles when discussing economic mobility. Whether it's correlated to social mobility or something else doesn't change that the use of income quintiles doesn't have much value for imparting useful information about changes within society or between nations.

Why not? It's limited of course. It doesn't describe economic progress or actual systemic causes, but can you give an actual example of where this information is being used to make an assertion where the changes in the quintile income brackets invalidates the claim?
All it ever purports to show as far as I see, is the degree of relative intergenerational income mobility. Regardless of economic development and changes in the absolute conditions, this still measures the reality of relative social opportunity.
Whether it's better to be an egalitarian society of hunter gatherers, or a wealthy, post industrial society of rigid hereditary title, isn't something it tries to address.

You cannot claim that social mobility is decreasing because of changes in economic mobility when the method of measuring economic mobility is income quintiles that themselves are changing.

Of course you can, because it's a relative measure. All that social mobility refers to is the overall ranking and the changes in those rankings.
If you want to argue that changes independent of rank are of more importance, you're looking at a completely different measure.
You've failed to demonstrate how increasing the breadth of an income quintile in some way invalidates claims about relative opportunity.
Why is it more valid for the rank of your parents income at retirement to predict your rank of income at retirement, simply because incomes overall have increased?
Aside from the argument that economic development is more beneficial to quality of life than social mobility of course, which you say isn't what you're getting at.

Second, if the income brackets were smaller, of course mobility would increase. I shouldn't even have to explain this. Quintiles separated by $5k are easier to move through than quintiles separated by $500k. That's just generic math.

No, it wouldn't. Sure there'd be more movement between brackets, but ultimately that isn't what's being measured. Using smaller brackets would only give more resolution, the overall scope of change in relative ranking would remain the same.
That's the mobility being measured.

As for the entire conversation about social mobility, there are many different ways to measure social mobility. Education for example. But if you want to make arguments about social mobility and base it off of income quintile comparisons then it's a pointless comparison. If you are using some other metric...go right ahead.
As for the conclusion: I specifically said I wasn't challenging anything related to the concentration of wealth.

Why is it pointless? Do you think there's a measure of social status more accurate than income? Isn't social status relative?
Do you not think that the ability of children of the lowest income earners to become ranked amongst the highest income earners represents social opportunity?

 

[CableandThanos]

Plenty of people use income quintiles when discussing economic mobility. Whether it's correlated to social mobility or something else doesn't change that the use of income quintiles doesn't have much value for imparting useful information about changes within society or between nations. You cannot claim that social mobility is decreasing because of changes in economic mobility when the method of measuring economic mobility is income quintiles that themselves are changing.

Second, if the income brackets were smaller, of course mobility would increase. I shouldn't even have to explain this. Quintiles separated by $5k are easier to move through than quintiles separated by $500k. That's just generic math.

As for the entire conversation about social mobility, there are many different ways to measure social mobility. Education for example. But if you want to make arguments about social mobility and base it off of income quintile comparisons then it's a pointless comparison. If you are using some other metric...go right ahead.

As for the conclusion: I specifically said I wasn't challenging anything related to the concentration of wealth.

Pan,

Sorry man, looks like you thread is dying a slow death.

When people ignore that everyone is making more and complain about their spot on an imaginary chart, and then don't even know or understand the size of the quintiles, it's all down hill from there.

Then you have people come in with wanting $40,000 minimum wages and others saying it is impossible to succeed unless you are white., and saying it is impossible to work more than 40 hours a week.

No wonder it is hard to debate on here, You give detailed info on a chart/graph that is commonly used, and you explain why it is basically useless, and people still complain about their spot on the useless graph and ignore the income.

 

[OldGoat]

Yes, this is a shovel.

Spoiler

Mods, do your job and ban OldGoat already.

Censoring an opinion you disagree with? True to your totalitarian nature. Your argument is very weak don't cry about it learn and step up your game.

Anyways I am glad you trust the political class to control police the courts the military and all the means to production. That's never gone wrong.

 

[ABACA]

Censoring an opinion you disagree with? True to your totalitarian nature. Your argument is very weak don't cry about it learn and step up your game.

Anyways I am glad you trust the political class to control police the courts the military and all the means to production. That's never gone wrong.

Nah, read the new forum rules. No trolling allowed.

If you can't distinguish between industrial capital and a shovel then you're either something I got dubbed for calling you or a troll.

 

[OldGoat]

with all the evidence I see everyday of worker exploitation?
Yes.
And then the cons cry that the unions should be shut down!
I don't even really care about unions, just fair wages.

A fair wage is what you are willing to take and someone is willing to pay.

 

[OldGoat]

Nah, read the new forum rules. No trolling allowed.

If you can't distinguish between industrial capital and a shovel then you're either something I got dubbed for calling you or a troll.

You don't see the issue in the inherent conflict of interest in the political class determine what is a allowable capital good to be owned by the private sector? What intrinsic quality of politicians would prevent that additional power from being abused?

The shovel seems facetious but it isn't. Liberty is easy to lose but extraordinarily difficult to gain. Especially liberty lost for a "noble" pet cause.

 

[MarcoW]

LOL at the college lib babble that comes through this forum.

Please define "greedy".

Are you saying that the we don't have laws and policies that the majority of the "public" opposes? That's rich....

Depending on the definition for greedy that you come up with, do you assert that the term does not apply to the "voters" as well?

the public, at least in Canada, I don't know about gun toting America, cares about fair paying jobs, effective public healthcare, education and the environment.
Many shareholders care about these things too, but in regards to their shares only advise, generally, on what will make them the most money.
That is corporate greed. So many corporations have shown it. Destroying the environment at the cost of making more profits. At the government level, slashes programs to have slightly less debt.

Canada is the only country in the world to have left the Kyoto accord. Do you know how embarrassing that is? They are basically sold out to oil companies.

Remember the cigarette companies fighting against science for years, telling people that cigarettes didn't cause cancer?

But sure, keep thinking corporations aren't greedy, and don't care above profit over all.

 

[panamaican]

Why not? It's limited of course. It doesn't describe economic progress or actual systemic causes, but can you give an actual example of where this information is being used to make an assertion where the changes in the quintile income brackets invalidates the claim?
All it ever purports to show as far as I see, is the degree of relative intergenerational income mobility. Regardless of economic development and changes in the absolute conditions, this still measures the reality of relative social opportunity.
Whether it's better to be an egalitarian society of hunter gatherers, or a wealthy, post industrial society of rigid hereditary title, isn't something it tries to address.

In the simplest answer I can provide. Relative to what/when/where? If the income quintiles are increasing in size then people can be rising relative to each other without leaving their respective quintile brackets compared to previous generations.

When a quintile is $30k wide, a $40k change between parents/children = a new income quintile while a $20k increase doesn't. When the quintile is $50k wide, that $40k change means the same quintile, the same as the $20k increase. So, which measure tells you something? Do you say that the $40k increase today isn't real social mobility, even though it was social mobility for your parents? Are we now saying that a $20k change is the same as a $40k increase just because your income quintile is no longer increasing?

In real world terms, how does that make sense? Just because you're not leaving your quintile doesn't mean that you're not experiencing real growth in terms of your economic mobility and social mobility.

To flesh out this absurdity. What if we simply used income medians to measure mobility? If you don't move from the bottom half to the top half you're not experiencing mobility? So moving from the 49th percentile to the 51th percentile is mobility but moving from the 20th to 39th isn't. The whole thing is misleading and becomes more so the further apart the 2 economies being measured are in space and time.

Of course you can, because it's a relative measure. All that social mobility refers to is the overall ranking and the changes in those rankings.
If you want to argue that changes independent of rank are of more importance, you're looking at a completely different measure.
You've failed to demonstrate how increasing the breadth of an income quintile in some way invalidates claims about relative opportunity.
Why is it more valid for the rank of your parents income at retirement to predict your rank of income at retirement, simply because incomes overall have increased?
Aside from the argument that economic development is more beneficial to quality of life than social mobility of course, which you say isn't what you're getting at.

You keep talking about social mobility when I'm discussing economic mobility. They are separate things. One can provide clues as to the other but it's not an exclusive relationship. Social mobility can be achieved through a variety of means beyond intergenerational economic increases.

I guess I'll pose a different question here: What are the specific social strata and are they delineated by income or by income quintile? For clarification: What social class is defined as the bottom 20%? Why is it's defined by $24,700 instead of $25k or $23k? What's the social strata of the next 20%? so forth and so on.

No, it wouldn't. Sure there'd be more movement between brackets, but ultimately that isn't what's being measured. Using smaller brackets would only give more resolution, the overall scope of change in relative ranking would remain the same.
That's the mobility being measured.

Sure, that would make sense if the quintiles were equal in size across time or nations. Smaller brackets would simply provide greater resolution. But when the brackets are constantly changing in size it means that what would constitute mobility this year wouldn't constitute mobility next year.

Or to put it another way: What's your control for economic mobility across nations or time? If we're making relative comparisons, we need a static baseline before the relative comparisons can start to mean anything.

Why is it pointless? Do you think there's a measure of social status more accurate than income? Isn't social status relative?
Do you not think that the ability of children of the lowest income earners to become ranked amongst the highest income earners represents social opportunity?

Of course social status is relative but, no, moving from lowest income to highest income doesn't represent social opportunity unless you're only discussing moving from lowest to highest.

In between lowest and highest, what are these social strata you keep referencing? Maybe in some other country what you're talking about might make sense. But here the children of doctors go to the same schools and play on the same teams as the children of plumbers. They go to the same colleges. The parents can drive the same cars.

Social mobility in this country is far different from simply economic mobility. Our professional athletes make incredible economic strides while maintaining the same social status in many cases.

You're applying an old world mentality where the merchant class never interacts with the peasants or the nobility because social status is a somewhat fixed concept that you either buy your way out of or marry your way out of.

Cliff notes:
1) Relativity still requires a baseline. Changing quintile sizes means there is no baseline.
2) Social mobility and economic mobility are not the same thing.
3) Social status in this country isn't tied to income to the same extent as in other (old world) nations.

 

[ABACA]

You don't see the issue in the inherent conflict of interest in the political class determine what is a allowable capital good to be owned by the private sector? What intrinsic quality of politicians would prevent that additional power from being abused?

And why exactly do you think there is a distinction between the "political class" and the bourgeoisie? Also, why do you think the "political class" doesn't already determine what is allowable capital to be owned by the private sector?

You are aware that private slavery is illegal and that 18 year old men are all required to register with Selective Service and that many capitalist countries have an active draft? Further, many countries mandate that certain natural resources, such as energy, are public, and thus do not allow private capital to extract those resources?

The shovel seems facetious but it isn't. Liberty is easy to lose but extraordinarily difficult to gain. Especially liberty lost for a "noble" pet cause.

The shovel isn't facetious, but only because its not funny. To equate the barriers of entry into industrial production with $24 and a ride to home depot is silly, not facetious.

Liberty is not the privilege of the bourgeoisie to own capital and labor power, the claims to which require state violence to enforce.

 

[GermanBJJ]

Note: I have already said that I'm not challenging any of the distribution numbers. Only that the ability to change income quintiles is a worthless statistic. People bring it up all of the time in comparisons to other nations or in comparisons to mobility in the past. But unless the quintiles are the same across nations or across time periods, you can't compare quintile mobility.

Your analysis has nothing to do with supporting your conclusion. You've only shown that each quintile has shown growth over time. So what? Why does that mean quintile mobility is irrelevant? Have CAGRs been similar across all quintiles? Or are they dramatically different? That's pretty freakin important!

It's not a debated point that the highest quintiles are capturing a larger and larger percentage of economic growth than in previous generations. So why the heck wouldn't people want to be able to move up the quintile bracket? If $100 enters the economy, I'd much rather capture 80% of it than 20% of it, thank you very much.

And why do quintiles have to be the same in absolute terms for comparison? That literally negates the ENTIRE PURPOSE of quintiles.

 

[Ruprecht]

In the simplest answer I can provide. Relative to what/when/where? If the income quintiles are increasing in size then people can be rising relative to each other without leaving their respective quintile brackets compared to previous generations.

Relative to the other fourth fifths of the population. That's all that's being measured with quintiles. The relative ranking doesn't change with the size of the income bracket.
I'm still waiting for an example of someone supposedly using the quintiles to make an argument about absolute wealth, or any argument which the increase in quintile size makes invalid.

When a quintile is $30k wide, a $40k change between parents/children = a new income quintile while a $20k increase doesn't. When the quintile is $50k wide, that $40k change means the same quintile, the same as the $20k increase. So, which measure tells you something? Do you say that the $40k increase today isn't real social mobility, even though it was social mobility for your parents? Are we now saying that a $20k change is the same as a $40k increase just because your income quintile is no longer increasing?

In real world terms, how does that make sense? Just because you're not leaving your quintile doesn't mean that you're not experiencing real growth in terms of your economic mobility and social mobility.

Like I keep saying, absolute and relative mobility are different measurements. No one is saying current generations aren't, for the most part, materially better off. You keep bringing up absolute mobility as if it counters the validity of points made about relative mobility. It's the same old argument that economic growth (ie absolute mobility) is more important than (relative) social mobility.
They are looking at different things. One is primarily about overall living standards and economic growth, the other more about opportunity, political enfranchisement, meritocracy and the other values underlying Liberal Democracy.

To flesh out this absurdity. What if we simply used income medians to measure mobility? If you don't move from the bottom half to the top half you're not experiencing mobility? So moving from the 49th percentile to the 51th percentile is mobility but moving from the 20th to 39th isn't. The whole thing is misleading and becomes more so the further apart the 2 economies being measured are in space and time.

Well obviously a binary image hasn't got the resolution to portray very much information, but it doesn't matter when you are looking at the overall level of mobility.
Unless there's some freakish legal or social artifact that prevents movement across the median, there's no reason to think that a decrease in movement from the top to the bottom isn't matched by a similar decrease across the entire range.
Decreasing relative mobility.

You keep talking about social mobility when I'm discussing economic mobility. They are separate things. One can provide clues as to the other but it's not an exclusive relationship. Social mobility can be achieved through a variety of means beyond intergenerational economic increases.

I guess I'll pose a different question here: What are the specific social strata and are they delineated by income or by income quintile? For clarification: What social class is defined as the bottom 20%? Why is it's defined by $24,700 instead of $25k or $23k? What's the social strata of the next 20%? so forth and so on.

Sure, that would make sense if the quintiles were equal in size across time or nations. Smaller brackets would simply provide greater resolution. But when the brackets are constantly changing in size it means that what would constitute mobility this year wouldn't constitute mobility next year.

Or to put it another way: What's your control for economic mobility across nations or time? If we're making relative comparisons, we need a static baseline before the relative comparisons can start to mean anything.

You say you are talking about economic mobility, but you are criticising the use of quintiles. The point is that nobody uses these quintile mobility measurements when trying to make points about absolute mobility or economic growth. You're criticising them for an argument which no-one has made.
The selection of quintiles is arbitrary. The social class referred to is defined purely as relative income. The comparisons are simply how much movement there is in relative positions overall.
As per the example I gave in my previous post, this specific measurement doesn't say anything about the overall wealth, economic growth or standard of living (aside from equality of opportunity) within a society.

Of course social status is relative but, no, moving from lowest income to highest income doesn't represent social opportunity unless you're only discussing moving from lowest to highest.

And everything in between. The point was that more movement across the entire spectrum relates to more social opportunity. Are you arguing that there would be less movement across the arbitrary 20% measurement points, but somehow still more improvement in relative mobility within each quintile?
Seems like a ridiculous argument to make...

In between lowest and highest, what are these social strata you keep referencing? Maybe in some other country what you're talking about might make sense. But here the children of doctors go to the same schools and play on the same teams as the children of plumbers. They go to the same colleges. The parents can drive the same cars.

Social mobility in this country is far different from simply economic mobility. Our professional athletes make incredible economic strides while maintaining the same social status in many cases.

You're applying an old world mentality where the merchant class never interacts with the peasants or the nobility because social status is a somewhat fixed concept that you either buy your way out of or marry your way out of.

I didn't mention social strata or classes. In fact I specifically said the divisions are arbitrary.
It's simply a fact that income is the most empirical measurement of social status. Especially when focusing on political representation, health, education and employment opportunities.

Cliff notes:
1) Relativity still requires a baseline. Changing quintile sizes means there is no baseline.

No it doesn't, or not of income, because it's a ranking, not an quantitative measurement.

2) Social mobility and economic mobility are not the same thing.

That depends on how you define it, and income is the most common empirical measure.

3) Social status in this country isn't tied to income to the same extent as in other (old world) nations.

Regardless, if you call it relative income ranking, the implications are the same.

 

[Zankou]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to both sides of the argument. Really what has happened is that as the economy has continued to grow, the middle and lower classes have stayed locked in place, and the upper economic classes have taken almost all of the economic growth --- they have disproportionately seized an ever-larger share of the total economy.

Part of the reason why this has not, and really can't in my opinion, created a revolutionary political climate is because the lower and middle classes are simply not that badly off in absolute terms, and as long as they aren't actively declining, they will let the upper classes continue to siphon off the benefits of overall economic growth. People aren't starving in the US (the opposite, even the poorest amongst us tends to be fat as can be), and they have cable television, and health benefits. So just the fact that the rich are becoming much richer doesn't mean their situation is getting worse for lower classes.

This does create problems, however, because increasing social inequality tends to have negative long-term effects on the economy and society. In other words, it's not strictly true that just because somebody else is getting more doesn't mean you are being harmed when your income stays the same. As a simple example, the fact that inter-class mobility is now much more limited, even if that is because of the growth of upper income segments, means there is now much less reason to politically ally yourself with other classes. It dissolves the basis for broad political identity. Over time, the rhetoric about class mobility becomes increasingly ridiculous, and people tend to recognize their class-bound nature, whilst being disgusted with it. The result is a balkanized population where every faction is out to ream every other faction, particularly when overall social diversity in increasing rapidly. See the Middle East for how that works.

This is badly aggravated by the overall shift towards wealth appreciation. Income disparity is just part of the problem. Not only are the upper segments getting more and more of the income growth, they are also getting far more of the wealth growth, which is itself outpacing income growth.

Major political, social, and economic problems can be expected to result *particularly* in the event of an economic crisis.

 

[panamaican]

Your analysis has nothing to do with supporting your conclusion. You've only shown that each quintile has shown growth over time. So what? Why does that mean quintile mobility is irrelevant? Have CAGRs been similar across all quintiles? Or are they dramatically different? That's pretty freakin important!

It's not a debated point that the highest quintiles are capturing a larger and larger percentage of economic growth than in previous generations. So why the heck wouldn't people want to be able to move up the quintile bracket? If $100 enters the economy, I'd much rather capture 80% of it than 20% of it, thank you very much.

And why do quintiles have to be the same in absolute terms for comparison? That literally negates the ENTIRE PURPOSE of quintiles.

Have CAGR's been similar across all quintiles? You're right it's probably pretty important and you don't learn that answer by simply saying that quintile mobility is faster or slower there, here, this year or 40 years ago. Exactly the point. There's far more important information out there.

Your section about the $100 dollars baffles me - you're saying that simply being in the higher quintile means you'll capture more of the income. When the truth is that you get to the higher quintile by performing actions that capture more income. Your example seems backwards.

The purpose of quintiles is not to compare them to other people's quintiles. The purpose of quintiles is to understand that one snapshot in time of your populace divided into even 20% sections. You could do it with halves, deciles, or quartiles or anything you want.

But if you want to get into the world of comparing quintiles then you need a baseline against which the comparisons can be placed in context. It can be as simple as "The average quintile internationally is $XXk wide." Then America's quintiles are smaller/larger by X% coupled with greater or less mobility. Germany's quintiles are smaller/larger by X% and coupled with greater or less mobility. Accounting for the difference in quintile size, Germany's mobility is greater/lower than America's. Until you account for that, your comparisons are empty.

 

[OldGoat]

And why exactly do you think there is a distinction between the "political class" and the bourgeoisie? Also, why do you think the "political class" doesn't already determine what is allowable capital to be owned by the private sector?

You are aware that private slavery is illegal and that 18 year old men are all required to register with Selective Service and that many capitalist countries have an active draft? Further, many countries mandate that certain natural resources, such as energy, are public, and thus do not allow private capital to extract those resources?



The shovel isn't facetious, but only because its not funny. To equate the barriers of entry into industrial production with $24 and a ride to home depot is silly, not facetious.

Liberty is not the privilege of the bourgeoisie to own capital and labor power, the claims to which require state violence to enforce.

Even working class people can buy stocks and bonds. Working class people can form partnerships or coops. They can even save money within their family and buy tools, software, computers, etc with which to start moving into the ownership class.

Will they likely be a Vanderbilt or a Gates? Doubtful, but that's even doubtful for most of the Vanderbilt family.

Now, even if you despise corporate power at least corporate power is diluted by the sheer numbers of corporations that are fighting in the market place. In politics you have one party rule (tyrannical usually), tyrannies with no parties, or two or so competing parties. The power that political parties has is vastly greater than corporate power.

 

[ultramanhyata]

This is why your views are so short sighted.

The dreaded CEO of big companies, say 500 people are making more money while some are making less.

Ok The CEO of starbucks makes $10 million, Tell me How does that effect you getting a raise at work? Go ahead I'll wait.

You are complaining about 500 people in a country of 315 million. 500 people whose salaries means jack all to you me or anyone elses life.

This is the moral equivalent of refraining from the prosecution of a guy who develops a hacking software that takes $1 out of 50 million bank accounts and transfers them into his own.

Since none of the "victims" was impacted financially by the theft - in anything other than a symbolic way - the crafty, new multimillionaire should get an ethical pass.

Great basis on which to determine right and wrong societal behavior, professor.

 

[panamaican]

...a bunch of things I never said - removed for brevity's sake...

No it doesn't, or not of income, because it's a ranking, not an quantitative measurement.

And a ranking requires a standard point of comparison. You cannot rank things that aren't operating under some common guidelines, ie. a baseline, for the comparisons.

You can't compare sprinters unless they're all running the same distance. You can't compare weight lifters unless they're using the same exercises and competing with the same weight progression.

We don't compare students across nations or across time without first establishing an exam doesn't change over time or an international test for students in different countries to take. We don't just say everyone in America in 1956 got A's in math so they must be smarter than the kids in 2006 who got B's. If what is being taught changed in the interim it must be accounted for before the comparisons can begin.

You cannot compare mobility across quintiles between different nations or during different calendar years (the only point I am addressing) without first establishing some unifying factor.

That depends on how you define it, and income is the most common empirical measure.

Social mobility and economic mobility are not the same thing. They have their own definitions. It's not up to how I, or you, choose to define them.

A simple example: Poor nobility vs. rich merchants. The merchant cannot change social status simply by changing his economic status. Whereas the noble can change his economic status without ever leaving his preferential social status.

Regardless, if you call it relative income ranking, the implications are the same.

I'm not talking about relative income ranking and I'm not addressing the implications thereof. You're making a bunch of arguments about points I simply never espoused.