Okay, more than half of the people at the bottom rise up out of it. And less than half of the people at the top stay at the top. What are you hoping for? Please be as specific as possible.

And what does this have to do with whether a lot of effort and a sense of opportunity is available to the common person?

Most every other developed nation has greater social mobility than the US [1]. Why can't the US reach Scandinavian levels of social mobility?

[1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/ranked-the-s...

Advocates of big government love these metrics that have been put through the academic ringer, so-as to spit out whatever tortured output is expected. Why look at this kind of esoteric figure at all? Why not look at, you know, real numbers?

Spending as percentage of GDP: Denmark - 52% of GDP Norway - 55% of GDP Finland - 53% of GDP Sweden - 50% of GDP Iceland - 42% of GDP

Average - 50.5%

USA - 22% of GDP

What does all that extra spending get them?

Poverty rates: [0] Denmark - 13% Norway - Not reported Finland - Not reported Sweden - 15% Iceland - Not reported USA - 15%

Unemployment rates (2017): [0] Denmark - 5.7 Norway - 4.2 Finland - 8.5 Sweden - 6.7 Iceland - 2.8 USA - 4.4

Household Incomein US dollars (2018) [3] Denmark - $34,712 Norway - $39,555 Finland - $34,497 Sweden - $34,301 Iceland - Not reported USA - $50,292

Household Debt as % of disposable income (2015-2018): [1] Denmark - 281% Norway - 239% Finland - 145% Sweden - 189% Iceland - Not reported USA - 105%

Household Net worth as % of net income (2014): [2] Denmark - 553% Norway - 318% Finland - 359% Sweden - 526% Iceland - Not reported USA - 601%

[0]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook [1]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm [2]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-net-worth.htm#indicator-... [3]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm#in...

Interesting numbers. Where are the spending per GDP from? IMF numbers in Wikipedia put US spending at 35%.

Also should comparing the spending numbers take into account that healthcare, schools and universities are paid by government spending in the Nordics and not from household income?

Honest questions, I'm really interested in these differences between systems.

Ah, I forgot to add the citation on that line. The spending numbers come from the CIA World Factbook site, [0] above.

Your number likely includes State, Regional, and Local spending (which was presumably excluded for all nations in my numbers).

Even with the 33% figure, for the US to make up the ~15% difference would require ~3 Trillion in annual spending.

The existence of Social Healthcare programs in those countries is a huge chunk of the difference, I'm sure.

The US poverty rate is very misleading. It’s not the percent of people in poverty. It’s the percentage of people below a level of income at which not being impoverished is impossible.

Yeah, my impression is that the US has far more real poverty than Scandinavia, so I really wonder what the basis for these numbers is.

What data have led you to that understanding?

Being unable to afford food and a place to live, yet being well above the poverty line.

This link provides more detailed information: https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resources/how-is-poverty-measured/

“ The Census Bureau determines poverty status by using an official poverty measure (OPM) that compares pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963 and adjusted for family size.”

Regarding my definition in the previous comment, I’m unable to find my original source. Sorry.

Okay, but are they worse off because they can't afford as much stuff? They don't seem to be in more poverty, they're healthier, more fit and highly educated.

I can spend an extra 20k as well or poorly as I like.

That 'extra 20K' of income is easy to sneeze at for the affluent, but it means that Americans have ~40% more disposable income. That's huge.

> They don't seem to be in more poverty

They're clearly not 'more in poverty'. The point is that they spend (the US equivalent) of Trillions of dollars per year for comparable outcomes.

>They're healthier, more fit and highly educated.

This is a matter of culture, not economics. The US already spends more per pupil than all of the 'top 5' nations, with worse outcomes. [0]

[0]https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm

Suppose that higher incomes are also a matter of culture.

A full explanation is too complicated for a single post. But here's two good starters.

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-why-gove...

Now that we've addressed your off topic question. Could you please try to explain how hard work and a sense of opportunity is not available to the common person?

Or 58% born in the bottom fifth move up, and 61% born in the top fifth fall down.