In Australia the competition between students at school is also immense, the private schools push the entire cohort really hard. The reason is that a strong cohort will lift everyone, this is statistical byproduct of our grading system.
I'll buy into this more when Heckman repeats his research with comparable data quality in the US. Really weird that he praises the comprehensiveness of his Danish data and then uses, by his own admission, shitty US data or outright acknowledges data gaps in his paper when trying to justify the headline.
Mobility in Denmark has stalled at a much higher level than the USA. Yes the rich get richer and the poor stay the same but how jealous USians are of what Danes call poverty... If only 1/3 of wealth is due to IQ instead of environment and connections then Denmark has stalled, at a much higher level. The problem remaining is how to enable meritocracy for the 1%. The disincentive to strive is real when the opportunities are not there. Introducing poverty as an opportunity not to starve only encourages learning to lie, cheat and steal at all levels. Instead prioritising academic streaming in poor schools would help. With the German micro qualification apprenticeship system for those not in that stream. Compared to that, professional parents and their peers are a weak substitute. And traditional housewives will be teaching the importance of women supplicating benevolent sexism which will not help girls get ahead. I am constantly amazed in the Philippines at how the cost of school and its lost income, is what makes mobility impossible for half the population. Recruiters with a huge labor pool ALWAYS winnow that half by qualification simply to make their job easier. Their main foreign income is first remittances from those who left and secondly prostitution. That incentivises leaving, not striving. Curiously, whenever possible Filipinos open small businesses but there is little diversity because of the cost of skills and equipment. P.S. Australia has a similar degree of diversity to the USA and a high degree of social trust. At root because compulsory voting lets parties appeal to the middle. Those who object can limit their preferential vote to acceptable candidates (eg. voting 1 2 3 3 to limit to 2 preferences). We had free university for a long time with no problems. I am voluntarily poor and work harder than anyone I know. People forget eudonic happiness as a motivator, in countries with an adequate safety net.
This is a great talk. Inequality really isn't the issue though, of course. Inequality is just a red herring and trying to compare the US to how other countries operate is like comparing apples to oranges. The problem is lack of useful financial education and awareness of it, lack of good, intelligent family guidance and support, and people's propensity to rely upon gov't. That being said, even if everyone had the exact same education, the exact same understanding of money and the various pathways to a "better life", the exact same family support that taught opportunity and the cost of everyday individual choices, and the exact same belief on keeping gov't small, not everyone is going to wind up in the same place simply because of individuality. Some people just don't have it in them to become great, or even improve themselves, and they will still seek out mediocrity, or worse, for various reasons. So, treating people as if they're all a part of some large group for the same reasons, then trying to apply a broad brush in an effort to address those reasons is not only foolhardy, it's intellectually lazy and disingenuous. As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Denmark's gov't plan, that the Dems like to cite so often and that the Danes are so proud of for some reason, is ultimately breeding and encouraging mediocrity. They're on their way to becoming Cuba, they just don't realize it yet. Not only is a gov't that is big enough to provide everything is also big enough to take everything away, but a gov't that wants people to rely upon it is a gov't that wants submission and subjects, not free citizens. The talk of gov't being the solution to inequality needs to stop.
When Australia made University free under a Labor government what happened to the mix of students? Nothing. The same kids from wealthy well educated parents got to go for free.
Another taboo is the truth that half of the population is below average IQ. It's how IQ distribution works. There is no Lake Woebegone. Stupid genetics and smart genetics get passed along. Behaviour is also passed along. Wisdom is first taught on a mother's lap and observed in a father's responses and is reinforced by a community. Not everyone wants the same things. Wealth, fame, material items, living location, career and personal interests and measures of success are not universal. Negative evaluation of other's choices can be misguided judgement. Two-parent family life is not encouraged in North American popular culture. There are no prime-time TV characters who positively depict the stay at home mother role. Women who chose to full-time parent their children and manage the household are continuously beset by negative stereotypes and pressure to take up an external job. Why is this lifestyle choice so denigrated - who benefits from convincing this enormous culture change? One result has been the expansion of the labour pool, subverting wages to the point where two average incomes have become necessary where a single income was sufficient in the previous century.
Heckman's dismissive comments on the me too movement is revealing. He strays completely from economics and scholarship to beat his own political hobby horses
Heckman definitely said some disgusting things to grad students and probably grabbed a boob or twenty. You don't go off on that tangent at that age without skeletons in your closet. Heaven forbid women want protection from and accountability for sexual assault.
Heckman is obsessed with the mother transmitting academic values during adolesence. Presumably not to the girls unless they can afford a nanny then tutor then mentor to do the transmitting for them. Denmark bans private schools but not private tutors. And Heckman points out that local schools are economically segregated with elite teachers finding elite schools more rewarding despite having the same wages. The nanny is provided by free childcare and there are many free mentorship schemes. Denmark's remaining problem is free tutorship and career oriented peer groups. And presumably enough training for the parents to teach them to get out of the way. Prioritising academic streaming in poor schools would help. With the German apprenticeshiip micro qualification system for those not in that
