comment: >
  
  Assuming this is true, you are arguing like this is a positive. Earning more than 105k $ doesnt noticeably increase happiness or life satisfaction. I see it as a failure that you can earn that much if you are born fairly wealthy, while people born into the lower income brakets are basically fucked. 
  You are basically bragging about how much wealth and income inequality there is in the USA.
context: There is literally a global social mobility index and the US is number 27. >
  
  See my previously made edit above. Does not at all apply here >
  
  Just so you know, that is by the WEF. Which the WEF bases on:
  Overall health
  Education access
  Education quality and equity
  Lifelong learning
  Technology access
  Work opportunities
  Fair wage distribution
  Working conditions
  Social protection
  Inclusive institutions
  I own a masonry company, I made just under a million dollars this year, and according to the WEF if everyone was like me the USA would rank below most of subsaharan Africa. >
  
  lmao imagine trusting the WEF to do anything right >
  
  Live in the pod, eat the bugs... >
  
  You'll own nothing and you'll be happy ~~or else~~ >
  
  I tend to agree. There’s no guarantee for sure — but most Americans don’t understand how hard it is to have any opportunity at all in other places where your country decides who gets the opportunities or who can even go to college.
  At least in America, you have a shot if you want to put in the work. >
  
  
  If you start life in the middle class, with hard work you can get into a good college, secure decent scholarships, get good grades in a useful major, get a high paying job out of college, and job hop your way to wealth (+$5MM).
  
  Not everyone is able to get decent scholarships for a variety of reasons. Meaning, lots of people are forced to take loans, and if for whatever reason their professional plans don't go as planned, they will have a hard time paying them back.
  Also, if you have any health emergency and your insuramce ends up not covering, that can put you in big debt and doesn't help much on your journey to become rich 😅 >
  
  What’s an example of an emergency insurance would not cover? >
  
  Instead of listing examples, maybe just consider this for a moment. Not only does the US have the highest rate of medical bankruptcies in the WORLD, but 62% of those people had insurance. >
  
  Because less than half a dozen other countries let you discharge debt through bankruptcy. The rest only allow debt restructuring, and even then in those half dozen other countries you are marked for life. Declare bankruptcy in the US and your debt goes away as well as the bankruptcy being meaningless only ~4 years later. 
  In Finland for instance, insolvency means you lose all access to welfare programs and are a defacto indentured servant until your debts are paid in full with interest
  Do you understand that bankruptcy is an absurdly generous privilege? The alternative was literally debt slavery - you didn't pay your debt back, as such I own you.
  And as far as business bankruptcy law goes, the USA is by far the best with no one else even coming close >
  
  I don't really understand this comment at all. My post had nothing to do with the benefits and drawbacks of bankruptcy. It points out that, in the US (and pretty much only in the US), people find themselves owing a shitload of money in medical expenses despite having medical insurance. It directly refutes the OPs suggestion that having medical insurance is enough to provide financial security (and therefore the claim that the US is an easy country to move from middle class to upper class). >
  
  People declare bankruptcy in the US and that is a good thing because it is literally letting people start over in a way that isn't allowed in any other country. 
  The alternative isn't that you don't owe money, the alternative is that you have no ability to get your debt forgiven and are permanently rendered lower class. Trump has had what, six bankruptcies? He is rich >
  
  Having insurance for something means you should not then have a large expense for that very same thing. Insurance should cover it.
  Also, you act as if bankruptcy is some minor annoyance - as if everyone has a team of lawyers at their disposal making sure everything is in perfect order. How many middle class people have you watched go through bankrupty?  How many of them would tell you that 4 years later they felt like it never even happened? >
  
  
  Having insurance for something means you should not then have a large expense for that very same thing. Insurance should cover it.
  
  A lot of that shit is cutting edge cancer treatments insurance doesn't cover due to the risk of the treatment, or you were a moron and didn't have helicopter insurance
  
  Also, you act as if bankruptcy is some minor annoyance
  
  It is about two weeks wages, yes, that is a minor inconvenience
  
  How many middle class people have you watched go through bankrupty? How many of them would tell you that 4 years later they felt like it never even happened?
  
  Dozens. 
  Medical bankruptcies? They do fine. Not fun but they do fine. Same with business bankruptcies. 
  Personal debt bankruptcies? They dig the same hole that got them into the first bankruptcy with personal spending. Not because the bankruptcy proceeding was all that horrible but because of their spending habits. especially because these are combined with student loans generally, and those don't get discharged without meeting the Brunner test (which is about the standard to actually declare bankruptcy at all in Canada or the UK, and get your debt discharged) >
  
  What data should we look for to prove that the US is the best place to get rich? You’ve mentions some hypotheticals and asserted some facts. If we were going to look at this as genuine researchers, what facts would we need to sufficiently indicate or prove this? >
  
  What middle class? >
  
  Basically if you were born in the US/ Canada, Western Europe, Japan, or Australia and a few more places you have already won the lottery. I've talked to people from Mexico and they talk about the struggle to move up there. >
  
  
  I’ve seen this happen many many times across my peer group before and in a top college.
  
  How many times have you seen this? What degrees and colleges? Were social connections involved in job placement? How much did the parents pay for?
  Trying to quantify how much of this is actually applicable to the "middle class". >
  
  Good questions, out of my HS friend group at least 5/7 individuals are either rich or on the path. Parental support carried from nothing to a couple how had their parents pay for everything. I think some middle class families can afford to pay for college (e.g. with scholarships, priorities in place, high ranking state college)
  It’s anecdotal, but represents the possibility is very much there >
  
  Universities / degrees / jobs? >
  
  Yep, this is exactly my plan, and I’m grateful every day I was born in a country that lets me think of a better future like that. >
  
  COL adjustment and Canada ends up worse and you get the lower rate of business failure because less people are able to start up businesses to begin with due to it requiring more resources. Not to mention the fact that businesses failing within 3 years isn't necessarily a bad thing, often businesses are intended to be temporary  and Canada is prohibiting that >
  
  There's a temporary need for a single product business, and then there's the 1and 3 year survival rates. That's business failure, for sure. And what do you mean? Canada is slightly lower col. >
  
  3 years is a long time. The north Dakota oil boom was only for a decade, and a lot of the highly successful service companies (300-600k a year jobs) were there from companies that were only there two or three years >
  
  Then look at 1yr US fail rate, which is similar to Canada's 3. >
  
  4 million new businesses start each year in the USA, 95,000 start each year in Canada.  1250 new businesses in the USA each year per 100k people, 250 new businesses in Canada each year per 100k people >
  
  Let me throw out Canada. You can get an education there and then emigrate south really easily if you have a job offer and a good education, as well as a chance at the opportunities in Canada.
  You've seen it happen many times in what industry exactly that would include Canadians?
  Also it's really easy to become a millionaire in Zimbabwe, Lebanon, and Venezuela where the inflation is ridiculously high. >
  
  
  Also it's really easy to become a millionaire in Zimbabwe, Lebanon, and Venezuela where the inflation is ridiculously high.
  
  Yeah but he said get rich. Not have a bunch of worthless $ that can't buy anything. >
  
  Are those scholarships full ride? If not, don’t forget about the ridiculous cost of education here. >
  
  Same cost as the UK with wages being triple >
  
  Wages triple but the average home here is also about that. The average mortgage or rent in CA is over $2k for a 1bd apt or small house in a not great area. But every state and country are going to have their own financial struggles. >
  
  
  the average home here is also about that. 
  
  The average price for a detached home in the UK is 575k USD. It is 350k in the USA. 
  
  The average mortgage or rent in CA is over $2k for a 1bd
  
  No, it is 1600 - a lot more to California than LA, one of my brothers is in China Lake, his mortgage is 450 a month. 
  Now, average rent in London is 2250 USD a month >
  
  I have 30k in a HSA as a 26 year old with shit health insurance 
  
  56% of Americans can't cover a $1000 emergency expense with savings."
  
  56th percentile household income is 80k, that is a personal choice, people choosing to be morons
  
  Because no one can afford houses anymore, 
  
  60-70% of Americans own their homes >
  
  
  people choosing to be morons.
  
  Still a failure of the system, whether it's education, or the fact that eggs are $10 a dozen. >
  
  No, it shows American life is so easy you can choose to be a moron
  And you have access to eggs during a devastating bird flu, under most systems there just wouldn't be eggs for sale right now >
  
  eggs aren't the only things that are expensive...
  In the US, one mistake can cost you everything and land you on your "morons" list, hell, it doesn't have to be a mistake, it could just be the ER you went to after that car accident wasn't in your network. There are plenty of first world countries, with more robust safety nets to ensure you can make as many dumb mistakes as you want and still live a middle class life. 
  It's just easier elsewhere. 
  Hell it might be easier just being born in Wyoming versus Florida. >
  
  I think there’s certainly higher variance in outcomes, but that also applies to the top end >
  
  
  Edit: before people mention social mobility indices, that metric is often pegged on lower class to median, not necessarily what I’m describing here.
  
  Why? Lower income demographics do fine in the USA, start out as a concrete truck driver at 18, earn 70k a year. Move to a tanker truck driver, make 90. Move to Walmart and make 120k. Put 20% into investments, 30% into a home, and you are a millionaire at 30 >
  
  The US is the best place to ever start dirt poor and become apart of the wealthy >
  
  You offer nothing to back your views but expect people to be able to change it? 
  I doubt there is any data you would accept that would actually change your mind since I doubt you came to this conclusion through anything but anecdotal evidence. >
  
  Middle class is too ill-defined. Upper middle class is certainly easy to get rich if you want to. I grew up upper middle class and was told multiple times that if I decided to be in certain careers I could be a millionaire by age 27. Spoiler alert, I didn't decide to be in those careers. >
  
  What were those careers you can be a millionaire by 27?! >
  
  Working for your wealthy dad's company. >
  
  There is literally a global social mobility index and the US is number 27. >
  
  See my previously made edit above. Does not at all apply here >
  
  If you're only describing people above the median, and completely ignoring lower income demographics, then any claim you make towards class mobility is inherently flawed and invalid.
  Of course if you start closer to the top it's easier to get to the top.
  Your selective ignorance of statistics is throwing the baby out with the bath water. >
  
  If OP's assertion is true, it would imply social mobility for the lower class is worse than average, which is an interesting consideration. I see no reason you couldn't compare sub groups. >
  
  Then what is the point of this CMV?
  May as well post, "You're more likely to get wet in a river than in the desert."
  Like, no shit. >
  
  "The American middle class" is a pretty damn large demographic >
  
  Only because every American thinks they're "middle class" and reports themselves as such in surveys.
  Doesn't matter if your household income is $45,000 or $4.5 million, every American thinks of themselves as middle class despite what the data show.
  People from low-income demographics who make it into top colleges with scholarships and get a degree and lucrative job offers are rare success stories.
  I say this as someone who did it.
  My story is not typical.
  A lot of stars aligned for me to have those opportunities, and I do not delude myself into thinking I "pulled myself up by my bootstraps." >
  
  
  People from low-income demographics who make it into top colleges with scholarships and get a degree and lucrative job offers 
  
  That is a whole lot of arbitrary bars for success. Literally none of those five requirements apply to me but I still  have half a million dollars in the bank and a paid off home as a 26 year old. I own a masonry company >
  
  How are they arbitrary?
  They exist. >
  
  Literally none of those five requirements apply to me but I still have half a million dollars in the bank and a paid off home as a 26 year old. I own a masonry company. >
  
  Social mobility statistics.   
  The most common social mobility statistics used in the academic literature are:   
  earnings elasticity -- which is how much one's earnings correlate to parental income. This is not pegged to poverty. The measure also contains corrections for what is known as lifecycle bias -- that is, it is expected that a 20-something college student won't earn as much as a 55-year-old with 30 years of experience.   
  In all OECD countries, this value ranges from 0.15 to 0.5, which reflects smaller and larger intergenerational persistence. An ideal value would be 0, where there is no relationship between one generation's earnings and the next. A value of .5 implies that 50% of a parent's earnings advantage is passed on to their children.   
  The USA has a value of around 0.45, this indicates that high earning parent's children have a substantial advantage in the USA over children of middle-income parents,   
  There are also measures of mobility within the labor market. That is, if one starts at a middle-income earning rate, what is the chance that one will stay at a middle-income earning rate. Or, if one starts at a high-income, what are the chances that one stays there? On this measure, the USA is the least mobile OECD country. Again, this isn't pegged to poverty, it includes all levels of the labor market and looks at mobility between earnings tiers.   
  Education attainment is a corollary of earnings mobility. More highly educated people are more likely to become wealthy. The USA again has one of the lowest indices of the OECD nations, people in the USA who are poorly educated have children who are poorly educated at a greater rate than in many other OECD countries. Though we are better than Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovak Republic.   
  Another key factor in social mobility is the ease of starting a business. This is because the quickest path to wealth is to own one's own company. The USA is among the worst nations in the OECD for small business startups per capita and total small businesses per capita. This is largely because the USA's money-for-education system combined with a near total lack of meaningful social welfare means that starting a small business is a significantly higher personal risk than in other OECD nations. Again, this isn't pegged to poverty, as this risk applies to even people with medium incomes who can't afford the risk of starting a small business because of student debt and fear of losing their homes, medical care, ability to feed their families, etc.  
  ​
  In the USA 3.6 people per 1,000 start their own business. These businesses have a roughly 10% 5-year survival rate, according to the SBA, the average small business startup age in the USA is 42 years old.   
  Austria, Belgium, Brasil, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, France, and Turkey have much higher small business start-up rates. By a lot. Spain, for example, starts nearly 30 small businesses per 1,000 people. Nearly 10 times the USA rate.   
  Where the 5-year survival rate is only 10%, in none of those countries is the 5-year survival rate below 50%. Several exceed 70%.   
  One thing that indicates income potential is how many employees an entity has. The USA's average small business size at start-up is slightly less than 2 people. In other words, most companies are really just home-based individual businesses with little economic potential. Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden all have large start-up sizes. Some by a great deal. Norway's average size at startup is over 9.   
  Countries with the highest proportion of millionaires in 2021, in descending order:   
  Switzerland, 16.4% of the population
  Luxembourg, 16.2% of the population
  Iceland, 13.5% of the population
  Australia, 11.2% of the population
  Hong Kong, 10% of the population
  USA, 9.7%, of the population
  Then Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, Singapore, France, Norway, UK, Ireland, Taiwan, Germany, and Austria.   
  Now, countries where the super-rich inherit their wealth (note the where these lists intersect and where they do not):   
  Austria 49.6%
  Sweden 43.8%
  India 31.6%
  Germany 30.8%
  Italy 20.5 %
  France 18.3%
  Japan 17.9%
  Spain 14.1%
  United States 12.6%  - this is the first entry that also appears on the above list of countries with the highest percentage of millionaires.   
  You mention access to high-performing markets. Ignoring the point that it is trivial to trade on global markets from most OECD countries, the best-performing global market index in the world in 2022 was the London FTSE 100. It is the only global index to have a positive return over the year.   
  There is no objective reason to believe that the USA is the best place to become rich for the average person. We have a great myth to that extent, and our ultra-wealthy are very much in the public eye. But, objectively, there are better nations to try to start to become wealthy through hard work. >
  
  
  I’ve seen this happen many many times across my peer group before and in a top college.
  
  How many times have you seen this? What degrees and colleges? Were social connections involved in job placement? How much did the parents pay for?
  Trying to quantify how much of this is actually applicable to the "middle class". >
  
  Is this Fox News middle class where coming from a family making a 800k a year is having it rough? >
  
  Still trying to figure that out because OP is basing this on personal experience and not giving enough details for us to know. >
  
  You offer nothing to back your views but expect people to be able to change it? 
  I doubt there is any data you would accept that would actually change your mind since I doubt you came to this conclusion through anything but anecdotal evidence. >
  
  Meanwhile no one has provided data... >
  
  Look at the top comments >
  
  well mobility to the bottom is just one medical problem away. So the risk is not worth it >
  
  We aren’t talking about medians or averages. The top 
  10% income, Can: ~100k vs US: ~170k
  5% income, Can: ~130k vs US: ~330k
  Those spreads up higher are crazy >
  
  But you're starting from middle class, you said. The following measures I gave are thus the reasonable results of your scenario. Once you have the successful businesses, just move anywhere. >
  
  4 million new businesses start each year in the USA, 95,000 start each year in Canada. 1250 new businesses in the USA each year per 100k people, 250 new businesses in Canada each year per 100k people >
  
  ...and?
  Starting a new business doesn't lead to success or social mobility. >
  
  It absolutely does, you could not be more incorrect >
  
  18% of new businesses in the USA fail in the first year. 30% in their second year. 50% within 5 years. 65% within 10 years… >
  
  What about in canada?  If their percentages are similar wouldn’t that mean USA has more successful new business owner per 100k than Canada >
  
  What data should we look for to prove that the US is the best place to get rich? You’ve mentions some hypotheticals and asserted some facts. If we were going to look at this as genuine researchers, what facts would we need to sufficiently indicate or prove this? >
  
  
  If you start life in the middle class, with hard work you can get into a good college, secure decent scholarships, get good grades in a useful major, get a high paying job out of college, and job hop your way to wealth (+$5MM).
  
  Not everyone is able to get decent scholarships for a variety of reasons. Meaning, lots of people are forced to take loans, and if for whatever reason their professional plans don't go as planned, they will have a hard time paying them back.
  Also, if you have any health emergency and your insuramce ends up not covering, that can put you in big debt and doesn't help much on your journey to become rich 😅 >
  
  What’s an example of an emergency insurance would not cover? >
  
  Instead of listing examples, maybe just consider this for a moment. Not only does the US have the highest rate of medical bankruptcies in the WORLD, but 62% of those people had insurance. >
  
  Because less than half a dozen other countries let you discharge debt through bankruptcy. The rest only allow debt restructuring, and even then in those half dozen other countries you are marked for life. Declare bankruptcy in the US and your debt goes away as well as the bankruptcy being meaningless only ~4 years later. 
  In Finland for instance, insolvency means you lose all access to welfare programs and are a defacto indentured servant until your debts are paid in full with interest
  Do you understand that bankruptcy is an absurdly generous privilege? The alternative was literally debt slavery - you didn't pay your debt back, as such I own you.
  And as far as business bankruptcy law goes, the USA is by far the best with no one else even coming close >
  
  In Finland you don't go in debt for health care or college. >
  
  It isnt the 3k bill from a broken ankle that gets you down, it is the fact that you cant work with a broken ankle and I still have three kids to feed. >
  
  It's both. >
  
  Nah, I am pretty sure 2 million in lost revenue is worse than a 3k bill >
  
  If your losing 2 million in revenue and don't have enough in savings, it's your fault. >
  
  So if a doctor gets a stroke and can no longer practice their work, they are at fault for having a medical issue? >
  
  For clarification, if I were to
  
  born to a middle class in country A, study in country B, work in country C
  
  Is it counted as I'm getting rich in A B or C? >
  
  People have supplied you with statistics that show that your view is not factually correct, but you do not accept them.
  What would it take for your view to change? >
  
  What if you have a moderate medical complication? What if you aren't gifted in the narrow list of subjects that are well paid in the us? What if you aren't white?
  If you are white, healthy and "smart" in the right way, maybe you're right. Most people aren't. >
  
  If you aren’t white then there are usually specific scholarships geared towards helping people of minority groups. Wealth inequality is the main driver for different outcomes in racial groups and the OP specified middle class. It may actually be a benefit in this hyper-specific scenario. >
  
  A scholarship doesn't help when a cop decides to shoot you in the street. If you have stats I'll be happy to see those. >
  
  I totally agree with that, however, this is an issue that primarily effects lower income minorities at a very disproportionate rate. The likelihood of an African American living in a middle class suburb getting shot by the police is no where near as likely as it happening in an impoverished neighbourhood. 
  I could pull up some stats on this if you like but I have a feeling you may agree with this assessment. >
  
  I feel we’re not describing the middle class income. In the Midwest, I think middle class is a household income above $165K. We bring in around $100-$120, generally, ok cars, mortgage, etc… got some disposable income, some to save, but we genuinely balk at buying a brand new car, it would quite literally eat up our play money in a big way. If we had kids? We’d be fucking broke. >
  
  By any normal definition you are very solidly middle class. >
  
  So I was born low-middle class, bumfuck nowhere PA but a dad with a decent job. He got an opportunity to move up the ladder and I spent my adolesence firmly in middle class. 
  And you know what I did? I moved to Peru. And you know what I've done since then? 
  Got a college education for about $2000. Got jobs that paid me 3x what my monthly expenses were. Saved 5 figures for retirement before age 25. Bought an apartment at 30, which is 40% paid off and should be done in about 4 more years at the rate I'm going. Started my own business that has seen YTY growth of over 40%. Oh and my healthcare costs about $20 a month. 
  I am in the top 5% of income earners in Peru. I live fairly luxuriously, treating myself to high-quality commodities and frequent travel. 
  What I earn in the US would leave me destitute. Here I get to be A-tier. Low cost of living means much more expendible income, which means much more investment and property acquisition, which means much more accumulation of wealth. 
  I have no other debt besides the mortgage. No student loans, no medical bills, no credit card debt. These things plague the average American. Peru is also much more shielded from global economic crises. When the US collapsed in 2008-09, I left. And Peru had positive economic growth during that time. Even throughout COVID and today with global financial worries, Peru remains relatively stable. 
  I guarantee I am in a much better position than the vast majority of Americans my age. >
  
  As someone from poverty to slightly above middle class, having an excess of $10k was hard, but getting from $10k to $100k was exceptionally hard. I still work a $70k job doing physical labor because in order to risk turning $100k into $500k+ I had to rely on the 70k say job safety net but slowly positioning myself to not needing the 70k job.
  I'm clearly not complaining about the climb from middle class to being a millionaire, but our financial system was not set up for you to be middle class in the U.S. - you lose all access to financial assistance programs which is basically hanging on by a string in the U.S. and if the U.S. doesn't revamp it's current Housing programs to work against theft by landlords then I suspect there will be major issues in the next decade. 
  People, right now, base their income around not losing access to assistance programs. Making $1 more per hour could put someone over the threshold to earn assistance on food, trading +$160/mo for the loss of $600/mo in food assistance. Then like a domino effect, losing access to other programs. Then if someone were to lose their job, they could not receive access to assistance for several months. I know people afraid of losing their section 8 housing because it could take years to receive it again. I personally had to go apply for food stamps in order to receive funding to take a Nursing Assistance class to get a better job. Now I don't even think that entire program even exists. 
  The middle class spent the 70s and 80s destroying social programs, and then by the late 90s it was hard to transition beyond being poor, and then what was hit next? The middle class.
  You can't even create a business now targeting middle class customers. You want to start a carpet installing business? You are going to be out there doing a large volume of small cheap jobs because there isn't enough of a middle class to support your business. Same with pretty much all residential businesses. Pressure Washing? Lawn care? Concrete? Not enough customers. Many operate on small profit low volume and it's not enough to transition out anymore.
  You want a small business loan? Good fucking luck. Underwriting is basically a thing of the past, finding a financial establishment to actually look at your numbers and analyze them is few and far between. One of the reasons I have held onto my $70k a year job is because even showing tax statements and having 4 times the collateral for a loan is worth less than just applying for a loan with 70k on a W2. >
  
  What middle class? >
  
  Lol the US has the largest and wealthiest middle class in history. >
  
  What defines the middleclass? >
  
  Basically if you were born in the US/ Canada, Western Europe, Japan, or Australia and a few more places you have already won the lottery. I've talked to people from Mexico and they talk about the struggle to move up there. >
  
  You don't seem to know what the words "average", "median" or "middle class" mean. Honestly, do some research. >
  
  If born into the lower class, the US is the worst place to get rich >
  
  Why? Lower income demographics do fine in the USA, start out as a concrete truck driver at 18, earn 70k a year. Move to a tanker truck driver, make 90. Move to Walmart and make 120k. Put 20% into investments, 30% into a home, and you are a millionaire at 30 >
  
  Is that satire? What fantasy world do you live in? >
  
  I grew up in an area where it is viewed as better to pressure wash an oil rig when it is -30 out than be poor. >
  
  LOL, I may not be poor, but I'd much rather be poor than live with whatever misguided backwards mindset you were raised with.
  Also, I still can't get over the fact that you think anyone working at Walmart makes $120k or should live for months on an oil rig instead of living their lives or raising a family. That's some braindead shit right there. >
  
  New west cowboy mentality. >
  
  ...I hate politicians and the government. Republicans are responsible for the unconstitutional mess that is the EPA and OSHA >
  
  Well shit... at least we agree on one thing.