We can disagree on whether it’s a straightforward question, and I still contend that it isn’t (“stability” of external issues like the price of oil and eggs, the economy at large, or one’s own income?) but there’s another problem with the question. Obviously those at the bottom of the income ladder, already struggling to get by, would pl…
We can disagree on whether it’s a straightforward question, and I still contend that it isn’t (“stability” of external issues like the price of oil and eggs, the economy at large, or one’s own income?) but there’s another problem with the question. Obviously those at the bottom of the income ladder, already struggling to get by, would place a high value moving up the income ladder, and “stability” to them means staying stuck where they are. Those already at the top don’t need to move up, and of course want things to remain stable. So the question is extremely biased from the start.
Robert: Your last point actually illustrates why the results to the "stability vs moving up" question are so interesting. To your point, one would expect that people at the top would value "stability" more, while people at the bottom would value "moving up" more. And since there are a lot more people near the bottom rather than near the top, that would suggest that "moving up" would be favored.
But it turns out that "stability" was more favored. And not only more favored but by a 12-1 margin! That counter intuitive result is what makes the results so powerful and interesting.
We can disagree on whether it’s a straightforward question, and I still contend that it isn’t (“stability” of external issues like the price of oil and eggs, the economy at large, or one’s own income?) but there’s another problem with the question. Obviously those at the bottom of the income ladder, already struggling to get by, would place a high value moving up the income ladder, and “stability” to them means staying stuck where they are. Those already at the top don’t need to move up, and of course want things to remain stable. So the question is extremely biased from the start.
Robert: Your last point actually illustrates why the results to the "stability vs moving up" question are so interesting. To your point, one would expect that people at the top would value "stability" more, while people at the bottom would value "moving up" more. And since there are a lot more people near the bottom rather than near the top, that would suggest that "moving up" would be favored.
But it turns out that "stability" was more favored. And not only more favored but by a 12-1 margin! That counter intuitive result is what makes the results so powerful and interesting.