You’re absolutely correct that, while one may spend time in the a higher percentile, they may then fall back to a lower percentile for the remainder of their life.
Nevertheless, it’s an important analysis because if the majority of people really do spend a few years in affluence, it suggests the uncomfortable reality that there is a higher degree of personal responsibility involved than we may be letting on.
> it suggests the uncomfortable reality that there is a higher degree of personal responsibility involved than we may be letting on.
How did you reach this conclusion? I don't see any link between data demonstrating that most people spend at least one year in relative affluence and even the general concept of "personal responsibility," let alone some sort of specific causal relationship between the two.
Because if the majority of people spend some time in the top quintile (54% spend at least 3 years in the top 20%), it means that the majority of people experience the same (or similar) set of opportunities available to the top quintile income earners. Either they are able to capitalize on those opportunities and stay in the top quintile, or they are unable to do so and fall down to a lower quintile.
Also, nobody is concluding that it’s 100% personal responsibility. Rather, the implication is that personal responsibility might play a greater role in outcomes than some of us are willing to accept.
> Because if the majority of people spend some time in the top quintile (54% spend at least 3 years in the top 20%), it means that the majority of people experience the same (or similar) set of opportunities available to the top quintile income earners.
This is an assumption that you're making, not a logical conclusion which naturally flows from the data. All we know is that 54% of people have been in households with annual income landing in the top quintile three times. The article says nothing about opportunity - would you consider a household where two adults each work two full-time jobs, all four jobs paying $30,000, to have similar levels of "opportunity" to a new CS grad making the same $120,000 total working at FANG?
With regard to social mobility, I found the article's most compelling data to be that representing the percentage of individuals who spent 10 or more years in one of the provided income categories, as that seems more conducive to measuring sustained improvement in economic outcomes. Those numbers are as follows: Top 20%: 31.4%, Top 10%: 14.2%, Top 5%: 6.6%, & Top 1%: 1.1%. These seem to illustrate a far stabler income distribution than that suggested by the 1-5 year figures. I'd be interested in seeing comparable figures for 15 and 20 years, as well, but they aren't readily available.
>Rather, the implication is that personal responsibility might play a greater role in outcomes than some of us are willing to accept.
In all candor, while I could certainly be misreading you, it sounds to me as if you're so "willing to accept [personal responsibility playing] a greater role in outcomes" that you're practically evangelizing for the notion.
This is tangential to the discussion at hand, but, if you feel that the role of personal responsibility is under-emphasized in the United States, my assumption would be that you must spend a lot of time in relatively homogeneous, counternormative circles. American culture has long been characterized by what many other cultures might consider a glaring over-reliance on the ideal of personal responsibility as a means of attaining prosperity (perhaps that cultural inclination is unsurprising, given the unprecedented growth historically experienced by Americans). Personal responsibility is a bipartisan value for most Americans, though what it actually means often remains elusive in practice.
Nevertheless, it’s an important analysis because if the majority of people really do spend a few years in affluence, it suggests the uncomfortable reality that there is a higher degree of personal responsibility involved than we may be letting on.