那你说说怎么个困难法？只要有工作证明租房证明暂住证户口本就能入学，这些难道在美国不需要吗？ in state有啥不对？Boston的资源确实好，多少高中生去大学实验室实习，跟教授打的火热，还不说当地有多少harvard mit的alumini。你觉得其他地方的学生如果能上harvard就会因为离家远放弃？
那你说说怎么个困难法？只要有工作证明租房证明暂住证户口本就能入学，这些难道在美国不需要吗？ in state有啥不对？Boston的资源确实好，多少高中生去大学实验室实习，跟教授打的火热，还不说当地有多少harvard mit的alumini。你觉得其他地方的学生如果能上harvard就会因为离家远放弃？
那你说说怎么个困难法？只要有工作证明租房证明暂住证户口本就能入学，这些难道在美国不需要吗？ in state有啥不对？Boston的资源确实好，多少高中生去大学实验室实习，跟教授打的火热，还不说当地有多少harvard mit的alumini。你觉得其他地方的学生如果能上harvard就会因为离家远放弃？
85打酱油 发表于 7/19/2017 10:38:10 PM
至少波士顿也没自己出个boston only 的 sat的卷子吧。harvard 录取的波士顿地区新生 sat 有significantly 低于别的城市吗。
那你说说怎么个困难法？只要有工作证明租房证明暂住证户口本就能入学，这些难道在美国不需要吗？ in state有啥不对？Boston的资源确实好，多少高中生去大学实验室实习，跟教授打的火热，还不说当地有多少harvard mit的alumini。你觉得其他地方的学生如果能上harvard就会因为离家远放弃？
那你说说怎么个困难法？只要有工作证明租房证明暂住证户口本就能入学，这些难道在美国不需要吗？ in state有啥不对？Boston的资源确实好，多少高中生去大学实验室实习，跟教授打的火热，还不说当地有多少harvard mit的alumini。你觉得其他地方的学生如果能上harvard就会因为离家远放弃？
我以前还真是住edgewater去曼哈顿上班的。 Edgewater,jersey city去上班的方便程度绝对是住北京四环内的程度。door to door45分钟。燕郊door to door得2小时吧。 坐ferry真的不用地铁票了。直接坐shuttle. 中城这一块那些大公司都是walking distance from port authority, ferry shuttle stops. 在下城工作就去住jersey city呗。 这个房子纽约水电工还是负担的起的。北京四环的房子北京水电工应该是负担不起了。
中国有5亿农民沦为赤贫经济奴隶。 美国呢？ niernier1 发表于 7/20/2017 11:52:44 AM
这数据怎么来的？ In China today, poverty refers mainly to the rural poor as decades of economic growth has largely eradicated urban poverty.[1][2][3] The dramatic progress in reducing poverty over the past three decades in China is well known. According to the World Bank, more than 500 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty as China’s poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 6.5 percent in 2012, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms.
美国的
In 2015, 13.5% (43.1 million) Americans lived in poverty.[6] Starting in the 1930s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations.[7] The lowest poverty rates are found in New Hampshire, Vermont, Minnesota and Nebraska, which have between 8.7% and 9.1% of their population living in poverty.[8] In 2009 the number of people who were in poverty was approaching 1960s levels that led to the national War on Poverty.[9] In 2011 extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, was double 1996 levels at 1.5 million households, including 2.8 million children.[10] In 2012 the percentage of seniors living in poverty was 14% while 18% of children were.[11] The addition of Social Security benefits contributed more to reduce poverty than any other factor.[12] Recent census data shows that half the population qualifies as poor or low income,[13] with one in five Millennials living in poverty.[14] Academic contributors to The Routledge Handbook of Poverty in the United States postulate that new and extreme forms of poverty have emerged in the U.S. as a result of neoliberal structural adjustment policies and globalization, which have rendered economically marginalized communities as destitute "surplus populations" in need of control and punishment.[15] In 2011, child poverty reached record high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households, about 35% more than 2007 levels.[16] A 2013 UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world.[17] According to a 2016 study by the Urban Institute, teenagers in low income communities are often forced to join gangs, save school lunches, sell drugs or exchange sexual favors because they cannot afford food.[18] There were about 643,000 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people nationwide in January 2009. Almost two-thirds stayed in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program and the other third were living on the street, in an abandoned building, or another place not meant for human habitation. About 1.56 million people, or about 0.5% of the U.S. population, used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009.[19] Around 44% of homeless people are employed.[20] In June 2016, the IMF warned the United States that its high poverty rate needs to be tackled urgently by raising the minimum wage and offering paid maternity leave to women to encourage them to enter the labor force.[21]
这就更不能比了
哈佛 instate 学生多是因为招生政策倾斜还是因为离家近。就算倾斜有像中国这么明目张胆地域歧视的吗。北京人自己都说了，北京清华大学就是北京人的大学，人家从小长在这里，凭什么要别人走，无法反驳啊。
再说美国没了哈佛还有普林耶鲁宾大加州理工等在各个不同州的好大学。
纽约更是了，commute 中城40分钟，三个bed 1500 sqrf 100万以下的地方大把。北京上海呢。
要是在美国发展读普林耶鲁，跟在中国发展读复旦浙大，不是一样的吗，耶鲁普林的又不会来中国抢饭碗
[p=20, null, left]New England[/p] [p=20, null, left]16.5%[/p] [p=20, null, left]Middle Atlantic[/p] [p=20, null, left]21.3%[/p] [p=20, null, left]South[/p] [p=20, null, left]18.7%[/p] [p=20, null, left]Midwest[/p] [p=20, null, left]10.1%[/p] [p=20, null, left]Central[/p] [p=20, null, left]1.7%[/p] [p=20, null, left]Mountain[/p] [p=20, null, left]3.3%[/p] [p=20, null, left]Pacific[/p] [p=20, null, left]15.6%[/p] [p=20, null, left]Territories[/p] 0.3% [p=20, null, left]International[/p] [p=20, null, left]12.4%[/p]
但是中国现在随着经济发展，阶级固化也在越来越厉害。
在中国，一命，二运，三风水，还有个 四读书。读大学的时候，身边不乏靠读书摆脱了原生家庭阶级。
去port authority commute 23 min by bus， 这个点儿还有车。
我儿子混的再差就算当个瓦匠，这个房子还是买的起的吧。
但如果这在北京上海我就不知道了。
LZ问哪里有mobility， 谁贴个个人收入（inflation adjusted）的图， 不就知道了？！
in state有啥不对？Boston的资源确实好，多少高中生去大学实验室实习，跟教授打的火热，还不说当地有多少harvard mit的alumini。你觉得其他地方的学生如果能上harvard就会因为离家远放弃？
至少波士顿也没自己出个boston only 的 sat的卷子吧。harvard 录取的波士顿地区新生 sat 有significantly 低于别的城市吗。
难度自己看。搜狐新闻，不是我编的。
好吧，额外要求就是住的房子不是违建，有些地方要求提供居住半年以上证明，这些很过分吗？这边也不是头天搬家第二天就能入学吧？水电单据这样的居住证明不也要一两个月
没有读过，
但在北美有幸和不少北京上海同学们一起读过北美的高中，其中不乏人大附附清华附理科实验班，上海四大高中尖子班的，结果怎么样你猜？本人二线省会城市超级中学普通班中等偏上。
西城区和海淀区则明确，多人合租房不能作为开具证明的依据。海淀区教委表示，必要时需提交安全责任书，证明租住地宜居。
看见没？合租都不行。而且各种证明需要的时间都是一直在变的，每年都不一样，随政府心情而定。这都不是困难吗？
除此之外，东城区要求租房时间距2017年5月15日满半年并提供相应的证明。西城则要求申请人提供2017年4月30日前一年以上的租房完税证明。
同一个城市不同的区，规定都不一样。你觉得不是困难？
我们坚决拥护照顾弱势高考地区如西藏甘肃青海。
也不介意拥有高质量教育资源的两都用同一张考卷来虐我等教育资源一般的地方。
但是 对于中国的城市人口特别是大城市的人来说 绝对在美国阶级固化严重多了 阶级形成时间和社会发达时间在那摆着
如果老百姓过日子的中产阶层美国给人更多的机会，基本上只要努力，上不来大学，学一门修车，电工之类的手艺一样中产
下层--相对美国固化些。政府福利太好，没有了奔头，几代人吃福利长大。
到了就业阶段，也仍然有大量没有进过名校的美国人取得巨大成功。
在相对稳定，政策有延续性的情形下，才好比较。
大姐这个房子离迈哈顿就15min ferry 去hudson yard， 20 min bus 去中城。
阶级分化也就是这十几年的事情，固化程度不了解不好评论。
☆ 发自 iPhone 华人一网 1.11.11
re~~~~~~~~
可以参考燕郊或天津。
燕郊27分钟到北京，火车票才9人民币
天津35分到北京
Edgewater的Ferry到曼哈顿月票3百多美元，也许再加上121刀的地铁月票。很少有人在Ferry 码头或port authority 附近上班的
巴士要过隧道，堵起车来，是家常便饭
房价还要加上每个月的管理费和地产税。美国人大部分都买不起这样的房子。
看看全国近年高考录取分数线，别总黑北京了
有些人怎么是地域和阶级混为一谈，概念。。。
最后一句话真是醉了。。。。凭房事一项，中国人还得感谢共产党！？到北京市中心27分钟的地方北京人有几个凭自己工资买的起的？
最同意的一个回复了！感觉有的回复有些跑题了，阶级是一直都存在的，固化才是中心思想。。。。连一群猴子里都还有阶级呢。。。
美国中产阶级跨度挺大的，从下中产到上中产，感觉日子都过的不错，但是要跨越到上层，很难吧。。。。。。
Edgewater,jersey city去上班的方便程度绝对是住北京四环内的程度。door to door45分钟。燕郊door to door得2小时吧。
坐ferry真的不用地铁票了。直接坐shuttle.
中城这一块那些大公司都是walking distance from port authority, ferry shuttle stops.
在下城工作就去住jersey city呗。
这个房子纽约水电工还是负担的起的。北京四环的房子北京水电工应该是负担不起了。
中国还有可以高考这个人才选拔制度。虽然说现在课外补习班也是砸钱的，但是每年还是有很多寒门弟子（凤凰男女）通过勤奋学习考上名校的。前阵子不是还有个清华新生下肢瘫痪，家境贫困，学校还给他们母子单独安排了宿舍。虽然说以后不一定大富大贵，但是摆脱原生家庭，留在一线城市甚至出国打拼是有可能实现的。
在中国，除非是真的很大的官，普通富二代煤二代想上名校还是有难度的，最多走后门进个本省大学。再有点钱送国外，想进中国名校是很难的。
美国有钱人就便利多了，小孩都是上名校。我们这些外来人口，第一代混个码工faculty就不错不错了，想往上爬实在太难。
In China today, poverty refers mainly to the rural poor as decades of economic growth has largely eradicated urban poverty.[1][2][3] The dramatic progress in reducing poverty over the past three decades in China is well known. According to the World Bank, more than 500 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty as China’s poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 6.5 percent in 2012, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms.
美国的
In 2015, 13.5% (43.1 million) Americans lived in poverty.[6] Starting in the 1930s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations.[7] The lowest poverty rates are found in New Hampshire, Vermont, Minnesota and Nebraska, which have between 8.7% and 9.1% of their population living in poverty.[8] In 2009 the number of people who were in poverty was approaching 1960s levels that led to the national War on Poverty.[9] In 2011 extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, was double 1996 levels at 1.5 million households, including 2.8 million children.[10] In 2012 the percentage of seniors living in poverty was 14% while 18% of children were.[11] The addition of Social Security benefits contributed more to reduce poverty than any other factor.[12] Recent census data shows that half the population qualifies as poor or low income,[13] with one in five Millennials living in poverty.[14] Academic contributors to The Routledge Handbook of Poverty in the United States postulate that new and extreme forms of poverty have emerged in the U.S. as a result of neoliberal structural adjustment policies and globalization, which have rendered economically marginalized communities as destitute "surplus populations" in need of control and punishment.[15] In 2011, child poverty reached record high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households, about 35% more than 2007 levels.[16] A 2013 UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world.[17] According to a 2016 study by the Urban Institute, teenagers in low income communities are often forced to join gangs, save school lunches, sell drugs or exchange sexual favors because they cannot afford food.[18] There were about 643,000 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people nationwide in January 2009. Almost two-thirds stayed in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program and the other third were living on the street, in an abandoned building, or another place not meant for human habitation. About 1.56 million people, or about 0.5% of the U.S. population, used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009.[19] Around 44% of homeless people are employed.[20] In June 2016, the IMF warned the United States that its high poverty rate needs to be tackled urgently by raising the minimum wage and offering paid maternity leave to women to encourage them to enter the labor force.[21]
美国虽然有一些family，比如kennedy，bush，但是，美国的政治并不完全固化，普通老百姓，才能特别突出的，如果有机会，还是可以跻身于美国政治圈，选选州长，议员什么的。中国的政治圈，绝对是固化的。不是出生红二代的，或者跟红二代结婚的，很少有可能打入政治核心。
中国的经济地位，看似没有固化，但是中国是一个政治决定经济的国家。很多富豪，一夜之间打入赤贫，甚至坐牢，所以，有再多钱，也没有什么安全感。
中国的资源分配比美国固化的非常严重。大部分资源基本集中在北上广，还有一些省会城市。美国的资源分布80%以上由市场决定。人员流动性极高。资源也随着人员的流动，不断做着调整。再加上，美国是一个崇尚underdog文化的国家。所以，不若中国喜欢看出生，看家族的习惯。是一个真正英雄不问出处的国家。所以，才会出现像林肯这样的寒门子弟成为总统。
当然现在有些地方，是给钱求着转户口了，这都是后话了。
美国更固化，往上升不容易。大学招生的制度对有权有势有钱人有利。
以我们公司为例，职位越高，收入越高的，孩子上的大学也排名越高。良性循环，将来找的工作，配偶，朋友圈又档次更高。
私立大学昂贵的学费，把一部分中产阶层的孩子推到本州州立大学。
所以美国是个赢者通吃的社会。
中产阶层的孩子，如果读个普通大学的不好找工作的专业，很有可能往下走
这个比较法有问题
美国，是拿中产 比 上流社会
中国，贫门 比 好日子
美国的贫门，如果你是住在贫民窟的，出头更难。都是drug，crime。读书也没法好好读。
90年代到现在的这波计算机热潮，算是难得的机遇，帮助大批中国印度的留学生轻松进入中产阶层
好哇，回来记得share数据，ps记得考虑到中国少数民族的总人口和美国少数族裔占总人口的比例
左和右的主要区别之一是，左派喜欢颠覆搞剧烈变化，如革命；右派还算满意基本现状，只想改良
一旦中国阶级固化加剧，上升通道又关闭着，大部分人没有正常途径改善生活，就会左倾，最后的结果就是闹革命