Social Mobility and Income Equality

[jackdale]

I am not the only one concerned.

Still, the most important measure of American economic success is not income equality, but social mobility. Economic inequality can be justified in a fluid society, in which economic advancement is a realistic goal. Economic inequality in the absence of economic mobility amounts to a class system, in which the circumstances of birth are the main economic blessing or curse.

“We are an upwardly mobile society,” argued Rep. Paul Ryan in his recent Heritage Foundation speech, “with a lot of income movement between income groups.” It is the American self-image, but it is only partially true.

There remains a considerable amount of economic mobility, upward and downward, in the American middle class. But nearer the bottom of the income scale, upward mobility is weak and stuck. As a result, according to the Economic Mobility Project, the American economy is less fluid than the economies of Canada, France, Germany or the Scandinavian countries.



Read more: Gerson: Social mobility, not income equality, is biggest challenge

Also here

Economic inequality is the wrong issue - The Washington Post

[PBzeer]

But, on the bright side, it's created a really reliable voting bloc for the Democrats.

(For those that tend to take things too literally, that was sarcasm)

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

But, on the bright side, it's created a really reliable voting bloc for the Democrats.

Seems to have done the same for the Repub's as well. It does clarify what we Rad/Lib Lefties have been saying about huge income disparities and the concentration of wealth into fewer & fewer hands.

Originally Posted by PBzeer

(For those that tend to take things too literally, that was sarcasm)

Got it. (maybe you should make more use of the smilies so we dunderheads get your "too subtle" comments). There's one specifically for sarcasm.

[PBzeer]

No one disputes there is a spread in income, what is at issue, is how much, if any, it constitutes an actual, as opposed to theoretical, problem.

[Rick486]

This whole subject is such a crock. We are upwardly mobile in the US but it takes hard work and dedication. What we have in the US is opportunity. Myself and my siblings are a perfect example. Our parents were hard working in non-professional hourly work. They had no money. We went to public schools, worked hard when other kids were out partying, and made good grades. We won scholarships to upper tier schools and took professional majors. Now we are in the top 5% and have led very successful lives. This is what America is about. Opportunity to succeed with hard work and dedication. There will always be income strata. Most recently, the demise of manufacturing due to globalization and over-regulation has adversely affected the lower middle class in the US. And some have been slow to adapt. Far too many people in the younger generations are adverse to hard work, then whine there is no opportunity for them. Demise of the family unit has also adversely affected them. After working hard my whole life it angers me to see criticisms of our country on "social justice", euphemism for equal result rather than equal opportunity.

[Hagen]

well said,totally agree.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Rick486

This whole subject is such a crock. We are upwardly mobile in the US but it takes hard work and dedication. What we have in the US is opportunity. After working hard my whole life it angers me to see criticisms of our country on "social justice", euphemism for equal result rather than equal opportunity.

So why are social democracies like the Scandinavian countries more socially mobile?

[PBzeer]

So why are social democracies like the Scandinavian countries more socially mobile?

Homogeneous populations, cultural differences, smaller in both area and population, occupational choices, are a few things that come to mind.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Homogeneous populations, cultural differences, smaller in both area and population, occupational choices, are a few things that come to mind.

Those are indeed possible reasons. Got some proof on those being the actual reasons (over say, their more socially democratic political & economic system being the cause)?

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Homogeneous populations, cultural differences, smaller in both area and population, occupational choices, are a few things that come to mind.

That must be it - it couldn't possibly be the "If you ain't rich it's your own fault" attitude that Cain verbalized and which seems to be the essential attitude displayed by American right wingers.

It would appear that you nailed it with "cultural differences".