Please don't take this to be a crass response, as I understand your pain (I grew up in a military home, with a father who does have both a bachelor's and master's degree) and there were often tight times... especially during the early years. Military men/women don't ever get rich... take a look at the pay scale, and consider that cost of living shift, etc affect disposable income.

However, you have three sincerely difficult things going against you, of which all three are within your control. I'll preface this by saying that the President won't change this for you, and regardless of the administration, your situation would be roughly the same.
1. Menial (unskilled) labor has never afforded a comfortable living outside of unionized industry, which never was particularly effective for American industry (another debate, of which I'll win time and time again). Your husband, as honest and hard working as it seems, won't ever get ahead with an unskilled labor occupation, and rightfully shouldn't. If he were to move on to bigger and better things, it doesn't take long to replace a "labor position". Gaining training, education, etc would probably be easy to come by in the form of federal grants or scholarships, considering your financial situation and age. Maybe there was a day that the blue collar/manual labor would get you a decent life, but frankly, those days have been gone for over 25 years. It's an information age, in which the US economy has changed its core competencies from stark industrial production to technically centered industry. That "good ol' union job" wasn't good for America...

2. Geography limits opportunity. Often people in the US feel trapped, but never consider that there are 50 states, and while their locale may limit opportunity, leaving may change their lives for the better forever. I live in Dallas, for instance, but am originally from Louisiana. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to understand that the opportunities in Dallas are far more plentiful than in Louisiana.... there is more industry, more competition for better employees, etc

3. Many (if not most) American households rely on two incomes. I personally have what I consider to be a wonderful civilian job, a Marine Reserve check monthly, but my better-half (so she says!) is an RN and still works full time. In order to maintain two cars, a mortgage, etc... it wouldn't be feasible for her to stay at home and for us to be comfortable. What's keeping you from contributing to the better of your home?

Upward mobility may never mean sitting atop the Trump towers, or walking down moonlit beaches in front of your 5000 sq ft mansion, but can mean financial stability, comfortable living, and saving for children's tuition and/or retirement. It often requires sacrifice on the front end in order to have a better life in the long run.

I've refrained from using personal anecdotes until now, but will gladly to illustrate my point. I came from a very middle class family, whom had a hard time paying for my education, in which case I worked full time the last 2 years I was in college in order to pay the bills. That included taking 15-18 hrs in college while working 40+ hrs/week to get that sheep skin. I also augmented my income and paid tuition with student loans. What does that mean? That means I was in a deep hole upon graduation, with a job not paying a ton of money... which of course has since changed, but the question is why?. Because I took care of the debt by joining the Marine Reserves (in which case I've been activated on two occasions), and I've worked 50+ hour weeks in my career for years in order to get "ahead". My wife has a professional job with similar responsibilities, and we're never going to make it to "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". However... we've got a nice home, two decent cars, and a few bucks to play with at the end of the month. Is it because I graduated HS and spent time hangin' out in bars for the past 10 years? Not no, but heck no. I've paid dues that many on the "left" would've never even cared to entertain, because I don't want to live paycheck to paycheck... but my lifestyle is by no means due to entitlement or handouts

I'm a caucasian from a middle-class family, with what some peers believe is a "picket fence" reality life, but nobody knows the late nights and years of work to get to what many consider "average".... rich is in the eye of the beholder. A wonderful (and cute!) woman, a truck with ac that starts every morning, a comfortable house with two great dogs, a vacation every now and again, and money for a cold beer when I want one... that's "rich" to me...

You sound rather spoiled here, Aaevans. Especially number three. It's nice that you own all of those things, but good childcare costs about 2000 dollars a month for two children, which I can't imagine you are advocating for an indigent family. Even awful childcare is still expensive. When I was growing up, my mother had to work and she placed me in a home that offered babysitting services. She came around in the afternoon unexpectedly to check on me and found they hadn't changed my diaper since she had dropped me off at 5AM in the morning. Eventually, after trying several other similar services she took me to work and I grew up virtually alone in the back of a hot sweaty dry cleaner store, propped all day in front of the television and a box of crayons. Again, childcare is expensive. It is much better for a family to have a stay at home spouse with small children in the home, and one income (the primary childwatcher) will suffer even when those children are in school because that person will be the one to leave work early, drive 'em home when they are sick, and move when the primary provider's job moves.

I didn't know that truckers were unskilled workers. I thought they were blue collar skilled workers. At any rate, blue collar jobs pay pretty well these days. The handiman who swept bird poop off of our roof received 300 dollars for a 30 minute job. Our neighbor is a bartender who provides rather well for his family and that is the only source of income. Bricks layers, constructions workers, exterminators, ect all make a good living out here in Vegas. Childcare providers receive a minimum of 10 dollars an hour.

Artemise and Nigthtimer, I think you both have valid points. I also think that Aevans indicated how it might be possible to agree with your points, but still feel America presents a wealth of opportunity. What I think is happening is we are talking around each other...having opportunity is not the same as saying that most people can take advantage of that and move up in life. Personally, I think many of the poor are unaware of the opportunities they do have, probably mainly due to their social environment (which is why, as I stated earlier, it is indeed extremely difficult to change your lot in life, regardless of whether opportunity is present or not).



I agree with this statement. One of the prime opportunities that is present in America is the ability to become an entrepreneur. This is probably the only way one could experience a true rags to riches change. However, to take advantage of this requires proper preparation and planning. Business plans must be prepared, which requires education and probably some computer training. Due diligence must be done when preparing this business plan, which takes considerable time and effort. The vast majority of business plans are inadequate, which is why so many small businesses fail. This doesn't mean that the opportunity doesn't exist...it just demonstrates that it's not easy to take advantage of it.



This is exemplary of what I think the problem is. To me, no one should expect to be able to enjoy those things on minimum wage. Minimum wage is just that...minimum. It is not designed for anyone to maintain for a career. Anyone who plans to survive and prosper on minimum wage has failed to plan properly for their life. Unskilled labor is just that....unskilled. What opportunity is out there that places a premium on lack of skill? In order to succeed in this country, it is imperative to acquire a skill, whether through training, experience, or education. If you do not acquire a skill, you will indeed likely suffer throughout life. However, I do think the government could do more to educate our poor on this. I think there are a wealth of programs and opportunities available to them, but too often they are unaware of them, or of how to participate in them. This benefits the poor, and incidently raises them up in income, thereby increasing the tax base. Sounds like a win-win to me. I am quite sure the European countries cited in Julian's study do this better than we do, which is partially why they show a more mobile society. I imagine Britain is closer to us in this respect, and that is why the study shows that they are less mobile--comments, Julian?



First, hard work alone is probably only sufficient to maintain one's lot in life. Hard work doesn't really equal opportunity. To get ahead requires a plan for where you want to be, what you need to work hard at, how that will get you where you want to go, and what must be done in order to get there. Then, the application of hard work to that plan is indeed likely to bring success. Without such a plan, hard work is basically unskilled labor done for long hours...that will help pay the bills, but is unlikely to get one ahead in life.

As for the issues surrounding work vs. family, that is indeed a very difficult situation. The short answer, I think, is that people have to choose which is more important. Also, part of the answer is that this must also be planned...people need to know where they want to be before they have kids, as it is indeed very difficult to get there afterwards. I think workplaces are becoming more parent friendly, and that this trend will continue. It basically has to, since failure to do so limits a company's ability to acquire and retain skilled employees. Many companies and buildings provide day-care for kids, often using the parents on a rotational basis to help monitor them. If such a facility is not available in your company or location...there's an opportunity for you!

Mrs P, I don't think that you read the latter part of my post. Please do so, and we'll argue the subject matter, as there is nothing that I have that was given to me. I paid for my college, worked full time to support myself, have worked long/tiresome hours in order to attain the level of comfort I feel that I have earned.

It has nothing to do with being spoiled, and to explain, truck-drivers are often not skilled laborers; except for the fact that they can pass the CDL test. Except for many Over-the-Road drivers, many have no formalized training. Many Americans could quickly learn to drive a big truck, and in fact, I've done so on numerous occasions during my military experience (sure-enlisted men usually do it, but when we went to Afghanistan, we shipped out of New Orleans... a 10hr drive straight thru-had to do my part, and on the way back)

I believe what I meant by skilled labor would be something that required schooling, an apprenticeship, and/or a program designed to provide the training. This could include being a brick mason or a CNC machinist. What about maybe a TIG/MIG welder? Even OTR truck drivers go to school.

Your story about childcare brings up an interesting point, but you negate the fact that many states now provide assistance for child care expenses (and also brings up an interesting debate... for another thread).

It is much better for a family to have a stay at home spouse with small children in the home, and one income (the primary childwatcher) will suffer even when those children are in school because that person will be the one to leave work early, drive 'em home when they are sick, and move when the primary provider's job moves.

These seem more like personal anecdotes rather than objective debate of the facts. Even if someone were to take a part-time job, work from home, or seek federal aid for child care costs, they'd get ahead. Neither your nor her post discuss these ideas. I have a college degree and have spent time digging post holes in the desert, have moved boxes in 110degree heat, have slept in a cot in the desert, etc. It was what had to be done and I understand that. During college I worked nights and weekends for years, leaving effectively little down time. Many Americans think that there should be a factory on the corner that pays UAW wages to make toasters, which never broaches the topic of international trade.

Your mention of Vegas somewhat makes my point... sweeping poop off a roof is something people don't want to do, bartenders (especially good ones) in metropolitan areas are effectively sales people for the establishment (and can make/break a bar), brick masons are trained (and apprenticeshipped) professionals, and exterminators probably aren't getting rich unless they own the company or are commissioned based upon the # of homes they do (here in Dallas they're hourly workers but make money for upselling plans... trust me-I have one).

It's all about supply-side economics, which is the basic principle behind wage determination. Let's uses Nurses (RN's) for now (my wife's occupation). 10 Years ago, there wasn't a huge demand for them. Some RN's have 4 year degrees (like my wife), but many have 2 yr degrees and pass state cert's. Many garner 1.5-2X what they'd have made literally 5-6 years ago, coupled with huge signing bonuses, etc. WHY? Because in the past... the job didn't pay well and had sincere down sides (too gross to discuss here), with huge responsibility. Over time, the number dwindled, coupled with the hospitals increasing their responsibilities, hence the need for more nurses. The increased need caused the increase in wages!. Simple enough?

Ok- a truck driver with little or no formal training, whom can be replaced by someone relatively easily, probably shouldn't garner the same wage, should he?
Consider if you owned a trucking company or one that utilized truck drivers. If there was a shortage of CDL qualified drivers in your town, you'd probably have to pay more to keep the drivers. However, considering that often times this isn't the case, the wages are lower. Supply-side economics 101.

Summation??? How about training for a job that is in demand, and probably will be for some time? IS/IT people often times have a couple yrs of training and are integral parts of companies. Mechanics are still in high demand, especially aircraft mechanics. Machinists still do pretty well, and electronics techs (i.e. ITT Grads) do pretty well in many cases. What about Rad Techs? They require 2 yr degrees and make anywhere from 17-26 dollars/hr (depending on shifts) here in Dallas.

Rags to Riches? It all depends on what you deem to be riches....

American unemployment is 25% - you are just dead wrong here.

Having a mortgage means that I don't own my home? Does this mean that if I have a car payment I don't own my car?
In reality home ownership is at an all time high (70% I think) and our houses happen to be 2 or 3 times larger than those in Europe.
I never said that. Are you saying that athletes and entertainers don't work hard? Most actors on even the lamest sit-coms have taken theater, vocal and dance training. Most of them would be far and away the most talented person in any community theater. Same for athletes. There are plenty of examples of people succeeding in these fields due to their own hard work, which appears "lucky" to those of us not in those fields.



Actually, if you aren't calling for re-distribution of wealth, then why do you care what CEO's make? Why are you even bringing it up?

I'd also like to know the percentage of workers who get up every morning and go to work and still make minimum wage after even a few months? If I start at McDonalds tommorow, it would be at $8 per hour where I live. After 6 months of merely showing up on time and punching a clock, you'd be making $1.50 more. If you can speak Spanish, they'd probably make you shift manager in 9 months. Your post makes it sound like there is some hard-working stiff out there who goes to work every day since 1996 and he's still making $5.15 per hour.


I'm sourcing my claims here, and the information is from the US Census. Please cite data that shows otherwise if you disagree.



Many of us have cited our own hard work and social mobility.

Let's not get side-tracked by re-defining poverty or by how good or bad certain populations have it in this country. My claim is still that every family in America can do well, if they work hard and take advantage of opportunity. I've seen nothing to contradict this yet, but I'm willing to listen.

As we seem to be focusing on Europe for our comparison, I think it's useful to note that another "New World" country has a very similar mindset. In Australia having a home with a yard for the "barbie" and sending your kids to university is called "The Australian Dream."

I think Hobbes has addressed the actual crux of the matter more than any other poster on this thread - CW and Aevens- optimism is nice, but unrealistic. Luck has such a huge part in everything- even with an outstanding business plan and training. Still companies fail, still good ideas go down the tubes, and in America, poeple STILL starve to death- rare, but it still happens. I have worked with the poor in one way or another since I was 16 years old- either by voluteering or by the fact that I work at a mental hospital, with side jobs working with the indigent hoping to help them get on thier feet.

When a dog is beat down enough, they stop getting back up- it is the hopelessness that makes for a lack of upward mobility as much as the reality of how hard it is!

NT said he wasn't for the re-distribution of wealth- I however, am for some checks and balances on thier ability to milk the system- CEOs are the single most economic damaging entities in America today- they make short term decisions based on quick stock increases, with an eye for only keeping the job a short time, voting themselves bread and butter, and gettting out- with no sanctions or risk whatsoever in thier behavior- so how did they get this wonderful job? -how does a mediocre student, a bad businessman, a horrible speaker, and a horrible manager like GW rise to the top? Anyone, Anyone?

I just sold my third business, my fourth is going well and am in the proccess of getting the paperwork for a fifth. I work harder every week than GW has done in his whole privileged spoiled little life. I educated myself on business marketing, planning and how to get SB loans to expand (NEVER get one before you are established, debt is a good way to kill a biz quick!) and then use that SB loan to sell the biz for a tidy profit. I know what I am doing, confident what I am doing is right, and haven't failed once yet. But I am forty, and doing everything right, and still, no "riches"? CW- what gives? Okay, more than likely, if I continue the trend, I will be my own definition of "financially secure" within 10-15 years- but I sure as heck didn't start out with "rags" either LOL

Though I have no formal business education, I have several family members, one a millionare several times over, (having no formal business schooling , but coming from, once again, a father with mildly succesful businesses) that "got lucky" PLUS did everything right. My rich uncle was, by his own definition, a "lottery winner"- he is, like everyone in my family very mechanically inclined, in the extreme- he saw, in a pulp mill he was working at, a way to improve the machines, and instead of running to his boss and telling him about it- he went and had it patented and THEN offered the company the invention- as long as he got a seat on the board LOL- and, everyone on that board except for him has never, as he puts it "put in a real days work in thier life". They all got there, except for him, as children of privilage.

I think the ratio on that board is about right- for every gazzillion rich kids with a leg up in life, one or two poor will find thier way to the top, the rest, well, they can scrape by, keep hope alive and all that, and hope everything comes together for them.

But I digress- I completely agree with Hobbes' take on this- I do think we have a very big blind spot in American education- and that would lead to as much upward mobility than any anecdotal life stories- start ingraining at a very early age money management, business plans, marketing etc-

You want to see upwardly mobile "in da hood"- look at the organized drug dealers- they have better managerial skills than any CEO in the country, better book keeping, better motivation to succeed (jail or death being a very good motivator and all) and ONLY the cream rise to the top there- the rest fall by the wayside- either dead or in jail. If we taught them to succeed in "real" business instead of hood economics, perhaps the reality would match the fantasy.

I'm the daughter of a steelworker. He was lucky to get a decent early retirement package when the steel industry tanked in the early 80s, but he retired at least 10 years earlier than he would have wanted to. Because my mother had major health problems, he never worked full-time again but cared for her until her death last year. Armco and the companies it eventually became spent a lot of money for my dad to not work for 20-plus years when he could have (and would probably have preferred to have) worked.

My dad worked for Armco for a couple of decades and made good money -- enough to raise five kids on -- or finish raising them anyway, as the oldest were young teens when he started there. Dad had been in officer's training in the Navy during WWII, but was involuntarily "riffed" and stayed in the enlisted ranks until he left the service in the late 40s. He had some college, but never finished a degree.

My dad did everything he could to support his family. He drove a Greyhound bus, was a trained brickmason, worked on loading docks and in warehouses, and eventually got training enough to be a junior draftsman in the steel mill. I'm sure that if he had had the chance to get a better education before he had five kids to support, he would have, but he sure didn't stop trying even after we came along. LOL My mom, who'd always wanted to be an RN but didn't have the money for the three-year hospital-based training that was common back then, worked as a secretary, a store clerk, and finally a respiratory therapist to help my dad with the bills, until the early 70s when her health forced her to quit.

My siblings and I weren't really encouraged to go to college. Several of us took a few classes, but only one earned a degree (two, in fact). The rest of us learned trades -- some more lucrative than others. I can recommend my own choice -- administrative assistant -- because the money's good for not having a degree, just about every company needs a few, and you get benefits that are better than most. I wouldn't recommend one of my brothers' choice -- he's a restaurant cook, which means no bennies, lousy pay and hours, and getting laid off when the tourist trade slumps. Another brother works as a hospital janitor -- good pay and a union, but not work I'd want to do (although I did it, to put myself through secretary school 20-odd years ago. LOL)

I'd like to see more of an emphasis on trades than college -- the money can be as good or better. Lots of kids aren't cut out for college. It's a waste for them to go, since all it does is lower standards for everybody else's education.

As for how to buy the necessities of life on $5.15 an hour, I have to agree with others who've stated that the minimum wage was never intended to be adequate to support a family on. After a certain point you just have to say, am I doing everything I can to make myself marketable, or am I expecting other people to bail me out because I made poor life choices?

Cruising Ram, your hatred for GW permeates nearly every post...which only partially applies to the rags to riches argument. No one is arguing the amount of entitlement of the rich in the US (or anywhere).

Frankly, George Bush is no different from the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, or any other American dynasty of the sort. He was elected again because John Kerry was worse and there were no other suitable republicans (or any true republicans at all) running. I believe right now it was a matter of his affiliation as opposed to what GW really stands for (or not). Consider Hillary's Senatorial campaign, and why she really won in a state that she'd never called home....

CEO's are often the reason that companies become powerful and sustain the livelihoods of millions of Americans. Lee Iacoca did more for American industry than probably every person on AD combined. You have to consider that there are hundreds of thousands of these men and women across America, and that the few "Enrons" cause this sort of disdain? Consider that the stock prices of large companies provide for the retirement funds of millions of Americans (401K's), and that many of us put our hard earned money into these companies hoping to save enough to live a comfortable retirement.

Many of these "awful people" that you speak about are normal people that worked very hard to get to where they're at... while not committing crimes on humanity!
Think about Ed Whitacre of SBC (who's been there since 1963!), Rich Templeton of Texas Instruments (who began 25 yrs ago), or Gary Kelly of Southwest Airlines. They're surely not the Martha S's of the world... and their companies employ thousands of hard working Americans.

The shrewd business decisions of these men just might be making "rags to riches" stories for people at their companies' as we speak (type). Do you have to make $1M to be rich? Not in my eyes...

(**you also make note of CEO's keeping jobs for short periods of time... which often isn't the case either. Consider that many CEO's have worked for the organizations for many years, and often have a vested interest in the people as well as the bottom line**)

I read it all. Suffice it to say when you maintain that you need two professional full-time incomes in order to be "comfortable" it sounds spoiled to me. Lots of people have made it with much less. Many blue collar workers do it all of the time...raise their families on one income, especially in the enlisted military community where a working spouse with children in daycare is a luxury few can afford.

It's a fact that women's incomes are lower on average than men's. That isn 't the debate topic (though it ties in loosely I suppose), but the casual observer of the obvious can conclude that there are only about three possibilities for that: 1. The woman is more likely to be the primary caregiver, which impacts her career, 2. Women are lazy and don't work as hard, or 3. The workforce is sexist and pays men better because they are men. I think one is the most likely, and something tells me you probably do, too.



Well, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post. I just disagree that you need two professional incomes to be confortable and make ends meet, especially when the alternative is turning your children over to someone else to raise. If I watch another person's children it's honest employment, but if I watch my own I'm not contributing? The true way towards social mobility is to take care of your own family first. I don't believe it's the American dream to own a Lexus and large home, while your kids are forgotten but you were able to send them to a nice expensive kiddy soccer camp for summer. That's shortsighted, but life is full of cost to gains equations and career with juggled family life is one of them.

I think that's why I put "it all depends on what you deem to be riches". But we're talking about "upward mobility" and the American dream, not personal values based decisions. Like I've said before... if a car that runs, a comfortable home and loving family is your aspiration (and not a bad one), then you should consider yourself to be rich.

Hmmm.... maybe I should offer a comparison?

I'll take the patriarchal line of my family over the last three generations and you can all decide for yourself how it compares to the American stories we are hearing here (and which are very interesting by the way)

My Grandfather was born on a small farm on the outskirts of Århus. I don't recall how many siblings he had, but in those days poverty was rife, children ran around barefoot and school was over before it began. Denmark was coming through a severe period of poverty at the time so many people drifted into the city's looking for work. Fortunately for us Denmark was largely uninvolved in the first world war but when the second world war broke out Germany invaded Denmark and my Grandfather was dragged of to Germany and ut to work as a slave like most other Danish men of able body. (During this time, he manged to escape back to Denmark a few times and father a child each time, before being captured again and returned to Germany)

My Father was born in 1944 and when the war was over, my Grandfather returned to Århus and carried on making children.
My Father thus grew up in the working class area of the city with three brothers and three sisters and a father who eventually became a window cleaner. The war however left a lot of socal trauma behind it and by all accounts my Grandfather was never able to reconcile his experiences and remained a bitter and cruel man for the rest of his life. I only met him in the last decade or so of his life and I was struck by how mean he was to his wife and children. Despite his bad temper and general unpleasantness though he ws able to support himself, his wife and seven children on his wages as a window cleaner

My Father met my mother (who is English) in the late sixties here in Århus. He was a student at the technical college who quickly found work as a metal worker (welding, building general stuff)

I was born in 1969, here in Århus and a few years later my parents moved to England to be closer to my maternal grandparents. My father was unable to speak English at this time but he quickly found a job via my maternal grandfather (a very different man to my paternal grandfather)

As the 1970's progressed, my father moved from job to job looking for more money to take care of his family and by 1976 he was supporting himself, my Mother and three sons on his wages as a welder and crane mechanic. I'm not sure why my Mother never worked in those days. It seems to have been a part of the way things were. I remember a lot of house wives didn't work as I was growing up.

We moved back to Denmark in 1986 and my father quickly found work at his old employers as a welder, mostly building the inner structures on NATO bunkers. Prices are higher in Denmark so in 1987 my Mother found a job as a secretary and later as an accounting assistant.

I didn't move away from home until I was 22. Once my military adventures were over I was at a loose end and very lazy. Living on unemployment benefit was easier than working and not dificult. I milked the state for three years and had a great time. I met my GF and we eventually lived together in a collective (at one point I lived, just me, with eight girls)



Eventually though, all good things come to an end and, together with my GF, I went back to the UK to study Illustration and Graphic Design which I did until 1999 when I graduated with a BA and returned to Denmark. By this time I was 29 and I had never had a real job in my whole life.

My story, as a comparison stops here since in 1999 I became very ill with a chronic illness tha has plagued me since I was 22. Since '99 I have made my way through the world in many ways, working for various places, working free lance, being unemployed on sick leave but generally being comfortable.

Six weeks ago, despite being in the lowest income bracket, I became a father. In most countries I suspect this would be a problem, but here it is easy enough. Even in the lowest form of state assisted income bracket I am easily able to afford a child.

My Grandfather became a father at the age of 20 and had 7 kids, my father was 25 and had 3 kids.
I am almost 36 and I have 1 child.

Social mobility for me has been very difficult but I suspect this is a consequence of my poor health. Prior to 1999 I lived in a very different world of opportunities and I don't doubt that had my health remained intact I would not be so low down in the income table as I am today.

I would still only have one child though and I doubt we'll ever have more than two. Children have become horribly expensive since my granddads day and although the state takes good care of its citizens here, even average earners in Denmark seldom have more than two children.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind, CR, that luck plays a part in success...to a certain degree. But no one said that everyone in this country can be rich, we [or at least I] am saying that the possibility for upward social mobility in this country is very, very, very possible. Generally, if, after your working years are over, you haven't moved up on the social ladder, you've screwed up somewhere. Also, and not to go off topic, but, uh, I'm almost positive the President of the United States and leader of the free world has a little bit more on his plate than ANY of us here on AD...Just a guess though.

CP

I thought this was pertinent to the discussion of American social mobility. From the Millionaire next door. I read this book many years ago, and it offers an in-depth profile of millionaires in America and how they came to achieve their wealth. In this study, personal value based decisions and wealth seemed to go hand in hand, and the primary wealth accumulators did so via prodigious savings as well as hard work. They also went low, for the most part, on the high ticket showy items like nice cars.

Mrs P- I read that book- really great book- but what is a millionare today? I have well over a million in equity in my businesses, but not a giant income from them, I am still in , what they call in sports terms "the rebuilding years" LOL- everything I make goes right back into the biz if I don't need it for personal family security.

I totally agree with much of what is stated there- except how much "leg up" you get by having a good family upbringing as far as money management is concerned (you, after all, can have a nice, comfortably financially secure dysfunctional family too LOL)- look at welfare recipients for instance- all the myths that surround it- but there is some constants- most of the ladies on welfare WERE married, and had no skills but raising a family- our society doesn't make it easy on these ladies, and they don't get much of a chance to be "upwardly mobile" outside of marrying better.

My Dad was fairly poor when I was younger, though, as with most poor children, I didn't really notice it much LOL- we were military (enlisted) in a very high cost of living state (Alaska)- and, of course, military families don't get much of a choice as what state to live in

But he was always trying his hand at business, some worked, some didn't, and I learned from his mistakes- mostly poor marketing, good product. My dad still can't market to sell his soul

I live WAY below my means I suppose- next to no debt outside biz debt (some debt is good, if you know what you are doing) and I live in a 1400 sq ft house (soon to be 1800 with the master bedroom addition) and drive a 98 Cummins turbo diesel, my wife drives a mini-van.

Yes, I could wrap my wife's butt in a lexus, and mine in the hottest metal de-jour LOL

but I don't, because it is not me.

So why am I upwardly mobile? Because someone gave me 90% of the tools, and I learned to look for opportunity.

The topic is "rags to riches"- right?

I have seen other countries folks like Moif, that don't starve if they don't work, or at least, thier children don't want for neccesities.

I don't think we have more opportunity here than any developed country personally, but it is all a matter of opinion, because we can't agree what that even means, can we? - if it means NOT living in poverty, I don't think we are any different, if it means becoming fabulously wealthy from a street orphan, I don't think we are any different than other developed countries- so, short of some kind of definition we can all agree on, I don't think we can have a really concrete debate based on facts, can we?

p.s.- yes, I despise GW Bush, I have to address this- because this question, to me, goes to the heart of this issue. I don't mind folks inheriting thier money, getting by with no effort of thier own but family privilege- I have a problem when they use it to stomp on folks below them. I don't begrudge GW his inheritance, but I don't begrudge the welfare mom her pittance either.

Well, I can't give much objective comparison between countries. What I can say is that, for all the redistributive tax-credit-based programs that the current Labour government has introduced here, there are many reports of people not claming help that they are entitled to because they are not aware of it. Or, they find the process of making a claim so tortuous that they end up making invalid claims by mistake, or just giving up. Or there are negative connotations to making a positive claim for help (This last idea is particularly common among pensioners, who worked all their lives in a welfare state that was supposed to look after them, then when they retire they find the pension is disappointing and they can only get more help if they go cap in hand to the government. These are proud people, who have "done their bit" and it just doesn't feel right for them to ask for help.)

So maybe that does chime in a little with your idea that low mobility is contributed to by poor communication of the help that is available. Though I still think that by far the biggest factors are state funding of further & higher education.


Stop making your mortgage payments for a few months, assuming you haven't paid it off yet, and you'll soon find out who owns your home. While the outstanding loan value may well be lower than the current value of the house (because you've paid off some of the principal, and because house prices have risen since you moved in), the mortgage loan is still secured against the home, and the mortgagor is still entitled to demand that you sell your home to pay them back the outsanding balance (which, unless you're almost at the end of the term anyway, will more than likely be so much that you'd have to sell your property to raise that much money anyway).

And your homes are 2-3 times bigger because America is at least 2-3 times bigger than any European country (except Russia) so you have the room.



I do a lot of work (as an amateur) in community theatre, and the first thing to say is that (in my group at least) most (but not all) professional actors & entertainers are not more talented than people in community theatre. They are just better looking. And, in the case of women actors - "actresses" is deemed sexist in serious theatre these days, don'tcha know - younger .

My group is quite small, but even from the 50 or so members we have, at least two I can think of have gone to high-ranking drama schools and subsequently turned professional.

Both are exceptionally good actors (they were among the best we had in our group), but neither have been able to forge successful careers. They are still waiting for their "lucky break". It isn't called that for no reason - there are SO many more actors (including trained professionals as well as ex-gifted-amateurs) than there are acting parts that the biggest single reason for a successful performing career in every branch, except maybe opera and ballet, is luck.

There are very few actors who don't recognise this. Even some of the right-wing actors (Bruce Willis, for example) will recognise that a big part of their success rests on luck, although they don't seem to think that this extends outside the acting and performing world.



Okay, let's say for some reason I'm in a minimum wage job - maybe I flunked college, or I never went. Maybe I'm a girl, and I got pregnant in my late teens, which limited my education opportunites at the time. I live at home with my mom and my kid - dad's dead or absent for some reason. I have no qualifications. My folks don't have any spare cash either - my mom looks after my kid while I'm at work; she's home in the daytime because she works shifts. (Not a universal situation, but not an outlandish one either.)

My only real hope for professional advancement rests on me going back to college. That costs money, and more than that it costs time. Even if I can find the money - which will be a real big stretch, since between mom & me were only just covering the bills, I can't go full time because I have no credit rating to be able to get a loan to support myself & my kid for the duration. If I take a part time or home study course, it clashes with my mom's work, so I have to find someone else to care for my kid in the evenings. Which, like as not, will cost money if it has to go outside the family.

So I'm in a cleft stick. I can't earn more money, or get a new job that holds out the promise of progression to more money, without some training and/or qualifications. I can't afford the money to study or train full time. And my family situation prevents me from being able to afford the money OR the time to study part-time or from home.

Maybe I should wait until my baby daughter is grown - I'll still only be in my late 30s by then. But isn't that what my mother thought when she had me, and why she's now working minimum wage night shifts? She's doing what she can, but she hasn't got qualifications to do better either. What's going to save my daughter?

In effect, I have become part of an almost permanent underclass - and I haven't even mentioned race yet. OK, I might even agree that I made a "poor life choice", but do I have to suffer for it forever? Does my daughter?

This is, in my opinion, the (joint) biggest barrier to social mobility. (Along with the insulation of the uppermost levels of society from true failure. Sure, they might drop out and become more or less non-productive, but mom & dad will alway bail them out, and when mom & dad die and they inherit the millions, even their profligacy will not be able to completely fritter away the whole estate in one generation.)

Here is where I think we come back (again) to education and training being the potential solution, but there being barriers put up by the unwillingness of Anglo-Saxon economies (specifically America & to a lesser but increasing extent, Britain) to fund it for other people through taxation.

If the education to get my notional alter-ego out of the mess she's got herself into were available free, or even with an interest free loan that she doesn't have to pay off if she never earns more than $XYZ, I'm sure she'd grab the opportunity with both hands, and be able to more than repay the financial cost today through a lifetime of paying her own way and the (higher) taxes she'd get as a by-product of her own advancement. It's not that she would not seize the opportunity with the all the vigour that "the myth" rightly celebrates. It's that she will never get that opportunity unless the rest of us stop behaving as if the rest of "the myth" is still true, and her own fate is entirely up to her and the rest of us shouldn't be expected to help. Welfare for people even worse off than her is all very well, and absolutely necessary, but a lot of the time we could save ourselves big chunks of welfare payments down the road if we spent more on education and training now.

In other words, I think "we make our own luck" - the key component in the myth of social mobility - is very true, but only collectively. Sometimes, I can make my own luck, but sometimes, I need someone else to make my luck - create opportunities for advancement - for me. (Note that I didn't say they should make my living for me - only CEOs have that luxury, and only once they get to that level ). Once I have some luck, it's down to me what I do with it, but I simply can't believe that the whole bottom tiers of society are there, and find it hard to move out, solely because of laziness or stupidity.

bucket
You're absolutely right - social equality (or, let's be honest, reduced social inequality) is at the root of high social mobility. But that isn't something to just shrug off as if it's the weather or the movement of the planets - entirely outside anyone's control.

The Nordic countries that come out as more socially mobile than the US or UK actively promote social equality, by taxing the rich more, so they can fund the educational and social opportunites for the less rich. The rich are somewhat less rich than they would otherwise be (poor them - the guy who invented Ikea only gets to be a multi-billionaire a couple of times over by staying in Sweden. I bet he's gutted.), but the poor are a lot less poor, and can become comfortable or even rich a whole lot easier.

The American Dream could easily come true, and you could become the most socially mobile place ever seen. You just are never going to do it until you stop being so afraid of government and taxation, and start taking lessons from the Nords ( Nordics? Is there a name for the peoples of Nordic countries?) .

Aevans,

I never said I didnt work. I work in a very lucrative business so my upward mobility is somewhat guaranteed, but my man is not my husband. His finances are his own.
I see HIS frustration with never feeling like he is getting ahead, especially because I always save the family when in need financially above and beyond the daily expenses.

Truck driving is not unskilled labor. It requires training and certification and often drivers need to drive all types of heavy equipment. The more hours clocked on a CDL, now with HAZMAT will get you better wages but few will give roadtime to young-uns without clocked hours, its a bit of a catch 22. I did find your post insulting because I want to tell you that without truckers, noone in this country gets anything they need, anywhere, anytime-
NO-THING, nothing. Its a dignified job, but I suppose tomarrow all drivers could train to become a computer programmers and the lumber, insulation, oil and gas and all the things more hard working, more 'trained' people actually NEED to build their expensive houses and businesses just would not arrive. THAT would be something.

I dont think you have children by your post.
My point really was about the costs of life which seem out of kilter with wages. Why arent kids braces covered in a $100+ per month health insurance plan? Considered cosmetic? If you have bad teeth you are pegged as poor for life. There are many things which one can say are just unreasonable. I go to Planned parenthood for an annual gyno checkup, its $200 and they are the cheapest in town! Eye glasses cost ***, whatever and they make you get an exam every year in order to renew. Why? Its a wonder the poor can even manage to see to do their jobs and and chew their food to live or ever afford a doctor if they need one.

I have no objection to the idea that america is a great place to live and that you can have a good life here. However, having lived in Europe I think they have less insecurity overall than we have. We as a nation, lets just say in my economic strata which I consider 'good', is always worried. About getting sick, about not having a retirement, about the kids, about MONEY, all the time. America and Americans entire life is always about having enough money. It takes away from the quality of our lives, from our marriages and from our children and from friendships and family. Many of us live in an underlying fear of homelessness or destitution for the most minimal thing that can happen to you.

I consider that if something unexpected befall you and you cant afford to withstand the storm, you are not really living well. I think most of us are living there.

Once I heard from an outsider that the American dream was to have so many appliances and entertainment systems that we would never have to leave our houses and interact with each other.

All my adopted 10 year old talks about is getting rich (and god). He sees the struggle, he wants to be rich. (Perhaps he should become an evangelical preacher, leeching off others and kill those two birds) Thats well and good I suppose, but I dont like it. At 10 years old his life should be about quality, friends, school, games and skateboarding and he shouldnt need to be even thinking about money excpet to earn a few bucks at chores. That is America. Its all about the money and that bothers the hell out of me.
We will sacrifice everything for this and we are considered stupid , lazy or slackers if we dont. So upward mobility is not just a 'given'. At any time you can lose everything youve ever worked for, all you need is to get sick or be the victim of a scam like Enron. Theres something wrong there.
There is something wrong in that a huge portion of the population is on depression drugs and another third on erectile disfunction drugs, several million kids on drugs by the time they reach the third grade. The divorce rate is 1 in 2, and that most people feel generally insecure with their economic standing, retirement and health care. So, if we are so fantastic, so upwardly mobile, why are people so unhappy and afraid?

Julian

I agree that getting a better education, going to college and professional schools, is one way that people will increase their chances of moving up a rung on the social status ladder. Everyone has the opportunity these days in the U.S. to go to college because they all have access to guaranteed student loans as well as generous assistance for the truly poor. Guaranteed student loans don't need to be repaid till after graduation. The opportunity is there. I am a bit leary of handouts from the government that do not need to be repaid. I saw too much gaming of the system when I lived in France. The university was free, the student apartment/dorm living was dirt cheap, they had special restaurants for students with great food and a meal cost like $2 or less. Do you know how many people I met who were "students" till their early 30s? It was ridiculous. But it is human nature to take advantage of the system. I mean -- who wants to get a real job and actually work for a living-- if you don't have to?

And the point of this thread relates to upward mobility. A system that encourages people to stay as students (to benefit from the subsidies) is not encouraging upward mobility. In contrast, the U.S. strikes a good balance-- everyone has the opportunity to finance the education-- but not without the commitment to repay. It provides opportunity without fostering a mentality that is unwilling to move on to the challenges in the real working world.

I dont know what "minimum wage" is in your country. But, if you would take the Nordic countries, if you work at McDonalds, you get around 12$ (minimum) and i think its around 15$ here in Iceland, and this is the basis, if you just start. If you stay there for a couple of months your salary would rise quite fast, along with your position.

For me, atleast, you can make a pretty fine life. I know a friend whom works at McDonalds getting (calculating in Dollars) around 15$ an hour. This is his job. Now, he works a minimum of 40 hours a week, or 160h a month. Thats 2400$ a month.

Now, food wise its the same costs (He lives in Sweden), some things are more expensive, some are cheaper, but in the whole, it equals out pretty well compared to the U.S (i would say). Iceland is somewhat different, but the wage is quite high, as well as Norway. So in the end, it equals out.

Then he has rent and such, lets say 1000$ to overdo it a bit. He would get a minimum of 1000$ POCKET MONEY (over) each month, and this is a minimum wage job in his country. He has all securty such as health insirance. And also the knowledge that if something would happen, the State would solve it. He could even start studying on College (its free) if he would like to.


Compared to United States. Now, i know you all will go against me, claiming its much much higher, but the benefit i have is, that i have spoken to several people at American McDonalds, and they got something between 4.5 to 5,5$ an hour. (americans usually say its around 8$, to bad the people actually working their do not confirm this) So lets say 1/3 of the Nordic Countries. And these people can not survive on this. They need two jobs.


I think this is an issue worth looking into. As the "minimum wage" in Europe is so much higher then the U.S. In Holland, the students have a very weird system regarding Students, but else, its somewhat lower then the Nordic countries, but still around twice the amount as in the U.S. (i spoken to these people, in real life, just so you know).

Maybe I am missing something--- But why on earth would we want to pay someone working at McDonalds that kind of money???? That is absurd. It is not a skilled position. And if the government requires that any job pay that much (as a minimum wage) -- as you seem to suggest --- where is the incentive for people to better themselves? I don't get it.

The economist wrote an extensive piece on the US a couple of months back. It takes a while to read it all, but here are the two parts that are the most relevant to what everyone is discussing here.

http://economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=4148911
http://economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4148885




This could probably break into a series of different topics, but education is a big factor in all of this. 20% of Americans are not getting High School educations (it was 25% in 1990). Only 15% of Americans have at least a Bachelor’s degree. If you are in that 20%, the chances of improving one self is not good. No one has a silver bullet for this problem.

My emphasis - and the core of the problem of loan-funded education - is that if you have to start paying off a loan immediately you leave college (rather than if you exceeed a threshold income in whatever you do end up doing), that acts as a disincentive for some necessary, but not well-paid occupations, and it also acts as a disincentive to people who don't want to hamstring themselves with debt.


Ok - but can I ask, were you a student yourself at this point? If you were, I'm not surprised you found so many "perpetual students".

And besdies, that isn't what I'm proposing at all. In something like the old UK university grant system, the universities themselves were subsidised; academic fees were waived; some accomodation was subsidised (generally only enough to allow you to "live in" for the first year, perhaps two; and a (relatively modest) grant covered living expenses. But you could only take advantage of that once. If you wanted to do another first degree, or any type of higher degree, that had to be funded yourself. So, in such a system, "perpetual" students are generally those from wealthy enough families to support their "habit", which has nothing to do with social mobility.



I doubt too many people from the urban underclass feel able to take advantage of this, but that's jsut a throw-away. Your mention of "the working world" makes me think of another factor that might be contributing to what I perceive as a problem (and you don't) - especialy in the UK, since it has changed during my own working life (it may not even be the case in the USA - I can't say).

Until comparatively recently, all kinds of businesses would fund education and training themselves. Many people in trades or craft skills may not have had the type of academic skills that would have made college a viable option, but they could easily get an apprenticeship and learn new skills, funded by the business that would benefit from them. Similarly, white collar workers would often be sent away on courses to learn clerical or other business skills. Some businesses made such courses conditional on staying in the business for X years afterwards, so the competition didn't gain from their investment, but most medium or large sized businesses did something like this.

These days, a few businesses still do this type of thing, but it tends to be restricted for those seen to be of senior management potential.

The rest of it (and especially apprenticeships) has all been "outsourced" into the education sector - ultimately to the workforce, and the money saved is mostly just lining the pockets of stockholders and senior executives. Business benefits from something it insists that someone else pays for.

And business is driving the breakneck expansion of education (we supposedly need to have 50% of our young people degree-qualified), yet resisting any moves to increase their role in training.

Competition is king in the global market, but why is it that everyone below board levels must compete down with Chinese sweatshop workers or see their jobs outsourced there, yet senior executives' remuneration packages must compete up with the top 10% of American boardrooms to attract the brightest and the best? Shome mishtake, surely?

See the difference here? For YOU, this is "loots of money". Its nothing for me. Nor my Scandinavian peers. We get more money, thats all.


If you get a "real job" (few people can handle working at McDonalds very good btw. Its not "easy" to do it good), you get much much more. See the difference? We just get more money. (when everything is paid and done that is)

Eric

Hmm..I don't think you quite understood my argument. Also have you read any of the studies I have provided?
The LSE study does not show us what the transition is from one quartile to another is in each country. I think that is very deceptive because as I have already shown taking absolute poverty levels or income and comparing them by country only presents us with a distorted image. Do you yourself believe 40% of Swedes live in a low-income household?

Sure income equality makes the move from quartile to quartile easier..but is it more relevant? I don't think it is. For example..I could say in Sweden I rose from income level one to income level two and made a 20% gain in income..whereas in the US that move was a 30% gain. And an American worker and a Swedish worker could in fact make the same gain let's say 20% again and we would only see a charted mobility from the Swede whereas the American would appear to be stagnant. And then on top of that consider my point about absolute income levels that 30% more can in fact be even more meaningful based on my purchasing power. The US has a high PPP and does in fact exceed most of the northern European nations. How much of a true image does the LSE study present?

To get a good idea of what PPP means in regards to costs of living here is a fun little comparison

Big Mac index
Click on the detail image on the right.

Also your idea that more taxes is the means in which more will succeed is only an opinion and certainly not one I share. I personally feel more progressive economic growth is a more important influencer then more progressive taxes.. I think we need to look to more than the IRS to help the poorest of Americans.

I think that you've negated to address the substance of my post. Yes- over the road truck drivers make good money, and are trained professionals. However, things like the bread from the bakery, your postal packages, and parts for your car are often delivered by someone locally with little or no training. It's an economic fact that if there were people whom chose not to work for the wages of your "man", that the wages would be higher, correct? Simple Supply-Demand economics. I don't mean to be insulting, as I've taken jobs for far less than I believe they were worth, and at the end of the two weeks I didn't have nickels to rub together. However, jobs that have fewer people whom can perform the duty, garner higher wages. Why are doctors paid so well? What about airline pilots? What about your certified mechanic? They're paid well because they worked for a long-time to get the needed training to perform the job. Even jobs that people don't want to do like emptying septic tanks can pay well, but again, because of supply v demand.

You do hit an interesting point though, in that you discuss the American idealism that we don't have enough money. However, the fact is that we are far too materialistic and debt ridden. Consider the average American credit card debt. Talking about getting ahead/upward mobility?, America needs to learn to move away from plastic and remember to save for what we want/need.

It's a fact that 85% of those reaching age 65 don't have $200 in the bank.
http://credit.about.com/library/weekly/aa100902a.htm
Why? Is it because we did without automobiles, microwaves, new stereos, and new Nikes? of course not. It's because we buy our couches on credit and pay 1.5-2 times more than they're worth.

You lived in Europe? Then you understand how small homes are, and how few people actually have automobiles, and how many people don't even have cable, microwaves, etc. You rememeber how few restaurants there are in comparison to Urban America. Depending upon where you lived, and who you knew, you'd know many people that either cannot afford healthcare at all or people that waited forever for access to socialized healthcare. There are surely pros and cons..... Europeans tend to do with less, eat out less, and live a very different lifestyle. (I work for a UK company, and have spent quite a bit of time on both mainland Europe and in the UK).

I apologize if I was insulting, but many Americans have the attitude that America isn't so spectacular, or that the gov't should provide a solution to our problems. That's not why we have a gov't. Our nation produces 1/3 of the world's GDP alone. Let me let you in a secret, that turns into wealth, and hence, why we're the wealthiest nation in the world. All societies have levels of wealth, and those that don't haven't succeeded (i.e. the USSR). Socialism has never proven to be effective. It's a matter of what you're willing to give up to get what you want./need. many American's don't understand this concept.

As this is my current area of expertise, seeing as I am one of those students with Uncle Sam's greatly appreciated subsidized loans who I must ask what you meant by "guaranteed".

The fact is although there are grants that are almost a given for those in financial need, Stafford loans and the like are not guaranteed in any sense of the word.

They are a useful tool to fill the gaps, but a person who begins school late (or starts part-time) misses a semester for any reason, etc. may or may not be awarded a loan.

I have a friend who went through that just this semester.

It is the poor who are most vulnerable to these interruptions. I agree a stellar student from a poor home has the resources available to succeed (provided that student is given adequate guidance on how to access these resources).

In my opinion education is the greatest key to this whole situation.

It is inarguable that the poor have a far inferior access to quality education when compared even to the middle class.

Step into a public school in a poor neighborhood and you will see immediately what I mean. Compare it the the middle-class suburbs and it's like night and day.

Everything, right down to the teachers, seems to be sub-standard.

It there is on great barrier to social mobility in this country, it lies with our education system.

There are schools where the majority of incoming freshman don't complete, where kids are not prepared to enter college on firm footing.

That is entirely unacceptable.

Haleyanne