This topic was raised in another discussion regarding race and New Orleans, and Julian and I wanted to explore further. This topic is co-authored by carlitoswhey and Julian.

Julian says that America’s culture of upward mobility is largely a myth. There are race and class issues at work which many of us deny.
On the myth, he wrote:

To which bucket replied:


And Julian adds the following:

Link to London School of Economics study - LSE study

In this new thread, I'll be the first to admit that my case is hard to accept, even to me as a foreigner to whom the American Dream is not a central theme of my life. But for a while now, intuitively, I've thought that not everyone can win, and that - while hard work certainly counts - the people that do win started out with advantages not of their own making or picked them up along the way. (e.g. parental wealth, privileges like going to a good school or growing up in a "nice" area or with a stable family, or just dumb luck)

The LSE study doesn't say that if you're born in a particular income quintile, that you'll spend your whole life there. If you're born rich, you might find that you still have to get a job and be poor to begin with until you work your way up. The study just implies that, relative to the society you grow into, you're most likely to get to the level that your parents go to, relative to the society they were in. You might move through the income bracket during your lifetime, but the chances are you'll end up in the same bracket that your parents ended up in.

The study finds that in more mobile societies, the income bracket you end up in depends less on the disadvantages you start out with. These are levelled by high-quality education and high levels of student support in grants & the like, funded by much higher taxation thant the US has.

In closing, I emphatically do not want to suggest that hard work is irrelevant. Hard work is essential to take full advantages of the opportunities that come our way. However, it is my contention that the number and quality of the opportunities that we get is largely down to luck, and that luck is largely influenced by our background.


--------------

Carlitoswhey takes a contrary view. My optimism and indeed my own life tell me that if you work hard and take care of your responsibilities, you can succeed in America. I personally can attest to the movement among socioeconomic strata, as I’ve done it myself. Of course, rather than rely on personal anecdotes, we do have numeric evidence and census data showing income mobility from top to bottom.
Economist Thomas Sowell often reminds us in his column:


TedN5 offers us this interactive graphic from the New York Times. In this graph, you can see movement between “quintiles” of income earners, and very clearly you can see that half the bottom fifth of earners moved up in 10 years, ¼ of them two or more quintiles, while simultaneously half of the top fifth also dropped to other quintiles, with nearly the identical dispersion from top to bottom as shown by the lowest quintile of earners.

This just makes sense. And it’s only for 10 years – imagine the movement in a lifetime. When we first start on the career path, we earn very little. When you stay at a job in America, you gain skills and experience and become more valuable. Are there exceptions? Of course. But does this country offer you unparalleled means by which to better yourself in terms of income? You bet it does. Take $10,000 and buy a franchise. Go back to school and learn a new field. There simply isn’t anything like the European concept of class at play in the USA.

According to Forbes magazine, only 156 of the richest 400 Americans inherited some or all of their wealth. The rest got rich the old-fashioned American way – they earned it.

As for the legend of Horatio Alger, here you can see a summary of the particulars. He was basically a flawed individual, a man who sinned and vowed to redeem himself by living the Christian ideal. He moved to Manhattan and dedicated his life to helping poor children make their way.

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:

Which of these contrasting rationales accounts best for your perceptions of social mobility, or its lack, in American society?

Do you agree with Julian, that America is less socially mobile than other comparable nations, and that class, income and race count for more than personal talent and effort?

Or, do you agree with Carlitoswhey that America offers limitless opportunity if you apply yourself, work hard, and take advantage of opportunities that present themselves.

Please offer evidence as well as any personal stories, and as always please source and link what you can!

This is a great topic!

While reading the original post, two thoughts come to mind. First: do we define 'success' strictly in an economic sense, or can 'success' be defined as personal satisfaction unrelated to wealth or poverty?

It is, to me, evident that only a tiny minority of people are going to reach the Forbes level of wealth. But there is dignity in work for everyone. Knowing that you are providing for yourself and/or your family by the work that you do, enhancing and honing your skills and abilities, finding joy in what you do -- to me, these can be as satisfying as getting raises or promotions. (This may be because as a career executive secretary, I've chosen to remain on a relatively low rung of the corporate ladder).

I think the peculiar American obsession with having the newest, hottest, coolest of everything gets in our eyes sometimes. Many Europeans drive the same car for ten or fifteen years, something that's most unusual here. The overconsumption of goods -- enormous cars, McMansions, even huge restaurant portions -- which have become more and more prevalent in America don't tend to be found in Europe. Americans have a taste for the good life, and sometimes I wonder if we don't know quite when to stop.

Does America offer limitless opportunity? Yes, but as Phyllis Schlafly (who is NOT one of my heroes, incidentally, but like anyone else, has a good idea now and then) said, a lot of opportunities come disguised as hard work.

America provides public education (often inadequate, but at least a place to start) and public assistance (again, often inadequate but better than starving to death). The children of America's poor -- and, actually, ALL children -- need to be encouraged to take whatever opportunities come their way -- to finish high school, obtain vocational or secondary education of some kind, delay childbearing and marriage until the education is completed, and make themselves as valuable to an employer as possible. They may never get rich, but being self-sufficient provides satisfaction beyond what money can.

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:

Which of these contrasting rationales accounts best for your perceptions of social mobility, or its lack, in American society?

Do you agree with Julian, that America is less socially mobile than other comparable nations, and that class, income and race count for more than personal talent and effort?

Or, do you agree with Carlitoswhey that America offers limitless opportunity if you apply yourself, work hard, and take advantage of opportunities that present themselves.

Please offer evidence as well as any personal stories, and as always please source and link what you can!

[/quote]

I really can't say if America offers more social mobility than other countries as I don't know enough about how they work. But I'd say that while you do have the oppotunity to move up the social ladder in America, it's not based on how hard you work. I think that luck plays a big part in it. I don't believe the playing field is level in America and I think it hinders social mobility for a lot of people.

I, by pure luck, was fortunate enough to be born into an upper middle class white family. Both my parents work but my Mom didn't have to and stopped teaching while I (and my brothers) were growing up. I went to good schools, had parents that were around and cared about me, and was able to go to college. While I worked hard to do well, I could've just breezed through high school, floated through college and still landed a job without putting in too much effort.

Contrast that to some of the kids my friend teaches.

He's a teacher in inner-city Chicago. He has 10 math books for 30 kids in his class. Now if I'm a motivated, hard working kid in that class, what good does it do me if I can't read the textbook? Now, what I'm just one of those people who want to breeze through school? Or I'm not exactly the smartest kid and I need extra help. Think I'm going to make it? I don't. Now let's say that both my parents work, and come 16 I have to work just to help my parents put food on the table. Think they'll be able to send me to college? That's assuming I stay on the straight and narrow and don't get caught up in all the issues that are associated with having two working parents.

So, yes there are those that "make it" and they probably have a better chance of "making it" in America than say, Germany but I don't buy into the "work hard and you can achieve anything" moto of America.

Carlitoswhey's. Half of my family started out as poor black, inner city folks...My grandfather made himself into a successful businessman in the FIFTIES and his brother made himself into a frequent visitor at the Kennedy and Johnson White House. My immediate family has a similar background. This is because my family made the sacrifice of working several [up to three] jobs at a time early in their lives in order to be sucessfull later in life. I know for a fact that they didn't LIKE most of their jobs until just recently, but they understood that they needed to put food on the table, and made that sacrifice. There are plenty of jobs in this country, but a lot of them aren't "popular" and people won't take them...But that doesn't alter the fact that there are plent of job opportunities here and that allows for plenty of social mobility. I wonder, if American social mobility is such a "myth", why do millions of immigrants [legal and illegal] flock our boarders every year to get in? Why is there so much of a perception of mobility? It doesn't make sense to me.

CP

Which of these contrasting rationales accounts best for your perceptions of social mobility, or its lack, in American society?

I think Julian has more of the right idea. Here's why.

First, to claim that the playing field is level, is simply disingenuous. It's inherently uneven. Let's take psyclist's examples for a moment.

As he notes, he grew up in an upper-middle class home. Single parent bread winner, for the most part. Do you think that maybe that gave him just a bit of an edge over that kid in the Chicago inner-city school? Let's see, phyclist probably had a better chance to get into a better college. And I'm willing to bet he also got better connections out of it. What do I mean?

Compare psyclist's dad to what kind of father an inner city kid has (assuming he has one that's around). Maybe dad takes psyclist golfing with him on occasion in high school and college. Because of this interaction, Psyclist perhaps gets a decent job offer from one of dad's upper middle class golfing buddies after graduation, or if not, he at least can probably count on a couple of good personal references to add to his resume. This is what Julian and psyclist probably call luck. People like this get in the door of a better job more because of who they know, or where they went to school, than what they know.

The inner city kid? What kind of chance is he going to have to make those kinds of connections, right at the start? Practically none. Or at least, far fewer than the white, upper middle class kid. Not many golf courses on the south side, or nice offices to get introduced around when dad takes you to work.

Now hard work may keep you in the game, and get you ahead once you get there, but you've gotta get there first. Now for most of us, you probably never even considered that the people that helped you along in some way or another gave you an advantage over lots of other people. But they surely did.

It's the old, "he was born on third base, and thought he hit a triple" syndrome. Those from good schools, with well educated, well heeled parents, think they have it really hard, without considering how much harder it would be to be born a minority, or in an inner city atmosphere, and not having the "luck" or advantage that a middle or upper middle income family can provide, even if you don't realize it as such to begin with.


Perhaps, ConservPat, it's because even those low-paying jobs are a major step up from where those immigrants were. That doesn't mean that those jobs are putting them into one of the upper quintiles of income in this country, even if it makes them "upper middle class" compared to where they came from.


Perhaps, Calitos, but consider this. I took a look at the charts from the NYT article, and not just the first one that came up. I noticed something interesting that you may have missed.

In a country by country comparison of mobility against the UK, Canada, France and Denmark, the United States doesn't have significantly more mobility than any of the others. In fact it has considerably less than Denmark, France and Canada, and is just on par with Great Britain.

The article also notes that income mobility has slowed significantly in this country since the 1970's. For instance, in the 70's, those that stayed in the same quintile for 10 years was around 35%. Today, it's 40%. Those that moved only one quintile, has remained relatively stable - 38% in the 70's, and 39% today. But moving two or more quintiles has actually gone down - from 27% in the 70's to just 21% today. Things are getting worse, not better, in terms of economic mobility.

Also, let's take a more realistic look at your supposition that anyone can get a frachise, and start his own business, shall we?

Yes, $10,000 may get you, say a smaller restaurant or retail store franchise, but you are missing all of the other associated costs. Things like the location or building, equipment and or furnishings, signage, opening inventory, and startup working capital for things like rental and utilities deposits, an amount to cover payroll, rent and utilities for a couple of months, until income starts arriving, and some cash just to fill the register to make change. None of this is usually covered in the initial franchise purchase.

Oh, yeah, don't forget the on-going franchise and advertising fees. Now we're up to what? $150,000, $200,000? Just to start. And even with a franchise, the company usually checks to make sure that at least a quarter to a third of this money is "unencumbered", meaning you can lay your hands on it, out of your own resources, without the need of partners or loans. Pretty healthy chunk of cash when all is said and done.

And that's just for a smaller franchise. Want a McDonalds, or Wendy's, or Holiday Inn? The franchise fee alone can run up to $1 Million dollars, depending on the location. Before you even begin to consider those other, associated costs.

So, yes, you can better yourself in this country - no doubt about it. But it does take more than just hard work to move up in any significant way. Connections, or what some like Julian and Psyclist would call "luck" also play a large part. And according to your own link, we're not doing as well as most of Europe, and it's getting harder all the time here.

And while some franchise businesses are still available for a relatively reasonable amount, for a lot of them, you already have to have "made it" in some other field, like medicine, or law, to be able to invest in your own business. Even then, you may not be able to go it alone.

I know this for a fact. As a hotel manager, I can tell you that most franchised hotels today are partnerships of doctors, or lawyers, real estate developers, or some other similar collection of individuals hoping to diversify and expand their incomes.

Anecdotal evidence is usually just anecdotal- not evidence - I mean, how was GW elected if no one I know voted for GW? How did Hilary get elected if everybody I know hates Hillary?

Even correlation does not relate to causality- as has been discussed on this forum before. Juat because everytime crime goes up in NY, and it just happens to co-incide with a good potatoe crop in Idaho- is there a causality that good Potatoe crops means more crime in NY LOL

So- every single study on wealth and upward mobility says that hard work and ambition is does not neccesarily mean success. I relate the same idea to sports- just because you have the talent and ability and hard work in Basketball doesn't really mean the odds are that you are going to be an NBA basketball player- in fact, the odds are quite against you. That is why relying on sports to get out of the hood is such folly, even for a talented and hard working ball player.

So what is the definition of success? To me, it is 60K in unearned income. I haven't reached that yet despite 15 years of trying, hard work, and ambition. I have not spent on stupid items, and have the advantage of a place with a long term booming oil economy. I can only imagine how hard it would be in a depressed area, with no skills in business, no idea how to get ahead, and no role model to follow.

Which of these contrasting rationales accounts best for your perceptions of social mobility, or its lack, in American society?


I think Julians model is reality, CWs is the fantasy- which, in every large scale consitant peer reviewed article pretty much backs up Julians version, and debunks CW


Do you agree with Julian, that America is less socially mobile than other comparable nations, and that class, income and race count for more than personal talent and effort?

That is a hard one- because all the different ideas of what quality of life means, what success means, is so hard to quantify from country to country and society to society.

For instance, one thing I always noticed when I travelled is one major difference in America and the rest of the world- how many of us own homes, and the variety of ways to buy homes. Well, if just on that, I am betting that US comes out way ahead if "success" = "home ownership"- however, if education = success, then about any country not a third world country, and many third world countries, folks are more successful than us.

It is quite evident, once you look at CWs own deal here- less than half the folks on Forbes list inherited thier wealth- but this in and of itself is misleading. Was thier college education provided by thier parents? Donald Trump is a "self made man" by some accounts- but he did inherit the family business- though not neccesarily any of his wealth- from his father. He certainly inherited the contacts that made it possible for him to do business in New York.

Let us also look from another angle= How many on this board are in the 1% tax bracket? None? You mean NOBODY on this board has worked hard enough or shown enough ingenuity to get wealthy? If it were possible with just good ol' american sticktoitiveness, why aren't any of us in the 1% tax bracket?

You mean there is not one person on this board that has not worked thier tail off and tried hard enough?

The very idea that only 1% of the poeple in the country are in that tax bracket at all should tell you something! -



Or, do you agree with Carlitoswhey that America offers limitless opportunity if you apply yourself, work hard, and take advantage of opportunities that present themselves.

It is a nice, comforting myth. As shown with the 1% tax bracket- the cutoff being 350K a year in personal income- that means 99% of Americans ARE NOT applying themselves, working hard or taking advantages that present themselves?

Limitless opportunites are a myth- or there would be more poeple testifying, we would have several, if not more than half, of the folks on this board fitting into that succesful category, based on CWs formula for success.

There is a great deal of luck to success, perhaps more luck than is required by the lottery when you think about it- considering how many lotteries there are now LOL- you have to hit everything right at the right time. You have to have some money to make money. And on and on.

But hey, if it helps poeple to believe that to get through thier dreary, dull lives, more power to them- being financially succesful isn't the be all and end all of the world either. If anything, we focus too much on that in our culture anyway.

This is an important issue, and one which reflects a vital philosophical difference of opinion between stereotypical liberals and conservatives. To what degree are we responsible for what happens to us in life? At one extreme, the belief would be that people bring about the bad things which happen to them. At the other extreme, the belief would be that bad things happen to people because of circumstances. Of course, the truth is somewhere between.

I would tend to say that the United States enjoys a moderate amount of social mobilty. It is neither a rigid society, nor one with limitless opportunity. What concerns me is the fact that things seem to be getting worse over time.

The link provided by CarlitosWhey contains a section comparing the 1970's to the 1990's. It shows that the percentage of families which stay in the same quintile of income earners (instead of going up or down) has grown from 35% to 40%; that those which go up or down two or more quintiles has decreased from 27% to 21%; and that those which go up or down one quintile is about the same (38% to 39%.) There are different ways to interpret this, but to me it suggests that the United States is still a mobile society, but a little less than it used to be.

Well I think my position was made quite clear at the opening of this debate I read the LSE opening and my opinion is still unchanged. In fact I feel it is rather an inefficient comparison. What European nation in the 1950s and 1970s was dealing with as large and complex social order as America? Did they have the level of immigration as we have had? Did they experience the levels of racial integration as we have? I am an immigrant who came to the United States in the 1970s from Europe because my family wanted a better life....how many families like mine went to Norway? or Denmark? Compared to how many of us came to America? And when did this influx cease to exist in America? In the 50s? The 70s, 80s, 90s? I think this is a very very strong element in this nation's social design and I doubt it was much considered.

First off I don't subscribe to the belief that one has to be rich in order to be successful. I think making the move from poverty to middle class is in and of itself quite the achievement.

I do believe there are many myths our society upholds and certain groups within our society perpetuate these myths.
I believe the idea that poverty is a terminal illness is a myth.
I believe the idea that who your parents are or what college you attend will dictate what you achieve in life is a myth, and I believe that choices and decisions you make in life will NOT haunt you forever and that you have the right to a new life.

The last one is something I believe is not true in many many nations. I have had so many family/friends who did not do well on the tests they had to take for college entrance in Europe who were denied the free college access that so many boast of in Europe ...some of which had no choice but to then fall into the less educated fields that their society has prepared for them to choose from. Others had families with enough resources to then send them to college in America...which makes me wonder how many of those success stories in Europe would have occurred without the use of the American system?
I was but one person and I knew many many people who had to find their path to success in Europe with a detour in America. So can we consider European social mobility without considering the role that the American system plays in it?

The point I am trying to make here is that I believe not only does America offer more mobility it offers more opportunities to this mobility. Often in Europe the choices you make at age 16 will haunt you for all your life..not finishing high school or going on to college. There is to me more predetermined paths that you must be willing or capable to follow in order to achieve your success in Europe. You often only get one chance. Whereas I feel quite often this is not true in America because the opportunity to succeed is present in more places, offered to more people and achieved through many variables. I subscribe to the belief that...Americans have always cared more about equal opportunity than about equal results. The commitment to provide everyone with a fair chance to develop their own talents to the fullest is a central tenet of the American creed. This belief has deep roots in American culture and American history and is part of what distinguishes our public philosophy from that of Europe.
source

To me this debate is essentially a challenge on capitalism..it is an attempt to push forward and legitimize the myth that capitalism fails the people and will not and can not provide for us as a collective and will not distribute wealth.

In the 1950s there was over 20% of Americans rotting in poverty, in the year 2000 it rests in and around 12%.source
It is obvious to anyone that America offers economic social mobility or else these numbers would remain constant. Why haven't they? Someone is obviously moving somewhere. And the largest movement is seen within what many here often claim the least favored groups in American society.

Since the 1950s the high school graduation rate has climbed from 34% to a now seen figure of 84%. source
What accounts for this forward moving progression? Does it look very stagnant to anyone here? This high school completion amongst Americans has become such a predictable ascend that I think it is quite safe to say that completing high school is no longer much of a guarantee of a financial or social success at all..that much more is now expected of Americans.

Take another predictor.... one of the guarantees of moving up from poverty to a nice comfy middle class life is a college education. College entrance by Americans has INCREASED by over 20% since the 1950s source
Again this is obvious and direct evidence that social/economical mobility in this nation is still rising and is not stagnant or in decline. This has all occurred as college costs have increased too.

Teen pregnancy..yes this has much to do with poverty. Teen pregnancy has been on a steady decline for over the past 10 yrs.... - 28% says my source

The last thing I would ever consider to label the American economic system would be stagnant.

You can not seriously believe the poverty rate in United States is around "12%". A Realistic figure using European standard of poverty (actual living conditions, health and so forth), i would say around 25-30%. I dont know what you got your figures from (the source you gave was about school complition during certain years).


Bucket, i dont want to down you or anything, but have you seen the huge differences in life quality in Europe compared to United States? Poverty, as we call it is almost abolished in Europe. Have you been there and been able to see the actual reality of it? Not just tourism?

Sure, they may be a good chance for anyone "looking for a better life", and decides that the United States would be suitable, to handle it pretty well, but remember, does doing this (actually leaving), shows clear potential to fullfulling whatever it is they decided, and would most likely be able to handle it wherever he or she goes.


A last thing about immigration which i would say you have it all wrong about. During the last 10 years Europe has been forced to handle Muslim immigration in a huge amount. (and most of them dont want to work or intigrate into civilized society). Most nations in Europe per capita let in far more then United States.

I have a sweedish friend that spoke to an american about immigration. The american i question said that it must be very nice to live in Sweden because of the homogenics in the country. My sweede friend started laughing, and told him they had higher % of immigrants than United States, And the "homogenics" of the country does not exist anymore. But yet, they manage fine (Sweden is one of the "best" countries you can live in).

oops..I accidently reposted a link for the poverty levels..this one here is the real intended link.
Poverty levels
And it is from 1975 to 2003. I like this table because it also breaks it down by race to show that poverty in America has not risen or fallen across the board. That it has in fact been selective.


Yes I seriously can and I did provide evidence. If you dispute this claim it would be best to support such disagreements with your own evidence.


I already stated I was from Europe and I have lived there too thanks. Is the UK not a part of Europe? Because poverty does exist there..I think it is in and around the same rate as it is here in the US..as it does in other EU nations like Poland, Slovenia or Czech Republic are you telling me poverty does not exist in these European nations? Also with Germany and France having double digit unemployment I have no idea how you can claim poverty is abolished. But then again as my quote stated quite aptly our philosophies differ greatly and in America not working and feeding yourself and providing for your own family is considered a poor life.


Again it is best to support your claims with some sort of evidence or source. Claiming Sweden has higher immigration levels and a higher % of immigrants does not make it true. In fact I think your claims are quite wrong and really did not address my questions to how fair the LSE study was when it used test examples from the 1950s and 1970s...what sort of immigration levels did Sweden or any other Northern European nation experience between 1950-1970?
I will provide a source for my argument here is a brief rundown of Foreign population by county by percentage of total population. As you can see the US has nearly double the % of Sweden.

Bucket


Allow me.

Here we have the poverty threshold for 2004.

So let's say a couple decides to get married. All they would need to be abovepoverty is a compiled income of $12,649. Let's break that down. That is 12, 649 divided by 52 weeks divided by 40 hours of work divided by two working adults... That comes to a whopping 3.04 per adult per hour... Wow... someone better let someone know minimum wage is a couple dollars too high.

Let's do a family of 4 Husband and wife and 2 kids

The threshold raises all the way up to 19,157 for that. Do the math and that means each parent only has to have a job paying $4.61 per hour or one parent can work while the other stays home and make $9.21 an hour. A person making $9.21 an hour would gross about $737 a month. That is before they take taxes. You are probably looking at in the low $600's every two weeks.

600 and something dollars every two weeks is enough to put you above the poverty line, but ironically I would love to know where 600 dollars every two weeks would allow you to live out of poverty. Can you put diapers and formula on layaway??

The system protects itself if you let it. I hope this proves EricStanze's point. You may be able to find statistics that show poverty levels to be as low as 12%, but what good is that info when the threshold for poverty is ridiculously way too low

I would take it more to the overall philosophical and reality area here. It is darn difficult to get wealthy. And I am not saying silly rich like Gates or anything- I am meaning what I consider "total financial security"- meaning, if you stopped working tomorow, you would not be in serious trouble of losing everything.

My personal definition is 60K a year in unearned income- every banker I have ever talked to agrees with that definition- it provides you enough income to continue to pay health insurance, mortgage, and a little more than the basic neccesities that make life comfortable- little vacations here and there and such.

Okay- there are how many hundreds of millions of adults in this country? Okay- are only 1% of thoes folks working hard enough and taking responsibility etc to get to that place? Must have a whole nation of really lazy and stupid and unambitious and such- to only have 1% of the folks in this nation ever come close to that reality- and, I don't think anyone on this board- despite all that crowing about hard work eh? LOL

I consider Conservpats genuine arguement, that our parents and especially grandparents (many of them immigrants) achieved upward mobility from hard work, saving and sacrificing, despite some incredibly hard times like the Great Depression. Many people were really dirt poor from the beginning and came to own homes and raise children who also knew the value of hard work. College degrees in that time were not necessary nor expected in order to climb the ladder of success.

(My grandfather was always angry with me because I revered European/Spanish lifestyle (living there at the time) over American lifestyle because he came from total opression (Poland) and vigorously argued that America had given him everything and was the best country in the world. He never could grasp why I did not get it , but things had changed enormously by then.)

The 'Golden Age' of the American Dream in the 1950's and 60's was realized by many of our parents, if you were white, married with children, (hardly if you were black) but even so with the divorce rate rising, race and sex discrimination, the Vietnam War, tides turned. It made for the emancipation of women and minorities to some extent, but its important to understand that NOW it takes a two person income to make it for a family, where-as before families of 4- 8 used to survive on one income or family farm, which is now a distant memory.

Corporate takeover of America has completely changed the rules. While we are definately better off overall from 1929 or 1940-50 (and we should be), and we have more opportunities as individuals , especially women and minorities, the standards have also risen. The cost of maintaining the basics have risen more than the income levels of two earners and more young people are mortgaging their first 15 years of life in needed college loans in order to climb that corporate ladder. You cannot rise in life without a college degree now. The family farm, the average man or woman working thier way, by hard work, to the top is no longer. PLUS we are all systematically driven into the world of credit, dont have it, get nowhere, how do you get it? Spend on it. Spend plenty or have a LOW credit score. Low credit score? Everything you buy you pay more for. This system favors the rich, if we are talking basics, never mind education and who knows who.

The idea that most people can save (like our grandparents did) enough to 'make something of oneself', (or even to outright buy and register a car that meets environmental standards to drive!) becomes complete fallacy. Noone can save enough by hard work alone to do more than get by with the emergencies that are ever demanding on our savings, ie: one medical emergency. CP- in the olden days if 1 of 8 kids if one died of pneumonia you had 7 more, now its a $5,000 medical bill and theres no moral out.

To adress the difference between America and Europe, there is a huge difference.
In America you can have a great idea, ie: baby food or toys, a great cleaning agent, a fantastic invention, 'the Pet Rock', 'Jesus Will Save You', 'Lose fat" or the best idea of 'How to make a Million in 10 Days' can strike it rich. Its the faddish nature of the U.S. as a nation and capitalism. That crap just does not go over in Europe and you cant get a foot on the ground for it. In that aspect, the opportunity to get rich on a whim, a lottery as well is definately here in America.

Thats about it as far as 'riches'. We can work, try to invest wisely, hope our corporation doesnt inflate the books, buy property we hope the taxes wont oust us in our 80's and that we dont get sick too harshly that our HMO's stop paying and we dont go bankrupt.

AS far as Julian's or Carlito's Whey's opinions, I think it falls somewhere in the middle. It depends how much you want to sacrifice, but definately how educated one is, whether that is self or otherwise. While I believe some Europeans can lie back on their laurels knowing there is a safety net, they dont have the opportunities presented in the States. I also do not and would not ever presume that life in the States for many people presents much opportunity to rise above basic survival as many would like to decieve themselves into thinking and also without the ever present fear of losing everything one has ever gained and ending up on the streets. There is a reason it is called 'brutal capitalism'.

Thank you, that was my point.


Thats why i pointed to actual livind conditions and so forth. The amount of money is not interesting. If you earn a whopping 50 000 million a month, but a pieace of bread cost 100 000 million (just an example), it does not really mean much does it?


So, how are the living conditions to the people with this kind of income? How much do they get over after rent is paid, and food is paid or anything else that could be around. Thats why i pointed to a much higher figures such as 25%. Most of the black communities are presumably around these figures? Can you really be open-minded about it and put your patrioism aside?

CR,

Yep, but the myth that you can make millions keeps a few in those high brackets. If you can come up with a convincing get-rich scheme, there you go. You get rich. Coming up with the scheme is the trick.

You would need one million after taxes to invest, and reap a steady 6% per year to hit that 60k level, plus 60k for the first year (while the interest builds). Figure on 33% taxes on that 60k, so the net comes to 39.6k, or 3.3k per month, or $761 per week. I'm not accounting for sales taxes, usage fees, tacked-on taxes and the such.

Let's say that by some magical thing, every working or able-to-work adult in the US woke up to find a million in the checking account and zero debt. How much money does that represent?

Let's say 200 million citizens fit this category. That's probably a high figure, but say it's so. 200 million times a million equals 200 trillion. Add a couple trillion for wiping out debt. It actually looks like this is possible!

On paper, anyway. It always looks good on paper, and paper is cheap. Ideas are cheap. Getting one to work is the pisser.

So how does one go about getting an idea to work? Depends on the idea, eh? One part would be learning a bunch about the idea, then trying various ways of carrying out the idea, then selling the idea to others. All you need is a couple million folks to buy the idea at a buck profit per sale.

The more bucks profit per sale, the fewer people. Okay, so what's the idea?

Aye, back to square one. Let's see, what do people want? Food, shelter, clothing, sex, status, entertainment, baubles & bangles blingbling, beer/whiskey/wine, drugs, health, wealth, above-average children, power, forgiveness, knowledge, wisdom, feel-good propaganda, vacations, transportation, quit this habit, start that habit, bigger this, smaller that, romance, adventure, fake horror, safe thrill rides, security, dependability, service with a smile, fries with that burger.

That's the short list. Pick one and get creative with it, that's the ticket. It's probably a good idea to pick something that you'd like to do no matter what. What would you do if you won the lottery? Retired? Got a fat inheritance? Then maybe you get lucky and sales shoot high, or maybe not. Lots of variables on that sales part. Marketing still makes the big bucks. After all, it's the art of yanking market share from competitors who have been doing this a lot longer than you have.

But would you stop after making two million one-dollar profit sales? Not likely, and so the thing gets bigger and bigger and . . .

Well, that's why everyone will never wake up with a million bucks in the checking account and zero debt. The money collects in pools and lakes because someone figured out how to manipulate the stream. Others are trying the same thing, and so it goes.

But it looks so simple on paper, doesn't it. I think a certain amount of faith is in the mix too. So an idea, creative work with the idea, luck and faith.

I'm gonna be rich yet

I think you have proven a lot less than you believe you have with poverty thresholds. Perhaps you should provide us with information that proves this amount is too low? Can you prove to us that you can not purchase baby formula and diapers on these earnings? You should perhaps have to take into consideration the purchase power of these households..yes? no?

It is also interesting to note that if we took European household's earnings and used our means of determining poverty or low-income with our stated thresholds , purchasing powers, and consumption a very very different image would appear than the one you and EricStanze are trying to portray.

The information I am now looking at claims that close to 25% of Americans live in low-income which is classified as 25,000 USD a year income or less. It claims that if compared to Sweden, America would in fact come out on top as Sweden would have 40% of her own population in this low-income category.
It also states that the poor in America enjoy a higher standard of living..as in economic. That a higher % of the poor or low income in the US own their own homes, have air conditioning, own a car, have a larger living space etc.

source

Having lived poor in America and under the threshold yes you can buy food for your baby and if you feel you can not the government will help. I love how so many here in America like to pretend there is no welfare system when there is in fact a massive one.

Also not surprised EricStanze chose not to reply or address any of my points. If Economic growth is one of the main factors or needed elements for economic mobility how can European nations even compete with America? The LSE article claimed the US was stagnant when in reality it is Europe that is stagnant. How can you have close to 0% growth, massive unemployment, poverty increases and yet somehow more economic mobility? Exactly how is that possible? My family had to leave Europe because there was no work..none. Yes there was work in UK( UK is very different) but my husband boycotted that move. Yes we could have stayed and earned 80% of our past income for doing nothing but our American mindset found that possibility depressing.

I'd like to back up some of what bucket is saying. There are a lot of low income families in Scandinavia (which includes Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland). However, I don't agree that its any where near 40%, I can't reconcile that figure with any statistic I am familiar with here.

Scandinavian countries perform well in surveys, such as in the UN standard of living surveys, because of the massive state run support infrastructure that enables people to live comfortably despite being in a low income family.

There is social mobility here, a lot in fact, but only if you are Danish. Immigrants find it hard to get by and over 50% can't even find a job. 47% of Danes polled state they have no interest in even talking to an immigrant and foreigners need to be invited into the mainstream to enjoy the social mobility we have. I suspect it is the same in Sweden and Norway (perhaps more so in the case of the latter) and in this, the USA clearly out performs us.

I don't know and can't comment on how much real social mobility there is in the USA, but it does strike me that there are a good many people being described as poor which seems at odds with the idea of social mobility... perhaps in the USA, as in Denmark, who you are matters as to your chances of upward social mobility?

editted to add:

Its been drawn to my attention that Finland is not a Scandinavian nation. This is true. I add Finland because the other Nordic countries usually include Finland in such social and cultural issues as these.

The forty percent figure is derived from the last source I linked to in my previous posting. It is not that I believe 40% of Swedes live in low-income households..not in the least..it is just that in comparison to American households they would appear to. Poverty and how we define what is poor is a highly subjective concept so it is difficult to take European nations and attempt to qualify their quality of life and the needed elements of a richer life against that of America. Many things here in the US that are considered luxury items are thought of as necessities in Europe as it is also true in the reverse.

I also believe it is difficult to take all of EU and compare it to all of the US. Some EU nations are far below the economic conditions of other EU nations and the same irregular conditions occurs in different regions or states in the US. I would be more interested to see data on comparable city or urban regions.

Point taken bucket.

With regards to the USA Vs. Europe, I recall you used to live in Switzerland... how would you compare that nation, as an example of your personal experiences to the USA with regards to personal social mobility?

Other people I know who have lived in Switzerland often comapre it to the Nordic* nations with regards to social and cultural issues.





*Happy Eric?

But to "solve" this debate/topic, we would need to see what poverty really is. And if you lived in Switzerland as Moif indicated (could be false propaganda, can we really trust Moif? can we? ). you would be aware of the differences between Europe and US when it comes to average living standard.


We are not talking about poor versus rich, or "its so much better here", but the basic question, is the american neon sign regarding personal social mobility really true (rags to riches, as the topic so nicely illuminates).?

If a huge chunk of the american people would live in what i would call "squaller", it cant really be true, can it? Or are these people just lazy as someone earlier indicated? Thats ludicrous, people would do their best to climb the ladder if possible.


I would not only say, but claim, that the average European's living standard is far beyond the american one, and i think even UN has some statistics of it. Also if you lived in Europe, and in United States, you notice the difference. And as Bucket (yes you), have, did you not see a difference regarding this?






Moif, i saw your correction
And Switzerland is pretty similar to the Nordic (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark) countries yes.... ok ok, and lets add Iceland.

I know this is off topic but I believe it should be clarified. Comparing US and European economies is fascinating but ultimately there are some reasons why comparing the two is pointless.

Since World War 2, the US has paid for the defense of Europe. This has enabled many States in Europe to pay for other programs that here in the US we simply cannot afford. Now that the Cold War is over and the US’ role in defending Europe is decreasing, it is not clear that these same States will be able to afford these costly programs. We will know more clearly in about twenty five years whether or not this “european model” will work. However, so far much of Europe is coming to terms with this new reality.

My aunt worked for a company in Italy for 30 years and receives a sum of 800 Euro a month to live on. The only way she gets by is from my mother sending her her entire pension every month (she also worked in Italy for many years). After the Euros are converted to dollars and back again it roughly doubles my aunt's income and she is able to live in a way we would consider poor by American standards. She is hardly alone, as nearly every one of my family with the exception of a few relatively affluent accountants live that way. Europeans I know who live here can't believe what our citizens give away for free. My French friends (7 different families living here in Vegas) spend each saturday morning going to garage sales. They have furnished their houses that way. They told me that in France people sell used items at markets for much more money.

Per your point about outrageous prices, have you been to Europe? The US is very affordable by comparison as prices are escalating and pensions and salaries haven't risen to catch up. My aunt's boyfriend (a man in his 60s) has just lost a business he worked his whole life maintaining. This is happening in a lot of places in Italy as businesses are going under because people don't have the discretionary money to spend. Even my uncle's autoshop is just barely getting by and a good mechanic is almost as hard to find as a plumber or electrician in Italy. Severe labor laws have absolutely crippled his business, and he gets by the way they all do over there if they wish to keep afloat...jobs on the side and off the books after hours.

Okay, the above was anecdotal, but I have lived in Europe which was your challenge in your first post. I am a military spouse, single income with two kids while in Italy, and I lived BY FAR better by comparison to almost all of my Italian family...better than the nurses, business owners, and teachers. The only one who seemed to have a comparable standard of living was my accountant cousin with a Phd who owned his own firm.

Per my personal story (requested by the initial post)... I don't have much of one, but my mother came over from Italy with nothing, and she and my dad started a business and are pretty well off today. My father's father came over from Switzerland with nothing but the boat ticket and eventually got rich by farming and investing in Michigan farmland. Unfortunately, he didn't have life insurance and died young so my grandmother sold the land cheaply and quickly and had nothing left by the time of her death. But, my grandfather was very wealthy when he died. My father-in-law came over with nothing from Cuba and was chased with sticks by the locals when he arrived. He became a commercial pilot, aerospace engineer, computer software developer, and lots of other things. He is fairly affluent. We are doing well for a single income military family..though we both have had a lot of luck, I must admit.

Do you agree with Julian, that America is less socially mobile than other comparable nations, and that class, income and race count for more than personal talent and effort?

America is not less socially mobile by comparison. Absolutely no way, IMO. My French friends recently showed me a picture of the house of one of their friends who lives in Bellaire. He left France to start a restaurant business in California, and he built himself a house that resembles precisely an old French castle. The furnishings inside look like something out of the Versailles castle. This man started with nothing...this would not have been possible for him in France. On the other hand, the Italian government has offered land for free to anyone willing to rebuild an old castle in Polcenigo. No one has taken the offer, because anyone who is smart enough to have money knows that the Italian government would most likely nationalized it as soon as it's built.

Or, do you agree with Carlitoswhey that America offers limitless opportunity if you apply yourself, work hard, and take advantage of opportunities that present themselves.

I think this is the closest to right. Very, very few people have the types of rich connections growing up that Niteguy mentioned. In fact, I've found that the offspring of rich people tend to be spoiled and shiftless. The "greatest generation", the ones who went into WWII as young soldiers and later made their fortunes, were the offspring of the depression. They were physically and mentally tough and this enabled them to work through hard times and expect nothing for free. It's a good country for success if that is your mindset. That doesn't mean that everyone will be rich, or that luck isn't a factor...it is. Luck is a factor for much success in life ('I'd rather be lucky than good' is my personal slogan), but the harder you work the luckier you become.

One thing that does stand out in my mind, while I'm sharing personal anecdotes...The people in my family who feel the most sympathy for the plight of the poor are the ones who were never poor. My father always gives away money to people holding out signs and begging, and charity (when my mother doesn't catch him). My husband and I are the same. I usually give money to an indigent person who asks for it, and I give to a charities during the year.

On the other hand, my mother grew up literally starving. She was so sick that the government sent her to a convent to live from the age of three until she was eight (her only formal education) because the property she lived on was not healthy. She scrounged for food and worked as soon as she was old enough (age nine). She is the least sympathetic person towards the American poor you will ever meet. She does feel sympathy for the poor in third world countries, and parts of the former Yugoslavia, but niente for American poor. Ditto my father in law, who came over with nothing and was chased with sticks.

What a great topic! Major kudos to the joint authors.

Do you agree with Julian, that America is less socially mobile than other comparable nations, and that class, income and race count for more than personal talent and effort?
I think in comparison with our European and Asian counterparts, America likely fares quite well. I'll admit to making this statement anecdotally without the ability to research it properly. Others in this debate have done a good job (I think) of showing that class movement is possible and happens quite often.

Or, do you agree with Carlitoswhey that America offers limitless opportunity if you apply yourself, work hard, and take advantage of opportunities that present themselves.
I honestly do believe this is still true today. I'm a bit of an example myself, though I will accept that being white and male may have afforded an edge to some degree. My parents divorced when I was 7 and to make ends meet my mother moved us into a mobile home park where we lived for over 7 years (this was part of the reason I stayed out of the "trailer trash" topic, its a little too close to home). I hated it there. So did my mother but her job afforded her a car and enough to keep decent clothes on our back and food on the table, and not much else. Ironically, at the time I really never considered us to be "poor". But if I look at her income at the time vs. the poverty level we were in fact right around the poverty line for a family of three in this country.

My mother changed jobs and over time her/our income began to rise. She was an exceptional salesman and was finally in an industry that rewarded it. At the same time I was graduating high school and her income coupled with a trust I gained as a result of an accident when I was 12 allowed me to attend college. Initially it was full time but the cost of college eventually chewed much of that up and forced me to work full time and school part time. I graduated though, and was able to gain employ at base scales in the IT field (my degree was in political science though, go figure ).

12 years later my income has risen progressively and I'm thankful to say I'm the top wage earner in my extended family.

Am I the exception? I doubt it. Did my sex and race perhaps make it easier to accomplish? Maybe. In the end I think Carlitos' point is correct. I really don't think there are persistent, hardened barriers to mobility in this country. That isn't to say that none exist at all, that would be naive and arguably utopian. But I do think in a general sense the opportunity is there for those who will seize it.

I do think there are times when the government can help to give a hand up (as opposed to hand out). These aren't just entitlement programs like welfare and AFDC. Programs like Head Start, SBA loans for small business startups, child care assistance and after school programs I think can help give a nudge to areas that might be tougher to climb the social ladder in. These shouldn't be long term supports, however.

In the end, a focus on education, hard work, and perserverance I believe do enable people to climb the social scales in our country. Its by no means perfect, but I think in comparison to our peers in Europe and Asia, its certainly not worse.

Doc

I highly doubt, NiteGuy, that immigrants come to America just to get what is a low paying job here, and hold it for the rest of their lives. I believe that they come here to get started and build the foundations that could eventually lead to wealth. I think that they come here because their family and their kids are more likely to succeed here than where they came from...And that would not be the case if America didn't offer a chance at social mobility. The point that wealthy people have an easier time at getting things, is true...And that's kinda the point. People work hard to become wealthy, and they are rewarded by having an easier life, that makes sense to me. But 99% of people still have to work to be rich, so the argument remains. If America doesn't allow for social mobility, then what is it exactly that it does allow? Surely no one thinks that people are stuck in the class that they are born in...right? Regarding the point that the playing field isn't level, that may be, and probably is, true. However, a person makes his/her own playing field by achievement. Persisting is always an option in this country, and will eventually lead to sucess. But again, if we don't have much social mobility in this country, then what do you call what we do have?

CP

No, I can't prove whether someone can buy baby formula, but that is only because I don't know the priorities and situations of each family. What I can tell you is that someone making $600 + every two weeks, can not pay an average rent, a car note and gasoline, electricity, water, gas for heating, health insurance, renters insurance, life insurance, clothes and shoes for work, clothes and shoes for the wife, clothes and shoes for quickly growing kids, groceries for adults, groceries for kids, school supplies, medical bills, dental bills for the root canal your wife needs, the couple of hundred of dollars it takes when the cheap car you has breaks down and needs a fix... and if you own your house, which is highly unlikely, the monthly items and repairs that it takes to replace, repair broken items, and then be able to buy formula and diapers.

It is hard to find a national average for apartments... but I was able to find this

source

What we can see is that in these two cities, that are below the national average, still have apartments that rent at a rate of 800 to 1000 dollars. Well that's that's more than a whole paycheck of someone above the poverty line with a family of four. If we were to use the later of the two prices that would be almost a paycheck and a half for 1 month rent.

I could go on... but I know I am going off topic too far as it is. If seeing the poverty threshold doesn't, in and of itself, make you think that the line of poverty is too low, I might as well try to figure out how to convince you that water is wet.

As for mobility in this nation...

Of course there is mobility for any individual. Any individual can go from dirt poor to super wealthy in this country. Look at entertainers and athletes. But I don't think that is the point. Social mobility for the whole does not exist, because the system can not allow it.

A system that advocates competition, must have people who fail. It can not support everyone being successful.

Carlito


This isn't hard to believe at all, but what does it show. Let's take the President. Now without bashing, one could argue he hasn't inherited his wealth. But his status afforded him all the opportunities in the world. Where would a mediocre person like George Bush if he was raised in some trailer park.

I won't go into detail, about his life, but I will say that if one were poor they would not have the resources to continue to set themselves back and still achieve what Bush has.

I would love to see the statistic of how many people of the 400 richest Americans was born and raised inside of poverty. I would like to exempt anyone one on such a list that is an athlete or entertainer. The fact is I don't need to inherent wealth, merely be a product of wealth.

If my family has wealth, I get the best schools with the best books with the best teacher and the best tutors. I get the best education and get the best contacts, whether that be my family or friends of the family who offer me the high profile jobs, that allows me to make my wealth without inheriting one single dime.

When you are poor unless you are extremely blessed or extremely lucky you just don't have the resources available to make transition from rags to riches within your life time. It's not impossible, but then, no country is like that. I'm sure if you went to the most deprived country you would find someone that went from rags to riches by that country's standards.

Firstly, thank you all for your excellent responses!

Well, the poorest suburb in the country fed into my high school, and I suppose you could argue that I got into a "better" community college because of it. High school with ashtrays. As to "connections" I won't speak for psyclist, but I'm glad he's got a nice family.

Niteguy, I appreciate your point of view but you are speaking of a world so foreign to me I don't even know where to start. I'm aware that many rich white people play golf, but your line of logic seems almost demeaning to those of us who have worked our way up in life. My dad was a garbageman and we ate Reagan cheese (if you know what this is, you are a product of the 80's ). I somehow managed to sqeak through school and become mildly successful without playing golf. Sadly, I've taken it up lately, and it's going nowhere.

1 - Jackson Park golf course, on Chicago's South Side has Junior greens fees of $14 weekends, $12 weekdays. Easily reachable from public transit.
2 - Again, whose dad is taking him to work and introducing him around the office? I really don't know where you are getting this. Did the inner-city kid's mom have a choice not to have kids? A choice to get married first? A choice to look for a guy with an office job?

We all need help, regardless of class. Of course, connections help everybody, but who is depriving whom of connections? Every school has clubs, organizations and mentoring programs. The armed forces are an excellent leg up on life. Churches still exist in all socioeconomic strata, yes?

Aside from our favorite example George Bush, I bet you only know of a few people that fit this class. And if they are complete screw-ups, it's likely that their own kids will have to start over anyway. Plus, you're forgetting that many of the super-rich have lots of guilt and thus give tons of time and effort to charity. see here for how the forbes 400 give to charity - for example Bill Gates gave away 37% of his wealth, and Gordon Moore gave away 64%. How many poor kids get a leg up from this philanthropy?


I agree with CP here - I guess I should make clear that individual economic achievement is one measure of success, but securing success of any definition for your children is far more worthy. You can say that the $9.15-per-hour guy is "poor" but if his kids all go to college then isn't he a success? I know tons of people where we are the first generation of our families to go to college. Our parents are proud and I'd deem them to be successful.


Indeed you've hit on something here. In America, people can either succeed or they can fail. And when they fail, they are very likely to have cable TV, a car, air conditioning, and free health care. I'm not being some callous rich guy here, just wanted to point out that our poor are very rich compared to some other countries. And you can succeed here in a bigger way than you can most any other place, just by the nature of the size of the US market and our tax structure encouraging entrepreneurship.


This is a fair point. Surely more than half of our very richest Americans had a head start, whether good schools, good home, connections. Let's say 3 out of 4. So, for every 3 of Sam Walton's kids or Bill Gates or Steve Forbes, there is one Oprah Winfrey or Alfred Mann. I don't want to focus on the super-rich, as only intended the Forbes list as an example. I'm much more interested in normal people working hard and succeeding.

I agree with Carlitoswhey. Education has always been a means to advance oneself through society. You tend to find those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder complaining that this is an Elitist society where only a few can advance. Those who make this accusation lack economic prestige, and have failed to take advantage of the educational oppurtunities that this country offers. Bill Gates may have not graduated from college but finished High school and completed 2 years at Harvard University leaving his Junior year. Sam Walton obtained a degree from the University of Missouri and Columbia, majoring in economics.He grew up during the Great Depression, came from a lower class family and started as a manager in JcPenny. Yet he built up a multi-billion dollar business becoming one of the richest men in America.

That's exactly right Funwayo. America's education system alone is a FREE opportunity to move into another class. Everyone has the opportunity to get an education, and education is the key to sucess in this country, much more so then anything else. If you educate yourself, you give yourself a great opportunity to advance yourself, which, by definition, is social mobility. There is so much that YOU control in your life as an American, it is impossible to not have the opportunity to succeed and/or move up the social ladder.

CP

Funny thing is, I'm not talking about "rich" people here. I'm talking about solid, upper-middle class kids. And I am by no means saying that they are "shiftless", or "screw ups". But they definitely have the idea that they got where they are all on their own, with no consideration of what was done for them by their parents, or of the connections they may have made through their parents, or of just being in the right place at the right time.

Here's an example. A family friend's kid just graduated from a major technical university with a major in electrical engineering, and a minor in Spanish. Not to difficult for him in either case, since Dad is a senior engineer in the engineering division of a company that makes equipment for telecom firms. He learned that particular skill in the military, before moving to private industry. Mom was a second generation decendant of immigrants from Barcelona, and so, Spanish was still rather prevalent in the household. The parents could afford to send Junior to a major college, all expenses paid, so that he wouldn't have to work and attend classes at the same time. After graduation Junior got a job interview, and a job, in part, because of connections his dad had through other companies, with a major telecom firm, translating for engineers in the field in Spanish speaking countries, to make sure local labor is on the same page with their English speaking counterparts.

Dad admits that his friends in the other company, basically got the Junior his job. By the way, Junior makes $80,000 a year for this. Now, the kid works hard, no doubt about it, and could hardly be called a screw up, but it's quite plain that his position is at least as much due to the good luck of who his parents were, and what they could do for him, as it was his work alone. But that's not the way he sees it. He sees it as nothing more than hard work and perseverance on his part.


And yet, here we have from Carlitoswhey:

You don't think it's an incentive to get into this country from someplace else, where even the poor are better off than their own middle class, or in some cases "rich" people? True, they have a better chance to build a nice solid foundation here than where they came from, but look around. How many hispanics and asians, for example come here from dire straits at home, and work as a hotel housekeeper or a waiter for most of their lives? Or open a small restaurant or grocery store that puts them into what we would call the middle class, and then stay there? Yes, of course it's much better than what they had, but that's not really what started this thread, is it? It's whether or not there is evidence of large social and economic mobility within this society. The statistics provided earlier, by Carlitoswhey, don't seem to support that notion. Yes, there certainly is some mobility, but could it be better? Of course it can, and in fact was, in the 60's and 70's as shown by the article provided earlier.

We certainly do have some social mobility in this country. I never said that. But, as noted earlier, there are many in this country who work hard all of their life and never really get any further than when they started. Perhaps they are fairly happy with where they are at, I don't know. But to assert that all it takes is hard work, and some education, is disingenuous, at best. Everybody can get rich, and be head of their own company, if they want. All it takes is some learning and discipline, and bewing willing to work at it. That's a description of the ultimate pyramid scheme. Because everybody can't be CEO, no matter the hype. It just isn't possible. There's a reason that the pyramid gets smaller at the top, you know.

Hey, I'm not even talking about "rich white people" being the only ones to play golf here, and I'm not demeaning what you've done at all. What I am saying, is that in many cases, the networks you make in places like these go a lot further than you can imagine. It is rather unlikely, however, that you're going to find someone at your $14 a game inner city golf course that will get you the connections you need to move up much. By the way, I've played for years, and gotten fairly good, and I hate the game, personally, but I realize the value of the connections I can make to get additional business for my company, and to be able to maintain a network, should I ever need to look for other employment. Again, an advantage that a lot of others may not have the oppotunity to exploit.

Personally, of course, he's a success. But again, that's not what we've been talking about here. We've been talking about that guy being able to easily move up the ladder economically and socially. If, after 20 years, he's still making only $9.15 an hour, I would say that his mobilty argues more to my point than yours, wouldn't you?

Now, Carlitos, we were going to keep sports figures and entertainers out of this, remember? That scratches Oprah. As to Alfred Mann? I looked at the link you provided to his profile in Forbes, which notes that he sold lemonade and magazines during the Great Depression. Now, take a look again. I did. And I looked for other info on him. His birth year is given either as 1925, or 1927. Which would have made his age at the end of the depression (1933) as either 6 or 8. I'm sure lots of kids sold magazines, or had lemonade stands at that age, Depression or not. Hardly an example of "persistence paying off".

Mr. Mann's, parents were apparently well off enough after the Depression to send him to UC in Los Angeles, where he got an engineering degree, and one company he was with Textronics, paid for his time at harvard Business School. Again, I'm not saying that he didn't work hard to get where he is today, only that there seems to be some good luck along the way, not related to his "perseverence".

Look, I'm not saying that any one person with a good idea, Like Mann or Gates, can't make big strides. What I am saying, is that in most cases, it takes more than that, and hard work. It takes having the right connections, it takes being in the right place at the right time, it takes some luck along the way. These people, and even celebrities, if you want to count them, seem to be more the exception than the rule. Look at the NYT charts again, Caritos. Yes, 21% have moved up or down at least 2 quintiles. Most of that, though was from the lowest to the middle fith. Not the middle to the highest. Also, that means of course that fully 79% haven't necessarily moved all that much at all. And even at 21% mobility, that's down from 27% mobility just 30 years ago.

I'm certainly not saying that there is no mobility at all. Only that it's not nearly so easy as you would presume, and that it's getting harder, not easier, and by your own evidence.

Well you can in fact determine whether they can make their needed purchases or not..I already gave you one hint..purchase power another would be consumption. There are plenty of statistics and such on this sort of data.

The only thing or use the poverty threshold has in any sort of determination is in regards to government handouts or welfare. See what you so casually forget to list in amongst the laundry list of the must do's of the poor is that if you prove to the government that you earn in or under the poverty threshold (and most lie so I question the figures to begin with) you will receive food assistance, WIC, Medicaid, housing and in some states the income limits for eligibility are lower.

If you had your baby on welfare all you have to do is stay in the system and the system will follow, change and progress as your child ages. When you are pregnant you receive WIC, when you have had the baby you receive free formula and diapers. When the child is older you can receive money specially allocated for the child's food needs, and when they enter school your child can receive free breakfast and lunch. If you are poor they consider your need for enrichment is greater and so poor children are offered headstart programs...for free.
Most schools ask parents to donate extra school supplies for those in need or else the school will help provide this for you.
All of this is started and initiated from the beginning of a poor women's pregnancy..all you have to do is ask for help and fill out a form. This idea that any child in America goes without food simply because they are poor is a complete misrepresentation of the true reality.
And clothes..there are so many cheap affordable resources in America.

In fact the statistical data proves that being poor is no longer a health risk as it once was. Poor children are not malnourished or have less food intake than their middle class counterparts.

source

And you have obviously never been poor... renter's insurance now that is a bit of a luxury as is paying medical bills..you go to the emergency room not a doctor's office and then you just ignore the bills when they arrive in the mail.

Also if you are poor or low-income in America it is highly more likely that you will own your own home.

I found an interesting article on the means in which we measure and compute poverty in this country and how flawed an image it offers

In the face of such evidence, what do you call an indicator that stubbornly insists that the percentage of Americans below a fixed poverty threshold has increased? How about "a broken compass?"
Broken Yardstick

Moif I don't wish to personalize my argument too much as many often complain of anecdotal arguments. And I do have quite the remarkable story if I may say so myself I think Europe is for the most part not too far behind the US or even at the same level when it comes to mobility. But again I feel there are a few things in which Europe lags behind..one would be integration of the lowest level entrants in the economy...mainly immigrants. The other would be alternative choices..as in choosing to go back to college after the kids are grown or because you desire a career change...the power of reinvention is a very American thing. I also think that the lack of economic growth has to be hindering the chances of this mobility in Europe greatly.

I just wanted to add that all the data I have viewed/read or glanced over shows that economic mobility in the US has remained constant and has not fallen or made any sort of significant decrease in the past 30 odd years. Here is a basic article discussing this that lists many studies on the subject, how they evaluated or gathered their data and a brief synopsis of their findings...yeah I am a bit of a wannabe econ geek.
Economic Mobility in the United States

The American Dream is for far too many a dream that is out of their reach, above their means, and beyond their ability to realize.

Having finished a stint taking unemployment claims from my fellow citizens in Ohio, I come away from the experience more convinced than ever that "upward mobility" has given way to merely "treading water."

Too many times I asked the client for their birthdate and the response was a date in the Fifties, Forties and even Thirties. These were usually white males and women who were being fired/laid off/downsized or what ever term suits you and most had never filed a unemployment claim before. These were good people who played the game by the rules and were shown the door. Where does a 55 year old waitress go to find another job when the truck stop she's been working at for 20 plus years closes down? What kind of retraining or future job opportunities does she have in some small town?

People are treated as disposable assets by Corporate America. The company sucks their life and youth away and leaves them nothing but an underfunded pension. I can't begin to tell you how angry, hurt, confused, despairing or just plain embarrassed these people were. They were ashamed they had to apply fo