Social mobility

Foreword and Introduction
The idea that everyone has a similar chance of moving up the social ladder is what lies behind equality of opportunity. The converse; that rich parents have children who themselves become rich, whilst poorer parents have children who remain poor illustrates inequality of opportunity. For many years, the USA always touted the better life chances there than practically anywhere else on Earth; the so called ‘American dream’ was that anyone could make it in the US; that immigrants from impoverished backgrounds could have just as good a chance as anyone else of becoming successful in whatever field they happened to be in.
However, if one looks at social mobility these days, plotted against income inequality in countries in Europe and the USA, we have a situation in which those countries having the highest degree of income inequality also have the lowest amount of equality in terms of social mobility. A person wishing to live the American dream these days stands more chance of doing that in Scandinavia than in North America. Income inequality is an inverse relation to equality of social mobility.

In the discussion that follows, a citizen (C) debates the issue with a denizen (D).

Citizen: The chances of being upwardly mobile despite one’s background brought people in their millions to the shores of America. The opportunities denied them in the countries of their birth brought people from all over the world to America.

Denizen: We speak of push-factors and pull-factors at work when trying to explain the reasons why people emigrate to other countries; of course, push-factors such as persecution will probably always remain stronger forces than the benefits perceived to exist in the destinations of people’s choice, won’t they? Although, of course, people hope, and in hoping invest something in their notions. They become optimistic about their chances in the New World.

C: But it will depend upon the individual; what is unbearable for one may not be so for another, but generally, yes, I should think those factors that press upon families in certain countries will bear down upon them more than any promise of a better life will tempt them to move. This is all too simple an explanation of the reasons why people desire to live in a country they were not born in; each individual has his or her own reasons for wanting to emigrate. Of those said to pull people away from their own shores, there is no doubt that the chances of getting equal opportunities in life pull heavily.

D: I think that first we should attempt to talk about living in a country where there are equal opportunities to advance in life. The opportunities of which we speak are generally those surrounding education and the chance of earning a reasonable living, and therefore of being able to live a happy, healthy life.

C: But we will have to note that equal opportunities means just that; that each person will have the same chance as the next – not that anything is guaranteed – happiness, for example.

D: Of course not, happiness can never be guaranteed, in any case. Nevertheless, the words, ‘the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ appeared in the Declaration of Independence, did they not?

C: Yes, and they were indelibly transplanted in the psyche of every citizen of that country, and yet how many are systematically denied that last one – the pursuit of happiness?

D: Well, the pursuit of happiness is not the same thing as the finding of happiness, is it?

C: It is not, the wording that must be carefully drawn up; any suggestion that happiness is guaranteed would be very confusing to anyone wishing to live in that country, wouldn’t it?

D: But it seems to me that there are those now who would exploit that wording, or at least insist that the pursuit of happiness is sufficiently vague to have virtually no substantive meaning at all.

C: Which indeed seems to be the case in America these days – when equality of opportunity is tied so closely to inequality of income. It is a fact, statistically proven, that the chances of the young of the well-off have themselves a very good chance of being well-off in their adult life, whilst the children of the poor have very little chance of emerging from poverty in theirs.

D: But hasn’t that always been the case; wealthy parents leave their children monies to be equally divided upon their deaths.

C: That is true, but the great wealth of the so called super rich is now enough to ensure that all the members of one family become fabulously wealthy, whereas a more moderate amount of wealth does not ensure that, and in any case, family businesses, the more normal level of enterprise – the shop – the family run company - is left to those bereaved, which usually ensures that those coming into that type of inheritance, often work harder than they would otherwise do were they to be left nothing.

D: That is true, whereas corporations are far too cumbersome and complex to be left to anyone; with shareholders holding the bulk of shares, the son of a director cannot be reasonably be expected to inherit anything but shares in that company.

C: But I think we are talking on too grand a scale, aren’t we? After all, most enterprises, as we have said, are of the more modest proportions, rendering anything inherited as a duty and a responsibility rather than as any grand legacy of wealth.

D: Then how have things changed? Has the small business been ousted by the mammoth corporation?

C: Surely in many cases, this is what has happened. Economies of scale have meant that small shopkeepers – grocers, for example – have virtually no chance of staying in business when a supermarket or its larger version, the hypermarket comes to town. What has happened in America, and all over the Western world, where, ironically, growth in gross national product bears little relation to equality of opportunity, which itself reflects income inequality, is that big business has sounded the death knell of small business, and it was small business that ensured more equality of opportunity than big business can provide.

D: So, what has become of the aspirations of those who seem, on the face of it, to have little chance of any upward mobility?

C: Well, the poor kid probably does not look to education as a way out anymore.

D: Then where does he look?

C: To those areas of activity in which chance play a bigger role – sport – kids running bare-foot on the streets of Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, or Cairo and Rome, if you prefer, most probably dream of playing for Santos, or AC Milan than they do of becoming doctors and teachers.

D: But are they not right to be that way; they know, or seem to know only too well that normal progressions via educational attainment is beyond them.

C: They most probably do, and I would add, sadly, that youngsters in so-called Western democratic, industrialized nations do too. Kids on the streets of New York or London, Amsterdam or Berlin have just as few chances as kids growing up on the banks of the River Nile or the Amazon.

D: If that is so, how does education appeal to the young?

C: For most, it probably doesn’t have any appeal at all. Only children of those who have done well from higher education have any inclination to go that way.

D: And children of thieves go that way, do you mean to say?

C: Yes, I am sure that is right, unfortunately, with notable exceptions.

D: I am glad to hear it. So there are still young people who strive to improve their lot despite the poor examples set by their own families or their peers.

C: I am sure it must be so; we must not discount the sometimes adverse influences of peer groups, particularly in poor neighbourhoods. A child who takes books home to read in his satchel instead of football boots must get very short shrift from those around him; even from members of his own family – his siblings – his own brothers and sisters. It is a headstrong and willful child who goes against the grain in such situations, and a species of bullying can and usually does ensure the kid swaps his books for his boots, if you see what I mean.

D: But nothing has changed in that respect – that has always been the case, sadly for some.

C: Yes, but don’t you see, with fewer and fewer kids thinking about doing well at school as a route out of poverty, the norm is that kids skip school rather than excelling in their studies. Reading, we are told, is getting a more infrequent pastime for many youngsters.

D: But what has that to do with the issue in question – lack of social mobility?

C: A lot. Reading does many things for those who read; it brings their literacy up to higher levels, which in turn will increase their ability to express themselves; reading opens up new and exciting horizons in the minds of impressionable young people; reading promotes sustained levels of concentration – a much needed antidote to TV – and reading widens the imagination of readers – brings creativity into their lives.

D: That is all very well, but I say again, what has all that to do with lack of opportunity? How will kids reading books ever change anything?

C: Right away, let’s clear up one thing: change doesn’t happen overnight. Things have got to happen, and when people read, something does happen.

D: What?

C: Possible alternatives express themselves to the prepared, fertile mind. For kids on the back streets of our biggest cities, and elsewhere, this is perhaps the biggest benefit to be had from reading – the realization that it doesn’t have to be this way, and the knowledge that indeed, it hasn’t always been this way.

Too often, people are confronted with a reality not of their making – not of their choosing, and being all pervasive – all around them – it appears as if it is inevitable – as if it can never be changed, whereas the truth is that it can.

D: Again, I say that a children reading can have no bearing on that reality.

C: Why do you think that? Reality is transient, surely! It is what we make it. Alternatives lie in every direction, though they may not appear to many. Like I said, children who take their bits of reality from other sources, invest something of themselves in that alternative reality and in so doing change from within – that is the only way anything can be changed – if people change from within.

D: And I suppose you are going to tell me that if enough people change from within, society will change.

C: It always has. Possibilities rise in the mind, are reified and tried, copied and spread – change starts in the heart and mind of the prepared.

D: But we have already said that income inequality equates to lack of social mobility. How can the powerless, the poor, challenge vested interest?

C: Ah, you need to read more – try history – see if there has ever been any situation that could not be overcome by determination and will, by a refusal to accept things as they are – find that out and then ask your question again.

-00000-

D: But I am forced to ask, almost against my better judgment, that the routes to higher standards of living appear to have changed much from what they were when I was hoping to make my way in the world.

C: But you must also question what a higher standard of living is thought to be today. Is it great wealth – fame – or what?

D: Those two do seem to be uppermost in the minds of impressionable youngsters, don’t they?

C: Why wouldn’t they be? Aren’t we beset by images on our televisions of ostentatious wealth; aren’t we encouraged to emulate the wealthy and the famous – even to idolize them?

D: But that has always gone on, hasn’t it?

C: So I suppose what is different these days is that the routes the rich have taken to get their wealth, are the same that a back street kid might take. You don’t see any images of well-educated, successful people on television, do you?

D: Well, if they do appear, it is in a kind of side show of freaks, rather than someone to emulate. Is it any wonder the aspirations of the young are as they are?

C: Was it any different in our day?

D: I should say it was; leaving school, a youngster could expect to get a job right away.

C: It’s been a long time since that was true. However, we are not really talking about kids finding work, though that is undoubtedly part of the problem of this lack or social mobility.

D: Rich parents have rich kids, who then go on to be rich themselves, isn’t that the way it is?

C: And that is the way it looks like continuing; it is hard to see how anything could be expected to change, given the size and scale of the fortunes of the super-rich.

D: But you see, this situation cannot go on; people will only stand it for so long.

C: Then what?

D: Then they will rebel – it is already happening in cities the length and breadth of the country – and in other countries as well – the 1% own the wealth and the other 99% - the rest of us – we are left to carry on as if everything was fine, are we? I don’t think so.

C: But what can be done? The dismantling of capitalism – even any changes to its tenets – everything – the apparatus of the financial world – how can that be changed?

D: Not overnight, that is for certain, but a start must be made – for all our sakes – for if we do not attempt to change what has gone so disastrously wrong with this country – and others like it – then we are doomed to live out our lives in either abject poverty or some species of life tied to the tether of corporate greed and power – and that can and will never be; change must come.

C: Well said, and we can look to those across the oceans who have already begun to instigate change.

Robert L. Fielding