Deepak SHEKHAR

B00534970

Social mobility in the United States

Social mobility refers to the movement of people from one social class or economic level to another,
often by changing jobs, marrying or education. This "vertical" mobility can be the change
in socioeconomic status between parents and children ("inter-generational"); or over the course of a
lifetime ("intra-generational"). It typically refers to "relative mobility", the chance that an American's
income will rise or fall compared to others in another income group but can also be "absolute", whether
living standards in America have increased.
Belief in strong social and economic mobility, that Americans rise from humble origins to riches, has
been called a "civil religion", "the bedrock upon which the American story has been anchored", and part
of the American identity (the American Dream), celebrated in the lives of famous Americans such
as Benjamin Franklin and Henry Ford, and in popular culture.

If we look at the global social mobility index, we see that America

nowhere close to Scandinavian countries. They are lagging behind. In
fact, its one of the last few countries.
When we further try to dig deep into the situation of social mobility in
America we see that the correlation between parents' income and their
children's income in the United States is estimated between .4 and .6. If
adult income had only a chance relationship to childhood
circumstances, approximately 20% of children who started in the
bottom quintile would remain there as adults. According to a 2014 Pew
Economic Mobility Project study 43% of children born into the bottom
quintile remain in that bottom quintile as adults. Similarly, 40% of
children raised in the top quintile will remain there as adults. Looking at larger moves, only 4% of those
raised in the bottom quintile moved up to the top quintile as adults. Around twice as many children
born into the top quintile fell to the bottom.37% of children born into the top quintile will fall below the
middle.
If we try to look for the main reasons which is causing this
huge disparity in America we see that the problem is root
deep. Children coming from affluent families have access to
superior schools whereas children coming from lower class
families have limited education opportunities .Preparation
for schools plays a vital role in an economy where pay is
tilted toward educated workers; high levels of immigration of
unskilled laborers and low rate of unionization, which leads
to lower wages among the least skilled; public health
problems, like obesity and diabetes, which can limit
education and employment; the sheer size of the income gap
between the rich makes it harder to climb the proverbial
income ladder when the rungs are farther apart; poverty, since those with low income have significantly
lower rates of mobility than middle and higher income individuals. The factors which affect social
mobility vary across the United States as does social mobility which in favored areas is much higher than
in less favored areas.

LIVING THE AMERICAN DREAM |

 The relationship between immigration and economic
mobility is complex and has likely shifted over time in
response to increases in the size and changes in the
composition of the immigrant population. America offers
opportunities for many immigrants to improve their
earnings relative to what they could earn in their countries
of origin, and research suggests that immigrants children
tend to experience further economic gains. But the effect of
immigrant workers on the earnings of low-skilled, native born workers may be significantly negative;
some find that the recent influx of low-skilled, immigrant labor makes it more difficult for low-skilled
native-born workers to gain higher wages. So, while immigration produces upward intra- and
intergenerational mobility for immigrants themselves, it may depress upward intragenerational mobility
for native-born workers. It will be intereting to see the impact of the new government towards the
immigration policy and its effect on the social mobility of America.

During the US elections, last year American voters woke up from the American dream. Social mobility is
one of the serious issues America is facing right now and the voters took notice. In an unofficial poll
conducted by Gallup it was observed that 67% of Americans are unhappy with income and wealth
distribution in the U.S. As a result of the voters growing awareness and discontent with current levels of
inequality, presidential candidates from both the parties were scrambling to craft an appealing political
stance on inequality.

Even Republicans, who traditionally have shied away from the inequality issue, took it up for 2016
campaign season. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and other potential candidates, all discussed income
inequality as a serious problem facing Americans. This acknowledgement is in sharp contrast to the past
GOP response to inequality, which largely dismissed the issue as a means of inciting class
warfare. Now when Donald Trump has won the US elections, it will be interesting to observes how he
intends to deal with his partys history of economic policy championing the notion that economic
growth at the highest levels benefits all of society.

Republicans, however, were not alone in facing political difficulties

and conflict when confronted with the challenge of inequality.
Though inequality, as a policy issue, has been historically been the
turf of the Democratic party, the influence of special interest may
make true inequality reforms unlikely. For example, lets take clear
Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clintons relationship with big
business. 29 of the 30 Dow Jones Industrial Average index companies have given money and supported
to projects affiliated with the Clinton family, especially in the area of philanthropy. As Ralph Nader
points out, corporate participation in a candidates philanthropic efforts is not all that different from
straightforward political contributions, Youve got to call these companies. Youve got to meet with them.
Socialize with them. You become more dependent on them. You become more obligated. It is a terrible web of
influence that operates in nonprofit areas.
Ultimately, corporate influence affects candidates of both parties and, logically, presents a conflict of
interest for candidates who say they want to resolve income inequality but are also obligated to large
companies. For example, policy reforms such as increasing taxes on inherited wealth, strengthening

LIVING THE AMERICAN DREAM |

workers unions, passing new minimum wage standards, or closing tax loopholes for corporations and
the extremely wealthy may all help shrink the income gap, but are also adamantly opposed by big
business. This clear conflict begs the question of whether or not it is even possible to address issues like
inequality without first addressing the political system that allows incredible amounts of special interest
money into government.
It will be interesting to see now if the Trumps government will be able to shake off the influence of
corporations and the extraordinarily wealthy enough to truly champion change.

LIVING THE AMERICAN DREAM |