Equal opportunity is a national myth
Perhaps a hundred years ago, America might have rightly claimed to have been the land of opportunity, or at least a land where there was more opportunity than elsewhere. But not for at least a quarter of a century. Horatio Alger-style rags-to-riches stories were not a deliberate hoax, but given how they’ve lulled us into a sense of complacency, they might as well have been.
It’s not that social mobility is impossible, but that the upwardly mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity. According to research from the Brookings Institution, only 58 percent of Americans born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that category, and just 6 percent born into the bottom fifth move into the top. Economic mobility in the United States is lower than in most of Europe and lower than in all of Scandinavia.
Another way of looking at equality of opportunity is to ask to what extent the life chances of a child are dependent on the education and income of his parents. Is it just as likely that a child of poor or poorly educated parents gets a good education and rises to the middle class as someone born to middle-class parents with college degrees? Even in a more egalitarian society, the answer would be no. But the life prospects of an American are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in almost any other advanced country for which there is data.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Opportunity, not equal. Not everyone is pretty, or rich, or smart, or inventive. You don’t start out equal and you never did.
Maybe the welfare state acts as a disincentive to apply oneself? Could that be possible?
sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 5:40 PM
Huh? What did you expect. That’s pretty good.
Paul-Cincy on February 17, 2013 at 5:40 PM
the lasting effects of the new “deal”.
Lost in Jersey on February 17, 2013 at 5:43 PM
Let’s quit trying to justify educational spending and begin to do things that strengthen marriage.
Stop trying to justify educational spending and start trying to strengthen marriage.
Last week the Marriage and Religion Research Institute released statistics earlier this week on the benefits of an intact married family in which children grow up with both birth parents.
From Influence on Public Policy Metrics:
INC on February 17, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Almost 100% of this loss of upward mobility has to do with government overreach and regulation. They strangle opportunity in the womb!
astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 5:45 PM
What has happened to American society in the last 40 years?
The Progressive ideology has destroyed public education, decimated the traditional family (especially for African-Americans), warped health insurance and health care, driven up fuel and food prices unnecessarily, warped the criminal justice system (releasing criminals back into their communities as fast as possible), made America as uncompetitive as possible with the rest of the industrialized world, etc.
Witness the “unintended consequences of good intentions” in all their glory.
visions on February 17, 2013 at 5:45 PM
The Obama administration has worked to rip marriage apart.
Of course, stronger families mean less government control over people. Education is far easier to keep under their thumb.
INC on February 17, 2013 at 5:46 PM
That’s exactly what I thought too.
forest on February 17, 2013 at 5:48 PM
Sorry for the repeat above. The comment box had scrolled up, and I missed that.
INC on February 17, 2013 at 5:48 PM
When government pays for irresponsible idiots to get together and churn out more of the same, what do you expect?
WisCon on February 17, 2013 at 5:52 PM
Ever since Obama came out with his ‘universal pre-school’ idea, it seems the Cabalist has been beating that drum for him.
INC on February 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Exactly, and it is “Progressive” policies that are locking the poor and minorities into an immobile permanent underclass. They are given checks every month and we now have in some cases three generations of families that have never held a job. They are given substandard education and the worse a school district does at educating, the more money they get. Parents are blocked from being able to move their children to better performing schools. The Democratic Party is creating a situation where they have used various welfare programs to create economic and educational segregation.
The Democrats are destroying black families and now they are trying to do the same thing with the Hispanic population.
crosspatch on February 17, 2013 at 5:57 PM
Now read this blurb, about a liberal supermodel saying it just isn’t fair that she gets so much attention for being a “23-inch waist, looking young, feminine and white”.
So much social injustice!
keep the change on February 17, 2013 at 5:59 PM
Maybe all that social engineering clap trap ideology doesn’t work after all…
… The whining in this article is proof of that.
Seven Percent Solution on February 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM
Well,
He IS blogging on the New York Times…the paper of last resort.
All the news that fits, it prints. Fits its agenda, that is.
ProfShadow on February 17, 2013 at 6:01 PM
The bottom fifth are often paid their “salaries” in benefits for not working. To work to leave that bottom fifth could lose that bottom fifth in benefits more than they gain from the work. In less subsidized fifths, mobility proceeds as normal.
Sekhmet on February 17, 2013 at 6:01 PM
Put your poor in any other part of the world, and they would still remain poor.
OldEnglish on February 17, 2013 at 6:02 PM
And the irony is that the Left is busy trying to snuff out what opportunity remains.
ConservativeLA on February 17, 2013 at 6:05 PM
Maybe we should stop for a second and look as you two did as to the cause of this change.
Why can’t we look at what the Proppressives have done to the country and ask why are we continuing on the path they set US on?
Why does the Left always get a free-pass for the destruction they have brought upon our society and our culture?
Why can’t we simply focus on the source of the problem and do something else instead of keeping on with the same old insanity?
Galt2009 on February 17, 2013 at 6:08 PM
Let’s fact it, Stiglitz really wants everybody to end up equal. How unrealistic is that when world is unfair when it comes to appearance, intelligence, drive, athletic ability, penis size — you name it.
Still, things are pretty damn good.
According to Thomas Sowell: “A University of Michigan study showed that most of the working people who were in the bottom 20 percent of income earners in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent at some point by 1991. Only 5 percent of those in the bottom quintile in 1975 were still there in 1991, while 29 percent of them were now in the top quintile.”
You want to make more money, work harder. If you were born stupid or lacking drive, that’s not my problem. Let Stiglitz and his pals set up a private charity for you.
hepcat on February 17, 2013 at 6:10 PM
Because the reality of our world is that more than 50% of Americans claim to be conservative, but only about 3% of those actually know what conservative is, and half of those are liars.
astonerii on February 17, 2013 at 6:10 PM
sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 6:14 PM
Joseph Stiglitz is a socialist, much like the Romneycare supporters. He expects the hard working successful people to share their achievements while ignoring the fact that people who demand the right to be lethargic never succeed at anything worthwile.
My successes are EARNED. No one gave them to me. I’m not one of the people who expect others to do what is needed to advance my lifestyle.
IMHO, the lethargic are irrelevant whiners who shiver under their threadbare blanket of excuses, yet I refuse to believe you cannot wake up someone who is only pretending to be asleep. Eventually self preservation does kick in. The only remaining question is, when.
DannoJyd on February 17, 2013 at 6:19 PM
After witnessing the sloth of supposedly republican voters, why shouldn’t they do as they please? It isn’t as if many are working to kick them out.
Many Republicans despise the TEA Party representatives who DO REPRESENT THEIR BASE. Ever wonder why they do their jobs?
DannoJyd on February 17, 2013 at 6:22 PM
Yeah, well I can’t really argue that point. They keep getting reelected.
sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 6:24 PM
Tiffany Jones Miller wrote an excellent one-page article, John Dewey and the Philosophical Refounding of America in which she said, “Dewey was hardly alone in encouraging this transformation, but few would deny the preeminent role he played in it.” I highly recommend it. If you’ve never heard of John Dewey, he was, as Jonah Goldberg writes in Liberal Fascism, is one of the parents of progressive education. The other is Prussia. (Yes, Prussia! Prussian ideas on education were imported into the U.S. in the 1800′s.).
I also highly recomment David Horowitz’ “Go For the Heart: How Republicans Can Win.” It’s excellent, but I don’t think I’ve seen it here even in the headlines.
And Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, is very helpful except for his blind eye about redefining marriage according to the likes of the gay mafia.
INC on February 17, 2013 at 6:31 PM
Education isn’t the most enticing comment, but Dewey said, “I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform.” Progressives know it’s power.
Not only did Dewey transform American education, but his influence is also felt today through the numerous organizations he helped found or lead, including the First Humanist Society of New York, the ACLU, the NAACP, the League for Industrial Democracy, the New York Teachers Union, the American Association of University Professors, the New School for Social Research, the New York Teachers Guild, the International League for Academic Freedom and the Committee for Cultural Freedom.
The League for Industrial Democracy changed its name in 1960 to the SDS, Students for a Democratic Society. Those of you who were in college during the 1960′s and early 1970′s won’t have any trouble recognizing the name of that radical group.
Over the last couple of weeks I wrote some 8 posts on Dewey, along with others on education in the U.S. They’re here at the bottom of this page: http://upstreampolitics.wordpress.com/family/children/education/
I’m not finished yet. Next is Common Core aka Obamacore.
INC on February 17, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Education isn’t the most enticing
comments/b topic.INC on February 17, 2013 at 6:38 PM
EXACTLY RIGHT, so all that remains is to decide what YOU [pay attention splinter gathers] are going to do about that.
I answered that question for myself years ago, and I couldn’t be happier since discovering that whining is a poor substitute for doing something to fix the problem[s]. Hard work gets results.
DannoJyd on February 17, 2013 at 6:44 PM
A hundred years ago, or even twenty, American liberals considered the nation’s chief economic woe to be poverty, not “inequality,” a measure made ludicrous by its definitional indestructibility.
Getting out of poverty is the “more opportunity than elsewhere” that immigrants pursued, not the opportunity to bitch about J.P. Morgan’s secretary’s tax rate.
HitNRun on February 17, 2013 at 6:44 PM
I want to see the data on that. Because the summary he linked to doesn’t say a single word about that. When I downloaded the full summary all it says in regards to that is:
That’s a far cry from saying as a fact upward mobility is lower than most of Europe. Well, unless you count 5 countries out of 52 as “most”.
And those particular 5 were some of the healthiest European economies during the year the data was picked from (2006).
I never trust anyone citing statistics. Joseph Stiglitz blatantly lies to further his agenda. Unless of course “most” is a word he doesn’t understand. And you’d think being an economist he’d understand the concept of “most”.
ButterflyDragon on February 17, 2013 at 6:44 PM
A hundred years ago, or even twenty, American liberals considered the nation’s chief economic woe to be poverty, not “inequality,” a measure made ludicrous by its definitional indestructibility.
Getting out of poverty is the “more opportunity than elsewhere” that immigrants pursued, not the opportunity to —-h about J.P. Morgan’s secretary’s tax rate.
HitNRun on February 17, 2013 at 6:45 PM
Push, push, push. That is what I do to myself when I start to feel despondant. I push myself to do more.
Push Push Push! Every year I try to do more in the hopes of getting better results.
PUSH PUSH PUSH!!! That is what scares our representatives the most because they KNOW we are watching, and WORKING to get better representation.
Now if I could just discover a better way of communicating that to others, instead of merely providing a good example, so they too would..
PUSH PUSH PUSH!
DannoJyd on February 17, 2013 at 6:51 PM
It’s outstanding.
If anything, it’s an indicator that being born into a lower income category is a decent motivator to do something about it. Because for everyone who moved up out of that category, someone else moved down into it. Math is hard for some people.
TexasDan on February 17, 2013 at 6:54 PM
If I was still in a position to hire and fire people, I definitely wouldn’t hire anyone with tatoos and body piercings. I don’t care what their qualifications are. Not going to have freaks on display in the office.
Mirimichi on February 17, 2013 at 7:07 PM
The bottom fifth are “paid” in benefits the equivalent of someone making $60,000/year. The bottom fifth have to jump about two fifths just to improve their standing over their subsidy (buy more food, clothing, etcetera). This is why ambitions in the lower classes have been for meteoric success, like in athletics or entertainment. Working ones way up the Wal-Mart ladder, or mucking through pipes as a plumber involves eating too much ramen on the way.
Sekhmet on February 17, 2013 at 7:16 PM
Possibly by design. Seems this secures a lot of Democratic votes for a long time
–BUT————————
Can we please QUIT with the lie that the poor cannot get post high school education. THEY CAN obtain school loans. They do not have to pass any sort of credit check and the student can obtain a loan without a co-signor. This dishonesty needs to end.
CW on February 17, 2013 at 7:21 PM
Oh and he went again with the canard about women’s pay. Just another simplistic statement an he knows it. The dishonesty is strong with this one. Women and men with the same experience and education in the same job generally make about the same. In some areas women earn more. Guys like this author love to lump in all the women who chose to sit in a comfy office or take a retail job along with men who take much more undesirable and unsafe jobs. Men lead in employment in almost all of the most dangerous jobs. When I am at the police department it is still pretty rare I see women officers heading out on the road but I see plenty of them behind the glass sitting at their desks processing reports or online. I cannot remember the last time I saw a female fire fighter at the fire station. On occasion, I will see a female assisting with road work but I don’t know if I have ever seen one doing anything more than waving a red flag. The examples are endless.
CW on February 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM
LOL. “Only” a majority …
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 17, 2013 at 7:36 PM
How to get federal financial aid for education–>>>
http://studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/FSA-Eligibility-11.16.12.png
The author is a purveyor of lies and distortion.
CW on February 17, 2013 at 7:37 PM
Considering there are more and more incentives , such as Obama phones and the like, the percentage seems pretty good.
CW on February 17, 2013 at 7:39 PM
…more incentives to not grow out of the bottom 5th… I should have said.
CW on February 17, 2013 at 7:42 PM
Exactly.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM
If she were serious, if she were a person of serious conscience, she’d stop trading off her being a “23-inch waist, looking young, feminine and white.” If she seriously thought it unfair, she’d stop doing it, right?
But she doesn’t, does she.
Shameless.
.
petefrt on February 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM
Word.
petefrt on February 17, 2013 at 8:11 PM
So because a good deal more than half born into the bottom fifth move out of that category, this clown is saying there isn’t equal opportunity?
Um, lets check that income mobility in other countries, where it hovers around ZERO percent.
My guess is it’s limited to 58 percent because only 58 percent are motivated to make the move – not becaues opportunity is lacking.
Of course, Obama is working diligently to fix that number. (In the direction of those other countries.)
jaydee_007 on February 17, 2013 at 10:52 PM
I would like to see the statistics on “economic mobility” from China, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and Russia. Then let’s talk about which nations provide opportunity and which do not.
I also find his statistics about Europe and Scandanavia to be questionable at best. But even if all of his numbers were true, that nearly 60% of people born into families at one income level move up beyond that income level seems pretty darn good to me.
Shump on February 18, 2013 at 9:39 AM