3 ms·

I have obviously not had the time to read that report (thanks for the link) but you seem to have left an important word out of your broad assessment about Ameri

I have obviously not had the time to read that report (thanks for the link) but you seem to have left an important word out of your broad assessment about America's alleged "low social mobility record": intergenerational. This is the first sentence of the summary (p. 4): "This report surveys the research in OECD countries on intergenerational mobility – i.e. the extent to which key characteristics and life experiences of individuals differ from those of their parents." You may have wrongly assumed that my observation about the ladder was comparing one's social achievement to one's parents but that was not the point I was trying to make. It was a more general point about how who/what you are has less of an impact than anywhere else on your chances to succeed.

martythemaniak 16y ago
But that's what intergenerational studies like this deal with. In essence, the question it tries to answer is "You're born in a poor household, where do you end up"? In a meritocratic society with equal opportunities children from poor households should be able to end up in all income brackets - some in the top, some in the middle, some in the poor etc. The more uniform the distribution the better. What this study shows is that if you're born poor in America, the odds are very much stacked against you and while no country has an even distribution, other countries do better. Why study children? Well, social mobility implies a passage of time - to get a clear picture you need to track people over time to see the actual movement and nothing gives a better picture than an entire lifetime.
- pfedor 16y ago
  In a meritocratic society with equal opportunities children from poor households should be able to end up in all income brackets - some in the top, some in the middle, some in the poor etc. The more uniform the distribution the better. Have you even read yummyfajitas' reply? Regardless of whether you believe in nature or nurture, I imagine you wouldn't deny that intelligent and hard working people's children are more likely to be intelligent and hard working. Therefore, in a society where these traits on average lead to an increase in the social status, you should expect some stickiness. A uniform distribution would prove that a person's merits have no impact on their success in life.

martythemaniak 16y ago

But that's what intergenerational studies like this deal with. In essence, the question it tries to answer is "You're born in a poor household, where do you end up"? In a meritocratic society with equal opportunities children from poor households should be able to end up in all income brackets - some in the top, some in the middle, some in the poor etc. The more uniform the distribution the better. What this study shows is that if you're born poor in America, the odds are very much stacked against you and while no country has an even distribution, other countries do better. Why study children? Well, social mobility implies a passage of time - to get a clear picture you need to track people over time to see the actual movement and nothing gives a better picture than an entire lifetime.

pfedor 16y ago
In a meritocratic society with equal opportunities children from poor households should be able to end up in all income brackets - some in the top, some in the middle, some in the poor etc. The more uniform the distribution the better. Have you even read yummyfajitas' reply? Regardless of whether you believe in nature or nurture, I imagine you wouldn't deny that intelligent and hard working people's children are more likely to be intelligent and hard working. Therefore, in a society where these traits on average lead to an increase in the social status, you should expect some stickiness. A uniform distribution would prove that a person's merits have no impact on their success in life.