Constructive gadfly

Upward mobility has dropped dramatically since the golden years immediately following WWII and the GI Bill— thanks to college grads saddled with huge student loans and the fact there are fewer opportunities in an economy rigged for those of the inherited class — affirmative action for those with connections. Oh, one can argue till blue in the face that there are greater opportunities for the Horatio Algers by falling back on those who made it during the internet bubble by ignoring that these are exceedingly rare cases. But the glaring fact remains that the number of dead-end jobs have grown astronomically since the Reagan Revolution.

Still, this is not a Right or Left matter: both progressives and conservatives have contributed to this sad state of domestic affairs by allowing the money class with its huge contributions access to legislation that protects and enhances its capital, putting the nation right back into the 20s when no one gave a damn but ever conscious of his own self-seeking gains. It was out of control then as it is now, resulting in more and more of those who are at a dead-end. Even most of the post college people trying to make a buck for themselves are stymied by huge personal debt and no well-off parents to bail them out.

Those of suburbia are dwelling in a pasteboard world of SUVs under lease, fine homes they can’t really afford and spend increasing sums to shuttle their kids into nursery and private schools because of the dire need of two incomes. Then there are those — I hesitate to classify them — who, under stress knowing they are never becoming upward mobile, who will continue to work their rumps off and pray they never have children, not because they wouldn’t want them, rather, cannot afford them.

Despite this calamitous trend toward upward mobility limited to 15% of the population, we are led to believe that it not politics, stupid, but the natural capitalistic progression of the beautiful people who know how to manipulate those of the Haves.

Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jan 01, 2004
Here, here!
on Jan 01, 2004
You might want to research your topics a bit more.

Where do you get these stats? Upward mobility has vastly improved in the past two decades thanks to the advent of low overhead capitalism such as the Internet. Credit today is much easier than it was 40 years ago, risk is much less, and the amount of capital needed to start a venture is much less.

As for Joe Six pack, the 900 square foot homes of the 50s have given rise to 1500 to 2000 square foot homes. The standard of living for most people have dramatically risen. The obsesity level of the "poor" is at ridiculous levels.

The problem is that so many people have raised the bar so high on what an acceptable living standard that they end up with unrealistic expectations. No, you can't have the 2500 square foot house and have 3 children and no one at home if you're a clerk or a factory worker. But guess what? Neither could you in 1950.
on Jan 01, 2004
I've noticed you're a stickler for stats; yet your outrageous comments are never backed up. If you include upward mobility for a college kid working at McDonald's for tuition and then upon graduation works as a waiter or waitress in a swank restaurant, then I agree upward mobility has been on the rise. And how do you explain all the baby boomers?
on Jan 01, 2004
I agree with your comments on upward mobility. However the upward mobility only feeds the rich and keeps those in poverty locked their. From reading what is said it is more of the psychological implications of such a system that I said Here, here! too.
on Jan 01, 2004
An interesting analysis of upward mobility statistics based on Business Week: http://www.everyvoice.net/blogs/kevin/archives/000046.html

If you accept this author's statistics, then yes upward mobility is in decline.
The dot.com businesses created wealth for only a few, although some of those few were spectacular.
Another trend, according to University of Michigan studies, fewer people believe that their children will have more opportunities than they will. Founded or not, the general economic perception is pessimistic.
on Jan 01, 2004
Occult: Upward mobility is not necessarily a device to get rich, but to exist in dignity but you're right in many cases in order to get there one must cowtow to the rich.

Larry: Thank you. I more or less read the same in The Nation.
on Jan 02, 2004
I think something that contributes to this decline is all the social welfare programs, which helps keep people alive that would normally no longer be around before. While others are progressing as usual, these people, who would be dead otherwise, are making it seem as though the quality of life for everybody is worse. Therefore, the solution to this problem is to cut social welfare programs. After all, California's full of homeless people because of its welfare programs, while other states that have none are doing better with the homeless situation.
on Jan 02, 2004
Shall we start killing the homeless? My grandma tells me there was a time that people died of starvation in this country. Thank God it isn't that way anymore. I know we all hear about the people who abuse the system but what about the kids of these people. They have no choice in the matter. Should these children not have dinner?
on Jan 02, 2004
Good points stevendedalus. I am responding to comment above, LocaMama_
Another indication of Bushs inability to help the poor is that the number of Americans suffering from hunger rose from 8.5 million in 2000 to 9 million in 2001, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soup kitchens and similar places report huge increases in needs.

Shall we start killing the homeless?
you ask...I think theres a plan for this plague on society to, sponsored by the federal gov't, Eugenics: coming soon to a ghetto near you.
on Jan 02, 2004
Wait wait wait, you're all overlooking an important definition of homelessness. Are they on welfare due to necessity, or choice?
Are they unemployed due to circumstances or "fate" ? (i.e., given up hope of ever becoming upwardly mobile and therefore staying in the slump they have fallen into)
I am referring to the Majority. There are special cases in which yes, someone has no other option, but those are few and far between. Let's take a look at the masses.
Even if you've ignored every comment I've made so far, comment on this one.
on Jan 02, 2004
it is interesting that it only mentions adult men. would the number of women make a big enough dent?

"The Death of Horatio"
--------------------------------------------------
It is true, however, that America was once a place of substantial intergenerational mobility: Sons often did much better than their fathers. A classic 1978 survey found that among adult men whose fathers were in the bottom 25 percent of the population as ranked by social and economic status, 23 percent had made it into the top 25 percent. In other words, during the first thirty years or so after World War II, the American dream of upward mobility was a real experience for many people.

Now for the shocker: The Business Week piece cites a new survey of today's adult men, which finds that this number has dropped to only 10 percent. That is, over the past generation upward mobility has fallen drastically. Very few children of the lower class are making their way to even moderate affluence. This goes along with other studies indicating that rags-to-riches stories have become vanishingly rare, and that the correlation between fathers' and sons' incomes has risen in recent decades. In modern America, it seems, you're quite likely to stay in the social and economic class into which you were born.
----------------------


after searching i found what this site says is the original business week article:
"Waking Up From the American Dream"
on Jan 03, 2004

Stickler on stats? Do you really need to read a statistical analysis to see that the average home is much larger than it was in 1950? That we consume far more "stuff" today than we did in 1950.  Why is obsesity such a problem today and not in 1950? Because we're poorer?

Good grief. Open your eyes.

on Jan 04, 2004
Messy: You can't be serious--I simply will not permit you to believe what you say. Though there are homeless by choice in the end, they did not choose that in the beginning and after years of frustration and neglect by society and indeed by themselves, they have given up hope. Welfare is an interim phase to help people makeit on their own; but it cannot be done in a vacuum--jobs are needed even if itmeans revival of the WPA.
on Jan 04, 2004
Yes, we are heading in the direction where we will no longer be talking about welfare cases and homelessness, but will be commenting about ourselves who can no longer count on upward mobility.
on Jan 05, 2004
I don't know about the rest of the country but sixty percent of the housing in my city is apartments. The houses are larger but most people don't live in them. My son and his wife both work and live in an apartment, they both have college degrees. When I was young, my father worked and we always had a home. My mother started working when I was in sixth grade and continued until she retired at sixty five. Her job paid for my parents health insurance.

There is no doubt that there is very little upward mobility.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last