Socioeconomic mobility in the United States

Social Mobility in the United States refers to the movement of Americans from one social class or economic level to another, often by changing jobs or marrying. 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/status will rise or fall compared to others in a another income/status group -- but can also be "absolute" -- whether (and by how much) living standards in America have increased.

Believe in social mobility -- the ability of Americans to rise from humble origins to riches -- has been called a "civil religion" and part of the American identity, celebrated in the lives of famous Americans such as Benjamin Franklin and Henry Ford. However, in recent years at least five large studies have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower in American than in comparable nations, popular belief not withstanding.

Attitudes v reality

The American Dream Report, a study of the Economic Mobility Project, found that Americans surveyed were more likely than citizens of other countries to agree with statements like

• “People get rewarded for intelligence and skill”,
• “People get rewarded for their efforts”;

and less likely to agree statements like

• “Coming from a wealthy family is ‘essential’ or ‘very important’ to getting ahead,”
• “Income differences in my country are too large” or
• “It is the responsibility of government to reduce differences in income.”

While another report found such beliefs to have gotten strong over the last few decades.

Comparisons with other countries

However it (American Dream Report) also found that "about half" (47%) of the advantages of having a parent with a high income were passed on to the next generation" in the United States. Compared to eight other developed countries studied, (United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, UK), only the United Kingdom had a higher rate of "passing advantages" to their offspring than the United States. The Economist also stated that "evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much `stickier` than most Americans assume. Some researchers claim that social mobility is actually declining." A German study corroborates these results. In spite of this low mobility Americans surveyed had the highest belief in meritocracy among 27 nations surveyed.

Examples

Popular examples of upward social mobility from America include Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton, who were born into working-class families yet achieved high political office in adult life. Benjamin Franklin came from a modest background but became wealthy. Andrew Carnegie, arrived in the U.S. as a poor immigrant and later became a steel tycoon.

Mobility

Sociologists Blau and Duncan collected mobility data along with the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1962. The data included information on occupational family backgrounds. In 1962, 56.8% of sons with fathers who had occupations in upper nonmanual ended up with occupations in the same level. Only 1.2% of sons with fathers who had farming occupations ended up in upper nonmanual occupations. In 1973, these differences increased. 59.4% of sons with fathers in upper nonmanual occupations achieved occupations of this same level and 0.9% of sons with fathers in farming occupations ended up in upper nonmanual occupations. However, the occupational structure is more rigid towards the top and bottom. Those in lower nonmanual occupations, and upper and lower manual occupations were more likely to be vertically mobile. Upper nonmanual occupations have the highest level of occupational inheritance.

Educational factor

Wages and earnings tend to correlate with the amount of education a person has obtained. In 2003, those workers with less than a high school diploma earned a median income of $21,000; while those workers with a four year college degree earned a median income of $53,000 (James 2005). The poverty line in 2005 according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was $19,350 for a four-person household; therefore, those with less education are more likely to be bordering on this line than those with more education. With a college degree, one is more likely to attain a professional-level job wherein he or she may earn a higher salary in comparison to someone working in a secondary, service-based job.

Higher educational opportunities are necessary in order to pull away from the poverty line. Of the 30 fastest growing occupations, more than half require an associates degree or higher. Yet, these occupations are less likely to supply additional jobs to the labor market; meaning, the majority of job growth is found in low-wage occupations(Jacobs 2005). These low-wage jobs are associated with those people who have less education. Workers in these areas are deemed unskilled because a great amount of education is not required in order to perform these jobs, so the stereotype goes. White collar jobs, however, necessitate more human capital and knowledge and therefore produce higher earnings and require greater education. Therefore, it can be understood that education is a main determinant for potential social mobility in the American workforce.

Gender and race factor

When examining status mobility within the American labor force, race and gender inevitably come into play. History has shown that women and minorities have a disadvantage in earning promotions; thus, being a woman or in a minority is one of the main determinants in hindering status mobility within the labor market. Women and minorities hold jobs with less rank, authority, opportunity for advancement, and pay than men and whites (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission 1995; Reskin & Padavic 1994). This concept is considered to be the "glass ceiling" effect. Despite the increased presence of blacks and women in the work force over the years, there remains a very small percentage that holds top managerial positions, implying the "glass ceiling."

One explanation is seen in the networks of different genders and minorities. The more managers there are in an employees' immediate work environment, the higher their chances of interacting and spending time with high status employees. The race and sex composition of employees' immediate work environment should indirectly affect the status of their network members. For instance, the more women employees work with, the more women they will interact with, and thus the more women they will have in their networks.

The more women and minorities employees have in their networks, the more low-status network members they should have because women and minorities tend to occupy low-level positions in work organizations (Brass 1985; Ibarra 1992). Less than half of all managers are women, whereas the vast majority of all clerical and office workers are women. Furthermore, less than fifteen percent of all managers were minorities, whereas roughly a quarter of all clerical and office employees were minorities. The networks of women and minorities are simply not as strong as those of males and whites. Therefore, women and minorities have a clear disadvantage in status mobility from the beginning.

With regard to women, another explanation for this "glass ceiling" effect in the American work force is due to the job-family trade off that women face compared to men. Data from the 1996 General Social Survey examined the trade-offs that women and men made as they attempted to balance their employment and family obligations, and the multiple ways that gender affects those trade-offs (Davis & Smith 1996). Evidence suggests that both parents face job-family conflict, and that men and women are almost equivalent in feeling that such a conflict exists.

However, there is information that suggests women adjust their jobs around their family responsibilities more than men do. Some of these adjustments include adding flex-time, changing jobs, or creating part-time work. Women with children, particularly married women, are more likely to either temporarily leave the labor force or cut back on employment by working part-time or part of the year (Carlisle 1994; Estes & Glass 1996; Shelton 1992). Unfortunately, part time employment generally applies to lower paying jobs. When women with children remain in these jobs, it reduces any chance they have of being promoted into a higher status job. Also, research shows that after a woman has had children and taken part-time employment, she is not very likely to return to full-time employment for at least a few years. This gap of time can often lead to a decrease in the number of jobs that will become available to her.

Taking a break from the work force tends to decrease human capital when it comes to finding a job. Women are also more likely than men to take leave from their jobs to care for others rather than themselves (Gerstel & McGonagle 1999; Sandberg 1999; Sandberg & Cornfield 2000). This evidence makes employers wary of hiring and promoting women in the work force.

Others have pointed out that men have statistically been willing to accept job conditions that women were not, such as working outside in extreme weather, working where you can become physically dirty on a regular basis, working more hours, etc. This is based on survey information, not speculation or stereotype, and shows that it is difficult to make direct comparisons ('apples to apples'). Economically, if it were less expensive to hire women for exactly the same duties, then every business interested in increasing profit margins would try to hire women exclusively; so it seems paradoxical that women have a harder time getting a job and also get paid less. This leaves doubt about the objectivity of the allegations.

Social mobility is especially difficult for immigrants in the United States. As George J. Borjas explains in his paper, Social Mobility in the Immigrant Population, the first generation of immigrants has the most difficult time adjusting to American society. They have to deal with language barriers in addition to trying to adjust to the new environment and culture. Second generation immigrants (those with at least one parent not born in the United States) adjust to life in the United States more easily. “There is significant economic ‘catching up’ between the first and second generations, with the relative wage of the second generation being, on average, about 5 to 10 percent higher than that of the first generation” states Borjas.

Since the second generation has access to American schools, they typically learn English in addition to their native language and understand the culture of their society better than their parents do. Borjas also argues that social mobility across generations depends on “ethnic capital,” characteristics of the ethnic environment where children are raised. “A highly advantaged ethnic environment—where most parents are college graduates for example, imbues the children who grow up in that environment with valuable characteristics that enhance the children's socio-economic achievement later in life,” Borjas explains. Especially true for immigrant families, ethnic capital largely affects the second generation’s social mobility.

Intergenerational mobility is particularly apparent in immigrant households. Every generation following the original immigrants appears to increase its income by 5 to 10 percent, thus creating social mobility. Thus, if a family started out very poor when it migrated to the United States, it will improve its position in society substantially with every generation. However, Borjas noticed a trend known as regression towards the mean. It “acts like a double-sided magnet,” pulling both extremes (very poor and very rich) towards the middle. For example, if parents in a family are very successful, it is likely that the children will also be successful but unlikely that they will be as successful as their parents were. Regression towards the mean creates more equality in the United States, regardless of where the parents start out.

Impact of incarceration on social mobility

Within the United States the prison population has been steadily increasing since the early 1970s and has now surpassed two million. This is the highest per capita rate in the world. This boom is largely fueled by the “War on Drugs” that was started with President Nixon in 1971 as an effort to help Vietnam veterans recover from their addictions. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan that the "War on Drugs" took on its modern meaning. This war has effectively created an underclass by providing a number of ways to deny one of the most important tools for social mobility, education.

1. The drug war has combined with public school zero-tolerance policies to remove tens of thousands of adolescents from their public schools.
2. Denial of higher education has been adopted as an additional punishment for drug offenders.
3. The war on drugs siphons drug users out of society and into prison.

The lack of education for convicted felons is compounded with difficulties in finding employment. These two factors contribute towards a high recidivism rate and downward social mobility.

References

• Stark, Rodney. 2007 Sociology Tenth Edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education
• 2006 Social Mobility <http://www.sociologyguide.com/social-mobility/systems-of-mobility.php>
• Bertaux, Daniel and Thompson, Paul.1997 Pathways To Social Class. A Qualitative Approach To Social Mobility. Clarendon Press, Oxford
• Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
• Borjas, George J. "Working Paper 12088." Making It in America: Social Mobility in the Immigrant Population. 2006. National Bureau of Economic Research. <http://www.nber.org/papers/w12088>.
• Devine, Fiona. Class Practices: How Parents Help Their Children Get Good Jobs. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
• Eitzen, D S."Upward Mobility Through Sport?."1 26 Sep. 2007 <http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/mar99eitzen.htm>.
• Francis, David R."'Upward Mobility' In Real Decline, Studies Charge." The Christian Science Monitor.27 Jan. 2003. 26 Sep. 2007 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html>
• Goldthorpe, John H. 1987 Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain. New York: Oxford, Clarendon Press
• Jacobs, Eva E. (ed). "'Handbook of U.S. Labor Statistics: Employment, Earnings, Prices, Productivity, and other Labor Data.'" Lanham, MD. Bernam Press. 8th ed. 2005.
• Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. University of California Press, 2003.
• Maume, David J. "'Glass Ceilings and Glass Escalators: Occupational Segregation and Race and Sex Differences in Managerial Promotions.'" Work and Occupations vol. 26. November 1999: 483-509.
• McGuire, Gail M. "'Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Networks: The Factors Affecting the Status of Employees’ Network Members.'" Work and Occupations vol. 27. November 2000: 500-523.
• Western, Bruce. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006.

• Levinson, Paul. "Cellphone". ROutledge, New York, 2004

External links

• Jo Blanden (2005). "Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America" (PDF). The Sutton Trust. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Boushey, Heather (2005). Horatio Alger is Dead, Center for Economic and Policy Research Economics Seminar Series.
• The New York Times offers a graphic about social mobility, overall trends, income elasticity and country by country. European nations such as Denmark and France, are ahead of the US. [2]