Social Mobility happened most during the Industrial Revolution… when there was pretty much no government regulation or social programs.

Since government regulation and social programs have become more prevalent and social movement has gone down, they could thus be conjectured to be correlated to each other.

=)

All,

Look at the top billionaires of the world, most of them who became rich and experienced social movement, did so in nations where social movement was available. (remember it was much easier in Europe 20 years ago than it is now). Those in nations where social movement is restricted are those who were born into their money.

Its not whether social mobility exists, what matters is that its available. In the U.S. it is hindered (not prevented) by social standards, whereas European Nations have written laws that hinder social movement. Fighting social standards in the U.S. is much easier than fighting laws. Fighting the former will get you dirty looks, whereas the latter can send you to jail. I’d rather people dislike me for working so that I can have a better life than have laws making it more profitable to sit on my ass all day living off the work of others.

I’m in the middle of writing a paper so I don’t really have a lot of time to do a full response to your article, but I did want to talk about the NYTimes statistics which you cited.

If you take a look at “country by country” under “income mobility”, the NYTimes analysis says the following: “The United States…does not have significantly more mobility. In fact, it has less than Scandanavian countries like Denmark and roughly the same as Britain.” It should be pointed out that the US and the UK have had similar economic policies since the 1980s, and have followed similar political developments as well, at least in terms of economic policy (for the most part).

I would also like to point out that, if you select “overall trends”, the New York Times will note that changing social classes is not “happening as often as it used to”.

I’ve been following this dialogue with some interest. Reluctant though I am to insert myself into this dispute, I was confused by a couple of your points and would appreciate some clarification.

With respect to your focus on an exogenous growth model, I think that you are arguing that more bodies in a world with a fixed growth rate will result in less income per individual. Though I don’t disagree, I wonder if you might help me understand what would happen if, instead, the growth rate were endogenized. My own instinct is that population growth is an important variable in determining technological innovation (larger markets with more demanding resource needs require new technologies), which I think also factors into the economic model you cited. Additionally, perhaps you might explain how per capita income would increase under the coincident circumstances of (a) a declining population (not just a low birth rate, as is the case in much of Western Europe); and (b) a generous pension / welfare system that funnels resources from the (shrinking) productive population to the (expanding) retiree group.

My read on Ms. McCaffrey’s argument, rather simply, is that a growing, productive population will ultimately achieve a higher, expanding standard of living than a shrinking, increasingly unproductive one. Ultimately, it is important that we maintain policies in the United States that encourage the former and avoid the seeming sluggishness in evidence across the Atlantic.

I have to admit that I am left rather dumbfounded by your comments on Constructivism. Are you arguing that the prevailing economic discourse is completely irrelevant in the context of economic policy? If so, I actually am quite happy to cede the point, as I think most accepted economic models suggest that a free market solution with minimal government intervention generally results in the optimal allocation of resources and wealth. Popular discourse occasionally guides us away from the optimum. And, though I can’t always fault the popular will, I do find it unfortunate that the European mindset seems so far astray.

Furthermore, it is not as clear to me that the government handouts that you so quickly eschew (though perhaps yearn for?) are as far from plausible in the US as you suggest. The current Democratic administration has already passed a substantial stimulus package that, even if in the name of economic vibrancy, awarded considerable grants to favored left-wing causes. The health care plan currently under consideration represents little more than a significant redistribution of resources from those with coverage to those without. Furthermore, the administration’s embrace of tire tariffs should at least give pause that we now have a vested interest in certain “underprivileged” employee groups at the expense of the wider community. Direct welfare handouts may not be under consideration, but I fear they are becoming an increasingly vivid checkpoint along our current path.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

You’re judging this as a complete academic workup. It is not. This is a concise opinion piece from an observer of European culture. I see Europe as going down the drain and I listed why using economic indicators, the sentiment I have witnessed in the news, and by talking to people. I think the United States is not congruent with this practice and I don’t think it should try to be. Constructivist ideals? Citing an attitudes project makes me a constructivist? No, since I’m not saying it wont work because the American people are busy being “ruggedly independent.” It won’t work because it doesn’t work! The American people happen to understand that they are capable of better things in a free market, which the study shows they have more faith in. We do have traditions that other countries do not by virtue of our foundation, but our productivity in the past one hundred years was not the sole product of ideology. I think our capitalist system is ultimately better for the individual and the government Europe has grown into is not.

I saw a statistic, thought it was curious, and made other observations as to why some of the European policies may not bode over as planned. Naturally any argument towards the inferiority of a European system would be comprised of a wider range of arguments. To your credit, if I saw an article that said the opposite of what I did, with the same amount of references, I’d probably pick on that too.

I cited a NYT study, when prompted, showing there is greater economic mobility in the US. I didn’t say America was perfect, I’m suggesting that our productivity and strong economy has freedom to thank for it. Did I say Obama was a dictator or a socialist? No, I just noted that the European programs are not working out to be as whimsical as they sound.

This isn’t a term paper for a reason.

China is a communist country, their reasons for aspiring towards a certain birth rate are different than that of a capitalist country. Having a low-birth rate does not help countries like Japan, the US, France, Russia, etc. http://www.ipss.go.jp/webj-ad/WebJournal.files/population/2008_4/02mcdonald.pdf

PPS, Thanks for the Nietzsche 101. Frankly I was advising Alex C. to read further and no characterize things as Nietzsche-ian that were/are not.

In any exogenous growth model, which is some of the most fundamental work in liberal macroeconomics, the birthrate is negatively related to consumption per capita. For every person you add as a new consumer, you add one more person to the denominator of GDP per capita. Also, the notion of a strong consumer economy as the driving force behind economic life in a macroeconomy is one of the central tenets of Keynesian economics. To posit that Europe will experience a reduced standard of living due to lower birthrate is pretty out of step. Few countries have really improved their standard of living with birth drives. There is a reason, after all, that China tries so hard to keep its birth rate low.

How a self-professed libertarian can thoroughly espouse constructivist ideals confuses me. It’s one thing to talk about the distortions caused by socialist policies. It’s largely true and probably why we, as a voting body, should consider the costs of such things when we implement them. But it’s another thing to claim policies are incompatible with a region due to shared ideology, which strikes me as disingenuous at best. After all, and I am somewhat guilty of a straw man here, but if one believes in liberal economics (the next person who uses that term in reference to American political ideology gets their economics privileges revoked) then one does believe the laws of markets are not unlike those of gravity. You don’t have to believe in them, but you’re still nailed to the floor. This is a country which has a substantial portion of the population that believes in external creation of humanity and the world, what they believe seems irrelevant to me, but that’s entirely a personal gripe.

To be frank though, this piece reads largely as a polemic against the notion of the welfare state, awkwardly framed with the political aspirations of the president. The US will likely never see the degree of handouts that Europe has in the sense of pure transfer payments given our historical record of “regressive” welfare reform. I feel like your entire argument relies on this bait-and switch. Yes, European welfare systems are largely ineffectual deadweight loss magnets, but the “never working” payments simply are not on the table, nor are they likely to be ever. Thus this topic is largely unneeded.

In short, this is a major topic, treat it with some form of academic rigor. I might argue a few points with you, or even agree, but really, there is nothing here to argue with.

PS I take issue with the notion of homogeneity in any economic discourse.
PPS Don’t use Neitzche as anything other than a critic of humanity, he rarely, if ever posits anything close to a unified framework for…well anything.

First and foremost, you are correct that Aristotle did say that in his original text. However, that is because everyone else had factors enabling them entirely outside their control. In Aristotle’s day, women, slaves and the lower classes were unable to lead the good life since they could not make their own decisions or choose an action for its own sake. They were unable to practice the virtues so Aristotle excluded these groups. Women in the United States and the “lower classes” have access to education and social welfare programs that entitle them to decisions and flexibility, the variables that caused Aristotle to make his original exception. Those exceptions are dated.

Yeah, about those German Universities…
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TDJVRVPQ
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13914669

I’m glad that your family isn’t angry towards the people sucking off of their tax dollars by choosing not to work. As it happens, though, I had a long chat with my cleaning woman and she expressed that most of the people in her children’s generation find it pointless to work for lower-wages when the government gives comparable handouts. Thinking this could just be a fluke, I have asked every English-speaking German – from the CEO of a technology company, to my history professor, to my baker – a similar question about the future and they all agree. If your family shares in your socialist views, I’m sure they must really love working and simply do not mind doing so in great excess. Where were those stakhanovites during the 5-year plan!? Youth unemployment has reached record levels across Europe. The slight permeation of feudalism into modern German society you wrote off was written about by Ralf Dahrendorf, the son of a famous SPD member.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/ted_20090804.htm
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,408418,00.html

Perhaps you should not take your citations from the World Socialist Web Site (from 2005 – no less!) next time you want me to think they are actually worth refuting. (I’m sure they’re real intent on studying class mobility…) Working hard doesnt necessarily equate to wealth, success, or status. In fact, I audited a lecture on wealth last semester and I was fairly convinced that (as their statistic showed) it’s based on luck by about 37%. Values are reflected differently, I do not equate wealth with happiness. I don’t know if there is a way to verify if Joe the Plumber wants to “own the business” – he probably wants to make enough to afford his home in Ohio and provide for his family though. I don’t want the American youth to aspire to work for the state, like three quarters of French youth, out of the obsession with security I wrote about. I am not suggesting that everyone “has what it takes” to make it in the world and become the next Bill Gates, or even Oprah. However, I do believe that a rising tide lifts all boats (like JFK), and that the people who are best equipped to make life decisions are the ones who lead them. Providing a great education and physical safety should be the first obligation of the government to its poor. In addition to this, some social welfare programs – like foodstamps, welfare, Medicare and Medicaid – are appropriate to ensure that basic needs are met. Beyond this, I believe there is a limit placed on the trajectory of any other component of personal wealth that is subject to being influenced by the quality of a persons work or, as is the case in France, the number of hours. The way someone lives should be their prerogative. European-style Socialists seem to lack that faith in people. I could care less about how Europe is governed. If anything, their policy has just led to more business coming to America. I just don’t want that to happen in America. I also don’t think that any government has run a sufficient enough system that would replace the efficiency of a private market. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html – this neat little study from the NYT – a bit more credible than the WSocialists – shows that Americans have more class mobility than most of Europe, even if “by a little.” If one were to compile the quality of life rankings, as made by the Economist, the EU-4 would fall short of the USA. But, then again, what does the Economist know – they are not from luxurious France! My main point, which you neglected to refute, was that America – having a wealthier middle class – holds more economic spending power and ultimately a better lifestyle than its counterparts. While you’re busy looking that up, please refute the indicators I provided that the European economy is going down the drain and their birth rate is not going to harm them.

Thank you for not copying a full article from the Washington Post this time, it made your argument look (vaguely) valid. I’d like to know what it is you do that allows you to have the time to write such long responses on the comment section of a college sophomore’s writings. Either way, I’m flattered by your outrage.

PS, Nice touch with the Alain de Botton, I actually find his non-fiction to be quite lovely. However, I think you’re trying to suggest that my argument is based on greed and materialism. I simply don’t like too many restrictions on society.
PPS, Read more Nietzsche.