The U. S. is no longer the land of opportunity. Upward mobility has ended.

[asterism]

Most people agree that education is the key to upward mobility, yet a college education in America is beyond the financial reach of most low income Americans today. For kids from middle and upper middle class families, savings for college is a possibility. However for a family of low wage earners, saving for college is a pipe dream.

Educational aid today means college loans for most kids that will put them so deep in depth that some will be on social security and still be paying off their college loans. Paying for college today is literally driving people into bankruptcy. Really poor kids, must either be brilliant or have tremendous drive to make it to the upper middle class.

Several things I disagree with. College is NOT for everyone, indeed as another poster made clear in another post, the number of college degree holders has diluted the expected return in many cases.

Since the 1960's at least, the push in education is to turn all public schools into prep schools, that caused a majority of students to be left behind. Since then, universities have responded by dumbing down their requirements, eventually focusing on the important stuff, like suites for all underclassmen and organic options in the cafes.

Today the typical high school student can do trig and calc, which wasn't true for the typical high school student 40 years ago. Much has to do with low cost scientific calculators, but that is life. On the other hand, they are extremely limited in reading, writing, and analytical skills, something their great grandparents had little problems with.

While there is evidence that some school districts are trying to provide opportunities for students who do not wish to be in prep classes, but instead learning trades or business related classes, they had been removed from most curriculum in the past 20 years or so. Auto, woodworking, electronics, along with basic accounting, typing, shorthand were readily available for many years.

Distributive education courses are making a comeback after years of absence. This gives jrs and srs in good standing a chance to apprentice in fields they find interesting. Cosmetology, auto mechanics, retail, culinary, hospitality, all and more are possibilities. All of these can be fields entered into upon high school graduation. If the student wants to 'kick it up' the DL classes put them ahead in applications for specific programs, such as Culinary Arts Institutes, etc.

The emphasis on STEM has also resulted in college bound students lacking both knowledge and interest in what has been considered the norm of the educated. Literature, philosophy, and what's general called classical education. Yes, there were great engineers that also understood whom Cincinnatus was and what Genghis Khan accomplished. There was a 'culture' of the educated.

There are decent paying jobs out there for kids who opt for a certificate program or community college degree, but the chances are pretty slim of making enough to support a family, a mortgage, and anything close to the "America Dream". That died back in the 20th century.

Most A/C contractors in my area have no college, and all of the ones surveyed make over $100K per year.

 

[asterism]

That's his choice. There is absolutely no reason for him to go to a school that expensive. He can pay a tenth of that by going to community college for his first two years and/or going to a school out of state. California universities are absurdly expensive.

Depending on the personality and assertiveness of the young man in question USC could well be the ticket to a permanent good life. I graduated from UCDavis, a very good school, but no USC, Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. When I entered the job market there were only three internships in all of Los Angeles in my field. I was a "B" student, and found myself up against two Yale grads and a Princeton. When those old families started calling their friends to employ a family member, things got serious, REAL FAST. Like it or not, when you get out of college, it is who you know.

I had some great references going into the competition from top execs and board members, but I had one thing they did not which allowed me to walk away with the top prize. In college I had a door-to-door home care products business that I sold when I graduated. It not only paid part of my college, but I was the only candidate who had actually run a business. It did not hurt that I had a couple Fortune 500 execs and board members in my corner, (friends of my dad).

While the cost of a USC degree may be $50,000 more than the cost of a UCDavis degree, I would say it is worth it when you are talking about where a young person starts their career. If the young one has the diligence and personality to get along in the business climate by all means give them the opportunity. The main reason to pick USC is whom your student will be learning from, who their friends will be, and knowing the leaders of tomorrow as friends. People such as Bill Gates, Barack Obama, and Scott Pelley lecture at USC often. That level does not lecture at UCDavis or NON-IVY League schools.

As a footnote, there are no longer any internships in my field in Los Angeles. The few there are, are in New York. There are so many qualified people out there, we do not bother to train. Why should we when we can hire the experience we want with no investment?

By the way, "Yes" I believe it sucks. I believe we as an employer have a responsibility to bring new talent into the industry. We need new ideas working with our philosophy to carry on the company. But, in this economy, no one listens to me.

USC, Alma mater of Steven Spielberg.​

I'm sure glad, I'm not entering the workforce today. In years past, a college degree in the right field, experience, dedication, hard work, and you could look forward to good money, benefits, and job security. Today, it's all about what can you do for me right now? How much can you add to the bottom line? Employee/Employer loyalty doesn't exist. I read somewhere that a person entering the job market can look forward to 5 to 7 careers in a lifetime and dozens of jobs. Guess I'm old fashion but I don't see this as a good thing.

It seems to me that back when most people didn't go to college at all those who did were "special." It's not that special anymore hence the lack of sure career paths for all college graduates. It doesn't mean things are worse, it means the immediate tangible benefits of college just aren't there anymore. That's one of the big lies told to people these days, that their degrees will guarantee them a successful career.

 

[Oddball]

My grandson is starting in USC this fall. The family doesn't have much money but they've been able to save a bit plus he's working summers. His tuition and fees will be about $45,000 a year. Add in room and board and the cost for 4 years will be about $250,000 less $25,000 in scholarships and about the same in college savings. So he will walkout out of college with a $200,000 college loan.

That's his choice. There is absolutely no reason for him to go to a school that expensive. He can pay a tenth of that by going to community college for his first two years and/or going to a school out of state. California universities are absurdly expensive.

USC....Even money he gets rolled sometime during his frosh year.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Freddo, can you explain to the op how the concepts of upward mobility and government dependency are mutually exclusive?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Flopper]

Depending on the personality and assertiveness of the young man in question USC could well be the ticket to a permanent good life. I graduated from UCDavis, a very good school, but no USC, Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. When I entered the job market there were only three internships in all of Los Angeles in my field. I was a "B" student, and found myself up against two Yale grads and a Princeton. When those old families started calling their friends to employ a family member, things got serious, REAL FAST. Like it or not, when you get out of college, it is who you know.

I had some great references going into the competition from top execs and board members, but I had one thing they did not which allowed me to walk away with the top prize. In college I had a door-to-door home care products business that I sold when I graduated. It not only paid part of my college, but I was the only candidate who had actually run a business. It did not hurt that I had a couple Fortune 500 execs and board members in my corner, (friends of my dad).

While the cost of a USC degree may be $50,000 more than the cost of a UCDavis degree, I would say it is worth it when you are talking about where a young person starts their career. If the young one has the diligence and personality to get along in the business climate by all means give them the opportunity. The main reason to pick USC is whom your student will be learning from, who their friends will be, and knowing the leaders of tomorrow as friends. People such as Bill Gates, Barack Obama, and Scott Pelley lecture at USC often. That level does not lecture at UCDavis or NON-IVY League schools.

As a footnote, there are no longer any internships in my field in Los Angeles. The few there are, are in New York. There are so many qualified people out there, we do not bother to train. Why should we when we can hire the experience we want with no investment?

By the way, "Yes" I believe it sucks. I believe we as an employer have a responsibility to bring new talent into the industry. We need new ideas working with our philosophy to carry on the company. But, in this economy, no one listens to me.

USC, Alma mater of Steven Spielberg.​

I'm sure glad, I'm not entering the workforce today. In years past, a college degree in the right field, experience, dedication, hard work, and you could look forward to good money, benefits, and job security. Today, it's all about what can you do for me right now? How much can you add to the bottom line? Employee/Employer loyalty doesn't exist. I read somewhere that a person entering the job market can look forward to 5 to 7 careers in a lifetime and dozens of jobs. Guess I'm old fashion but I don't see this as a good thing.

It seems to me that back when most people didn't go to college at all those who did were "special." It's not that special anymore hence the lack of sure career paths for all college graduates. It doesn't mean things are worse, it means the immediate tangible benefits of college just aren't there anymore. That's one of the big lies told to people these days, that their degrees will guarantee them a successful career.

There's a lot truth in what you're saying. However, there was a time when most people only made it through the elementary grades and completing high school was a gateway into jobs that would pay top dollar. Then everybody started getting high school diplomas so the high school degree no longer impressed employers and it was 4 years of college that became key to get the best paying jobs. Now as more people get 4 year degrees, it's graduate degrees. In fact in many professions, a graduate degree has become a requirement.

Formal education today is less about job training and more about showing you have either the intelligence or drive to get the degree. For many jobs, some companies don't even look at those without college degrees. For example, when the HR guy pulls up the list of 200 applicants, he selects college grads and he's down to 100, selects post grads, and he's down to 20, a manageable number.

Of course, there are always exceptions, the ones with extraordinary talents and the one's who's daddy sit's on the board.

 

[alan1]

Last Friday night it was discussed on Bill Maher's Real Time that America's implied promise that if you worked hard you would own a home, and you could send your children to college is no longer true. This link is to a Time Magazine article that was quoted.

This hit me hard, and causes me to seek out your opinion.

Why the U.S. is No Longer the Land of Opportunity | TIME.com

"This week’s cover story in TIME by Rana Foroohar, titled What Ever Happened to Upward Mobility?, examines the opportunity gap in America and why it has gotten so uneven. A recent study from the Pew Charitable Trust found that Americans born in the a family that was one of the bottom fifth in terms of wealth, only had a 17% chance of making into the top two-fifths as an adult. It now appears, as Foroohar points out, that a number of recent studies have shown that it is now easier to move up the income ladder in Europe than it is in America. So much for the land of the opportunity."

​

OK, you've repeated this part a few times in this thread,

"Pew Charitable Trust found that Americans born in the a (sic) family that was one of the bottom fifth in terms of wealth, only had a 17% chance of making into the top two-fifths as an adult"

Does that mean that 17% of those born in the bottom fifth actually make into the top two-fifths? That is what it sounds like to me. And that sounds like upward mobility.
If there truly is no upward mobility, then how many that are born in the bottom fifth remain in the bottom fifth their entire life? How many are upwardly mobile enough to make it into the second fifth or the third fifth. Just because one that starts at the bottom doesn't make to the top doesn't mean that he hasn't improved his financial standing.

It appears to me that you are trying to draw a conclusion based upon only one number.

 

[asterism]

I'm sure glad, I'm not entering the workforce today. In years past, a college degree in the right field, experience, dedication, hard work, and you could look forward to good money, benefits, and job security. Today, it's all about what can you do for me right now? How much can you add to the bottom line? Employee/Employer loyalty doesn't exist. I read somewhere that a person entering the job market can look forward to 5 to 7 careers in a lifetime and dozens of jobs. Guess I'm old fashion but I don't see this as a good thing.

It seems to me that back when most people didn't go to college at all those who did were "special." It's not that special anymore hence the lack of sure career paths for all college graduates. It doesn't mean things are worse, it means the immediate tangible benefits of college just aren't there anymore. That's one of the big lies told to people these days, that their degrees will guarantee them a successful career.

There's a lot truth in what you're saying. However, there was a time when most people only made it through the elementary grades and completing high school was a gateway into jobs that would pay top dollar. Then everybody started getting high school diplomas so the high school degree no longer impressed employers and it was 4 years of college that became key to get the best paying jobs. Now as more people get 4 year degrees, it's graduate degrees. In fact in many professions, a graduate degree has become a requirement.

Formal education today is less about job training and more about showing you have either the intelligence or drive to get the degree. For many jobs, some companies don't even look at those without college degrees. For example, when the HR guy pulls up the list of 200 applicants, he selects college grads and he's down to 100, selects post grads, and he's down to 20, a manageable number.

Of course, there are always exceptions, the ones with extraordinary talents and the one's who's daddy sit's on the board.

True, which means it's not a good idea to pick expensive schools without a direct benefit at the end. It's also a good idea to tie college loans to programs that produce proportionate incomes. High tuition has become a function of the vast amount of money available instead of the value of the education.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Food stamp society cannot be upwardly mobile. That's what Reagan had against the Progressives in Moscow, it's a system that violates the human spirit and must fail

 

[martybegan]

Most people agree that education is the key to upward mobility, yet a college education in America is beyond the financial reach of most low income Americans today. For kids from middle and upper middle class families, savings for college is a possibility. However for a family of low wage earners, saving for college is a pipe dream.

Educational aid today means college loans for most kids that will put them so deep in depth that some will be on social security and still be paying off their college loans. Paying for college today is literally driving people into bankruptcy. Really poor kids, must either be brilliant or have tremendous drive to make it to the upper middle class.

Several things I disagree with. College is NOT for everyone, indeed as another poster made clear in another post, the number of college degree holders has diluted the expected return in many cases.

Since the 1960's at least, the push in education is to turn all public schools into prep schools, that caused a majority of students to be left behind. Since then, universities have responded by dumbing down their requirements, eventually focusing on the important stuff, like suites for all underclassmen and organic options in the cafes.

Today the typical high school student can do trig and calc, which wasn't true for the typical high school student 40 years ago. Much has to do with low cost scientific calculators, but that is life. On the other hand, they are extremely limited in reading, writing, and analytical skills, something their great grandparents had little problems with.

While there is evidence that some school districts are trying to provide opportunities for students who do not wish to be in prep classes, but instead learning trades or business related classes, they had been removed from most curriculum in the past 20 years or so. Auto, woodworking, electronics, along with basic accounting, typing, shorthand were readily available for many years.

Distributive education courses are making a comeback after years of absence. This gives jrs and srs in good standing a chance to apprentice in fields they find interesting. Cosmetology, auto mechanics, retail, culinary, hospitality, all and more are possibilities. All of these can be fields entered into upon high school graduation. If the student wants to 'kick it up' the DL classes put them ahead in applications for specific programs, such as Culinary Arts Institutes, etc.

The emphasis on STEM has also resulted in college bound students lacking both knowledge and interest in what has been considered the norm of the educated. Literature, philosophy, and what's general called classical education. Yes, there were great engineers that also understood whom Cincinnatus was and what Genghis Khan accomplished. There was a 'culture' of the educated.

The emphasis on STEM that you see pre college is not translating into STEM college degrees. Alot of the degrees being awarded as something you can make a living on were seen only a few decades ago as academic tracks, designed for people who wanted to be college professors, or at least experts in a given topic. The country can only support so many art history majors, or women's studies (or any X studies majors) with jobs that actually relate to thier chosen field.

So instead they try to go out into the job market, with a degree that only says "I spent 4 years studying X" and not "I spend 4 years studying to get THIS job."

 

[martybegan]

I'm sure glad, I'm not entering the workforce today. In years past, a college degree in the right field, experience, dedication, hard work, and you could look forward to good money, benefits, and job security. Today, it's all about what can you do for me right now? How much can you add to the bottom line? Employee/Employer loyalty doesn't exist. I read somewhere that a person entering the job market can look forward to 5 to 7 careers in a lifetime and dozens of jobs. Guess I'm old fashion but I don't see this as a good thing.

It seems to me that back when most people didn't go to college at all those who did were "special." It's not that special anymore hence the lack of sure career paths for all college graduates. It doesn't mean things are worse, it means the immediate tangible benefits of college just aren't there anymore. That's one of the big lies told to people these days, that their degrees will guarantee them a successful career.

There's a lot truth in what you're saying. However, there was a time when most people only made it through the elementary grades and completing high school was a gateway into jobs that would pay top dollar. Then everybody started getting high school diplomas so the high school degree no longer impressed employers and it was 4 years of college that became key to get the best paying jobs. Now as more people get 4 year degrees, it's graduate degrees. In fact in many professions, a graduate degree has become a requirement.

Formal education today is less about job training and more about showing you have either the intelligence or drive to get the degree. For many jobs, some companies don't even look at those without college degrees. For example, when the HR guy pulls up the list of 200 applicants, he selects college grads and he's down to 100, selects post grads, and he's down to 20, a manageable number.

Of course, there are always exceptions, the ones with extraordinary talents and the one's who's daddy sit's on the board.

You are only looking at being employed by a company, which while giving a comfortable living, is not a real path to major upward mobility. A job can move you up a couple rungs, what moves you up faster is being your own boss, coming up with an idea, and making it a business.

Today starting your own buisness is swallowed in red tape, local, state and federal regulations, various agencies and authorities, and all the other burecratic crap that stagnates development.

The trades and buisnesses are the way the truly lower level people move up. If you are good with your hands, and have some modicum of intelligence a journeyman plumber can work thier way to thier own plumbing company, or at least they used to be able to do it.

 

[Beachboy]

Several things I disagree with. College is NOT for everyone, indeed as another poster made clear in another post, the number of college degree holders has diluted the expected return in many cases.

Since the 1960's at least, the push in education is to turn all public schools into prep schools, that caused a majority of students to be left behind. Since then, universities have responded by dumbing down their requirements, eventually focusing on the important stuff, like suites for all underclassmen and organic options in the cafes.

Today the typical high school student can do trig and calc, which wasn't true for the typical high school student 40 years ago. Much has to do with low cost scientific calculators, but that is life. On the other hand, they are extremely limited in reading, writing, and analytical skills, something their great grandparents had little problems with.

While there is evidence that some school districts are trying to provide opportunities for students who do not wish to be in prep classes, but instead learning trades or business related classes, they had been removed from most curriculum in the past 20 years or so. Auto, woodworking, electronics, along with basic accounting, typing, shorthand were readily available for many years.

Distributive education courses are making a comeback after years of absence. This gives jrs and srs in good standing a chance to apprentice in fields they find interesting. Cosmetology, auto mechanics, retail, culinary, hospitality, all and more are possibilities. All of these can be fields entered into upon high school graduation. If the student wants to 'kick it up' the DL classes put them ahead in applications for specific programs, such as Culinary Arts Institutes, etc.

The emphasis on STEM has also resulted in college bound students lacking both knowledge and interest in what has been considered the norm of the educated. Literature, philosophy, and what's general called classical education. Yes, there were great engineers that also understood whom Cincinnatus was and what Genghis Khan accomplished. There was a 'culture' of the educated.

There are decent paying jobs out there for kids who opt for a certificate program or community college degree, but the chances are pretty slim of making enough to support a family, a mortgage, and anything close to the "America Dream". That died back in the 20th century.

Most A/C contractors in my area have no college, and all of the ones surveyed make over $100K per year.

Thank you, but I would prefer to make my living sitting in an air conditioned office rather than spend the summer heat in someone's attic putting in A/C ducts. Those A/C contractors earn their money the hard way in my book.

 

[Beachboy]

Freddo, can you explain to the op how the concepts of upward mobility and government dependency are mutually exclusive?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

And, the next thing you will have us believe is that the 1% are "job creaters!"

 

[Beachboy]

Last Friday night it was discussed on Bill Maher's Real Time that America's implied promise that if you worked hard you would own a home, and you could send your children to college is no longer true. This link is to a Time Magazine article that was quoted.

This hit me hard, and causes me to seek out your opinion.

Why the U.S. is No Longer the Land of Opportunity | TIME.com

"This week’s cover story in TIME by Rana Foroohar, titled What Ever Happened to Upward Mobility?, examines the opportunity gap in America and why it has gotten so uneven. A recent study from the Pew Charitable Trust found that Americans born in the a family that was one of the bottom fifth in terms of wealth, only had a 17% chance of making into the top two-fifths as an adult. It now appears, as Foroohar points out, that a number of recent studies have shown that it is now easier to move up the income ladder in Europe than it is in America. So much for the land of the opportunity."

​

OK, you've repeated this part a few times in this thread,

"Pew Charitable Trust found that Americans born in the a (sic) family that was one of the bottom fifth in terms of wealth, only had a 17% chance of making into the top two-fifths as an adult"

Does that mean that 17% of those born in the bottom fifth actually make into the top two-fifths? That is what it sounds like to me. And that sounds like upward mobility.
If there truly is no upward mobility, then how many that are born in the bottom fifth remain in the bottom fifth their entire life? How many are upwardly mobile enough to make it into the second fifth or the third fifth. Just because one that starts at the bottom doesn't make to the top doesn't mean that he hasn't improved his financial standing.

It appears to me that you are trying to draw a conclusion based upon only one number.

Try this.

It means that 83% of the bottom 20% of income earners, are not moving upward economically.

One number from a strong source should be good enough, otherwise try Google. I am not your researcher.

 

[asterism]

There are decent paying jobs out there for kids who opt for a certificate program or community college degree, but the chances are pretty slim of making enough to support a family, a mortgage, and anything close to the "America Dream". That died back in the 20th century.

Most A/C contractors in my area have no college, and all of the ones surveyed make over $100K per year.

Thank you, but I would prefer to make my living sitting in an air conditioned office rather than spend the summer heat in someone's attic putting in A/C ducts. Those A/C contractors earn their money the hard way in my book.

Most self-made millionaires earned it the hard way. So now you want upward mobility but in comfort? That takes hard work, luck, and not looking for a career to be handed to you. The chances are very good of "making enough to support a family, a mortgage, and anything close to the 'America Dream' but you have to be willing to work.

 

[asterism]

Last Friday night it was discussed on Bill Maher's Real Time that America's implied promise that if you worked hard you would own a home, and you could send your children to college is no longer true. This link is to a Time Magazine article that was quoted.

This hit me hard, and causes me to seek out your opinion.

Why the U.S. is No Longer the Land of Opportunity | TIME.com

"This week’s cover story in TIME by Rana Foroohar, titled What Ever Happened to Upward Mobility?, examines the opportunity gap in America and why it has gotten so uneven. A recent study from the Pew Charitable Trust found that Americans born in the a family that was one of the bottom fifth in terms of wealth, only had a 17% chance of making into the top two-fifths as an adult. It now appears, as Foroohar points out, that a number of recent studies have shown that it is now easier to move up the income ladder in Europe than it is in America. So much for the land of the opportunity."

​

OK, you've repeated this part a few times in this thread,

"Pew Charitable Trust found that Americans born in the a (sic) family that was one of the bottom fifth in terms of wealth, only had a 17% chance of making into the top two-fifths as an adult"

Does that mean that 17% of those born in the bottom fifth actually make into the top two-fifths? That is what it sounds like to me. And that sounds like upward mobility.
If there truly is no upward mobility, then how many that are born in the bottom fifth remain in the bottom fifth their entire life? How many are upwardly mobile enough to make it into the second fifth or the third fifth. Just because one that starts at the bottom doesn't make to the top doesn't mean that he hasn't improved his financial standing.

It appears to me that you are trying to draw a conclusion based upon only one number.

Try this.

It means that 83% of the bottom 20% of income earners, are not moving upward economically.

One number from a strong source should be good enough, otherwise try Google. I am not your researcher.

Actually, that's not true. It means that 83% of those in the bottom fifth are not moving to the upper end, not that they are not moving up. That is not a function of class warfare, it's a function of the fact that those at the bottom tend to do things that keep them at the bottom while those at the top tend to do things that keep them at the top.

I'd GLADLY spend all day in attics of customers if that's what I needed to do to get ahead. It appears you aren't willing to do that. If you have that opportunity but turn it down, it's not the 1%'s fault that you put comfort over prosperity.

Oh, and find me a hardware store that pays better than Wal Mart.

 

[Beachboy]

OK, you've repeated this part a few times in this thread,

"Pew Charitable Trust found that Americans born in the a (sic) family that was one of the bottom fifth in terms of wealth, only had a 17% chance of making into the top two-fifths as an adult"

Does that mean that 17% of those born in the bottom fifth actually make into the top two-fifths? That is what it sounds like to me. And that sounds like upward mobility.
If there truly is no upward mobility, then how many that are born in the bottom fifth remain in the bottom fifth their entire life? How many are upwardly mobile enough to make it into the second fifth or the third fifth. Just because one that starts at the bottom doesn't make to the top doesn't mean that he hasn't improved his financial standing.

It appears to me that you are trying to draw a conclusion based upon only one number.

Try this.

It means that 83% of the bottom 20% of income earners, are not moving upward economically.

One number from a strong source should be good enough, otherwise try Google. I am not your researcher.

Actually, that's not true. It means that 83% of those in the bottom fifth are not moving to the upper end, not that they are not moving up. That is not a function of class warfare, it's a function of the fact that those at the bottom tend to do things that keep them at the bottom while those at the top tend to do things that keep them at the top.

I'd GLADLY spend all day in attics of customers if that's what I needed to do to get ahead. It appears you aren't willing to do that. If you have that opportunity but turn it down, it's not the 1%'s fault that you put comfort over prosperity.

Oh, and find me a hardware store that pays better than Wal Mart.

All I can say is "Are you a Manager, or Assistant Manager of Wal Mart?" because no American with a brain would try to defend them." You sound like talking points from the Fortune 500 playbook!

Rally those minimum wage workers, make them think you care!​

 

[alan1]

Last Friday night it was discussed on Bill Maher's Real Time that America's implied promise that if you worked hard you would own a home, and you could send your children to college is no longer true. This link is to a Time Magazine article that was quoted.

This hit me hard, and causes me to seek out your opinion.

Why the U.S. is No Longer the Land of Opportunity | TIME.com

"This week’s cover story in TIME by Rana Foroohar, titled What Ever Happened to Upward Mobility?, examines the opportunity gap in America and why it has gotten so uneven. A recent study from the Pew Charitable Trust found that Americans born in the a family that was one of the bottom fifth in terms of wealth, only had a 17% chance of making into the top two-fifths as an adult. It now appears, as Foroohar points out, that a number of recent studies have shown that it is now easier to move up the income ladder in Europe than it is in America. So much for the land of the opportunity."

​

OK, you've repeated this part a few times in this thread,

"Pew Charitable Trust found that Americans born in the a (sic) family that was one of the bottom fifth in terms of wealth, only had a 17% chance of making into the top two-fifths as an adult"

Does that mean that 17% of those born in the bottom fifth actually make into the top two-fifths? That is what it sounds like to me. And that sounds like upward mobility.
If there truly is no upward mobility, then how many that are born in the bottom fifth remain in the bottom fifth their entire life? How many are upwardly mobile enough to make it into the second fifth or the third fifth. Just because one that starts at the bottom doesn't make to the top doesn't mean that he hasn't improved his financial standing.

It appears to me that you are trying to draw a conclusion based upon only one number.

Try this.

It means that 83% of the bottom 20% of income earners, are not moving upward economically.

One number from a strong source should be good enough, otherwise try Google. I am not your researcher.

That one number only addressed people from the bottom 20% moving into the top 40%, not the other 40% position that also exists (which could be an upward). It also doesn't address the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quin tiles moving upwards. You need to perform more due diligence before you make the statement, "Upward mobility has ended."

 

[Beachboy]

OK, you've repeated this part a few times in this thread,

"Pew Charitable Trust found that Americans born in the a (sic) family that was one of the bottom fifth in terms of wealth, only had a 17% chance of making into the top two-fifths as an adult"

Does that mean that 17% of those born in the bottom fifth actually make into the top two-fifths? That is what it sounds like to me. And that sounds like upward mobility.
If there truly is no upward mobility, then how many that are born in the bottom fifth remain in the bottom fifth their entire life? How many are upwardly mobile enough to make it into the second fifth or the third fifth. Just because one that starts at the bottom doesn't make to the top doesn't mean that he hasn't improved his financial standing.

It appears to me that you are trying to draw a conclusion based upon only one number.

Try this.

It means that 83% of the bottom 20% of income earners, are not moving upward economically.

One number from a strong source should be good enough, otherwise try Google. I am not your researcher.

That one number only addressed people from the bottom 20% moving into the top 40%, not the other 40% position that also exists (which could be an upward). It also doesn't address the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quin tiles moving upwards. You need to perform more due diligence before you make the statement, "Upward mobility has ended."

Have you read this thread? I don't think so. While you are correct in terms of the actual count. You are incorrect in regard to the implied promise that people will truly move up. The expectation is to move from a rented shack into a three bedroom ranch of their own, and send their kids to college.

It would be like moving from clerk at Wal mart to Assistant Manger. What are we talking an increase of 70 cents an hour. Peanuts!

You do not understand this thread. Or, you have an axe to grind, (perhaps from exploiting the working poor yourself). And, you have brought disagreement to a thoughtful thread where their should be spiritual harmony. You are disrupting the discussion of the OP. You have missed the entire point of this thread. Get on the right page or leave.

 

[Beachboy]

Victimized by a hit and run poster. Remember the name "alan1", This is a guy who likes to stir things up, and then hides when he loses the argument.

 

[alan1]

Try this.

It means that 83% of the bottom 20% of income earners, are not moving upward economically.

One number from a strong source should be good enough, otherwise try Google. I am not your researcher.

That one number only addressed people from the bottom 20% moving into the top 40%, not the other 40% position that also exists (which could be an upward). It also doesn't address the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quin tiles moving upwards. You need to perform more due diligence before you make the statement, "Upward mobility has ended."

Have you read this thread? I don't think so. While you are correct in terms of the actual count. You are incorrect in regard to the implied promise that people will truly move up. The expectation is to move from a rented shack into a three bedroom ranch of their own, and send their kids to college.

It would be like moving from clerk at Wal mart to Assistant Manger. What are we talking an increase of 70 cents an hour. Peanuts!

You do not understand this thread. Or, you have an axe to grind, (perhaps from exploiting the working poor yourself). And, you have brought disagreement to a thoughtful thread where their should be spiritual harmony. You are disrupting the discussion of the OP. You have missed the entire point of this thread. Get on the right page or leave.

I am unsure why you think there is an "implied promise" that people will "move up" the financial economic ladder. The opportunity exists to improve ones societal economic position, but no promises have been made stating that one will.
The words 'opportunity' and 'success' mean two entirely different things.

Unfortunately for you, I pointed out how your premise is flawed, but you backed it up with another flawed premise,

Victimized by a hit and run poster. Remember the name "alan1", This is a guy who likes to stir things up, and then hides when he loses the argument.

The only thing I've lost is what little respect I had for you.
This is a message board, you stated your opinion (based upon ignoring many facts), then I stated my opinion (using the facts from your linked article that you failed to see). I didn't hide from anything, I just didn't post last night because I was too busy meeting my daughters for dinner and enjoying quality time with them. I am also unsure why you think disagreement is victimization and/or stirring things up when it occurs on a political message board. You seem hyper-sensitive.