Looking for the land of opportunity

[pandorea]

According to London School of Economics : Top 5 countries for social mobility are ;

1.Norway

2. Canada/Denmark/Sweden

3. Finland

4. Germany

5. UK

6. US

and, children in Finland are among the best academic performers the world.

The American Dream promises that aspiration, hard work and individual enterprise will be rewarded with prosperity, regardless of family background.

President Barack Obama, the first black president, epitomises this; but all too often the dream fails to match reality.

The truth is that the US sits with the UK at the bottom of the international league table of social mobility.

Family background has as strong an influence on socio-economic opportunity in the classless United States as it does in the supposedly hidebound class-ridden UK.

In terms of giving children a good start in life and having a fair labour market, both countries probably have much to learn from those at the top of the league table - Finland, Norway and Canada, among others.

A generation ago the UK spent less on the education of its children than most other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

This without doubt contributed to the lack of social mobility experienced by today's adults.

Class in the classroom

But Finland spent no more per pupil than the UK; the United States the most.

School financing in the US, based on local property taxes, is a strong force for concentrating advantage across the generations.

More affluent parents in America shop for schools, move neighbourhoods and spend a great deal on private tuition for their children.

This is in sharp contrast to the broad-based and universal structure of the Finnish system.

The UK has a good deal more in common with the US than it does with Finland, but is increasingly recognising that access to good quality education is a playing field that needs to be levelled.

Reform of school financing does not appear to be a priority for the current US administration.

But President Obama's focus on healthcare - if it is truly reformed in a way that will boost access for poorer children - may well pay dividends in promoting social mobility for the long run.

The point is that what matters is not so much the size of the government's social budget, but the degree to which the dollars, pounds or euros are advantageous to the disadvantaged.

In a similar way, removing labour market inequality also helps social mobility.

Nepotism

If the UK and the US have the lowest degree of social mobility it is not only because poorer children don't get the best start in life, but also because the stakes are higher.

In both countries labour markets are more unequal than elsewhere.

The barriers - both implicit and explicit - to entry into particular occupations, sectors and even firms are higher.

Taxes are less progressive and the gap between low and high incomes is greater.

Whether the degree of social mobility is a problem that needs to be addressed by our politicians depends very much upon the underlying causes.

Children are like their parents for all sorts of reasons, some of which are valued by the labour market.

If the reason adult incomes resemble that of their parents has to do with parental values and styles, and instilling motivation, then most of us would also agree there is likely little role for public policy.

But if it also extends to the role of connections, contacts or nepotism most would feel the opposite - that the playing field is not level.

In many advanced economies, most jobs held by young people are found through family and friends, and a good many children will end up working in the same occupation as their parents.

Old boys' network?

Whether it matters or not for social mobility depends upon whether there are other options available to young job seekers, whether the best jobs and occupations are allocated this way, and whether the resulting restrictions lead to excessive incomes.

In Canada - arguably the country whose labour market is closest in structure to the US - about four in 10 young men have worked at some point for the same employer as their fathers.

A significant proportion make careers with the same employer as their father had.

ut only at the very top of the income distribution is this excessive, and suggestive of nepotism.

In the US and the UK on the other hand, where all the signs are that to a similar degree, children end up working for the same employer as their parents, the effect on social mobility is much greater.

This is because high-paying jobs are more concentrated within the professions, and the overall level of inequality is higher.

What many of the Nordic countries and Canada have recognised is that the full development of a child's early years - schooling, healthcare, and socialisation - is the first and most necessary prerequisite in developing a socially mobile society.

What they also teach us is that this is only a prerequisite, not a guarantee.

The degree of fairness, openness, and equality in labour markets is also a reason some countries are at the top of the league table, while others languish so much further down.

From : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8162616.stm

[Admin_2]

Even if it's a top 5 list, the US always finds a way to sneak in there!

[olympos]

HAHAHA !!!!

[pandorea]

HAHAHA !!!!

Congratulations on your first post on the forum.

[Stramash]

HAHAHA !!!!

Congratulations on your first post on the forum.

and a fascinating piece of insight into economic development in the current geo-political climate it was too... :wink:

(only kidding Hayko)

[maidai]

thats funny,

If you look at the Richest Americans, who are the richest people in the world, Every Single one of them come from average to poor backgrounds.

The majority of Americans are descendants of Poor immigrants, For an example, After the Vietnam War, Cambodians, Lao, and Vietnamese families who had not even a $1 in their pockets came to America and are apart of the wealthiest Ethnic Class in America "Asians." The wealthiest and the Elite's of those Groups from Cambodia, Lao, and Vietnam who choose to end up in France and Germany for the most part live in poverty.

Lets talk about Blacks in these Countries?

ask, How many Self Made Black Billionaires and Millionaires these other countries have compared to the USA?

Im sure i would be safe in saying there are an overwhelming amounts of Black Billionaire's and Millionaire's in the US as compared to the rest of these Nations. Pretty good considering that just in 2 or 3 generations Blacks were slaves or second class citizens in America, and to achieve such a degree of wealth, one would have to say the US provided the best opportunity in the world.

You can't compare the USA to Other nations who have not experiance the same kind of geo-ethnic issues. Norway,Sweden,Finland are mostly White Nations with a homogenious population. if you import all the Poor Black ppl from the US into Finland, sweden, or Finland, These countries would be Dead last on a list of 200 nations. The diversity the US has to deal with, is unlike that of most other nations. Britian is close, but not even comparable to that of the US, i would like to see the Ethnic makeup of Britian?

So over all the study proves nothing, because your not comparing apples to apples.

[Stramash]

thats funny,

If you look at the Richest Americans, who are the richest people in the world, Every Single one of them come from average to poor backgrounds.

The over whelming majority of Americans are descendants of Poor immigrants, For an example, After the VIetnam War, Cambodians, Lao, and Vietnamese families who had not even a $1 in their pockets came to america and are apart of the wealthest Ethnic Class in America "Asians." The wealthiest and the Elites of those Groups from Cambodia, Lao, and Vietnam who choosed to end up in France and Germany for the most part live in poverty.

There are definitely some amazing success stories amongst poor immigrants to the US.

However, as you yourself have pointed out, 'Asian' is a very wide term. Definitely the biggest success story has been the Indians, Indian Americans, Indian Asians, whatever the media want to label them with this week, especially as the level of immigration from India was minuscule until 1965. They are also the most highly educated immigrant grouping in the US.

Also, while there is no doubt that the US has more millionaires than other country per capita, it is quite interesting to note that the US only supplies 3 of the world's ten richest people. 2 of them are fairly typical White Anglo Saxon Protestants from middle to upper middle class backgrounds, while the third was from a teenage one parent Jewish family, so perhaps the most impressive of the 3 in the list.

[Stramash]

the ethnic make up of the UK is predominantly white (around 98.6% if you group White British, White Irish and White Other together)

India and Pakistan provide around 3.1%, Black around 2%, and other Asian around 1.6%)

However, even today, the US still has around 57% of European Ancestry, with African Americans on around 13%.

Without doubt these percentages will change over coming decades. In the UK, the fastest growing ethnic grouping is 'mixed race'.

Interestingly on your point vis a vis black billionaires/millionaires, there is only one black billionaire in the US, and that's Oprah!! (who also happens to be the richest black person in the world!)

As to your assertion that the 'study means nothing', well I will stick with the research and opinion of possibly the best and most respected school of economics in the world over, well, you. It's the same difference as having opinions from Mickey Mouse and Bill Gates on how to write the best software!! (oh and you weren't Bill in that scenario!)

[pandorea]

Of course, the Nordic countries can?t compare with USA in the term of African people who have opportunities in USA.

But I can give you some example of some Thai women, mai farang who live in Denmark. Some of us came from country sides; some didn?t know much English and some even can?t speak correct ?Standard Thai?. But once you married to the Dane, you?ve moved to the country, the government will send you to Danish language school for FREE!!!. When you finished from the school you can continue your education, if you like to. The government will pay you salary for that. During you are studying something you can also borrow money from the government.

During the time of studying unions will offer you very cheap membership, once you finished from a university (or whatever) and you can?t get a job after 1 month, you union will pay you for another 3 years (or so, I can?t remember the right number). During the time that you?re unemployed if you wish to continue study something, once again the government will pay for that.

If you have children, you get money from the government also. Heath care/hospitals here in DK are FREE!!!. You can get anything from a new hip to a brain surgery for FREE!!!.

When you?re retired, the government will pay you until the day you die. The government provide professional helpers to come and wipe your ass if you can?t do it yourself. And that?s FREE also.

Many Thai women in Denmark especially those from the country side, they own business here. Starting up business is FREE. (Yes, you should have some money for investment). If you don?t have any background in accounting or marketing, you can take some courses for FREE.

If your relationship gone caput, you?re divorced then you shall get 50% of what you husband has (if you didn?t sign a prenup.) and if for some reason your husband screwed his economy he doesn?t have a penny, you don?t want to stay in the country, then you call the government and let them know that you want to go back to Thailand, they will buy you a one way ticket.

So, tell me what you get in the USA. for free.

[Stramash]

Of course, the Nordic countries can?t compare with USA in the term of African people who have opportunities in USA.

But I can give you some example of some Thai women, mai farang who live in Denmark. Some of us came from country sides; some didn?t know much English and some even can?t speak correct ?Standard Thai?. But once you married to the Dane, you?ve moved to the country, the government will send you to Danish language school for FREE!!!. When you finished from the school you can continue your education, if you like to. The government will pay you salary for that. During you are studying something you can also borrow money from the government.

During the time of studying unions will offer you very cheap membership, once you finished from a university (or whatever) and you can?t get a job after 1 month, you union will pay you for another 3 years (or so, I can?t remember the right number). During the time that you?re unemployed if you wish to continue study something, once again the government will pay for that.

If you have children, you get money from the government also. Heath care/hospitals here in DK are FREE!!!. You can get anything from a new hip to a brain surgery for FREE!!!.

When you?re retired, the government will pay you until the day you die. The government provide professional helpers to come and wipe your a*s if you can?t do it yourself. And that?s FREE also.

Many Thai women in Denmark especially those from the country side, they own business here. Starting up business is FREE. (Yes, you should have some money for investment). If you don?t have any background in accounting or marketing, you can take some courses for FREE.

If your relationship gone caput, you?re divorced then you shall get 50% of what you husband has (if you didn?t sign a prenup.) and if for some reason your husband screwed his economy he doesn?t have a penny, you don?t want to stay in the country, then you call the government and let them know that you want to go back to Thailand, they will buy you a one way ticket.

So, tell me what you get in the USA. for free.

his attitude Nicky.

[pandorea]

For some reason I'm thinking of Michael Moore's documentary "SIKCO". Get a DVD and give it a chance, will you?

[robbie36]

If you look at the Richest Americans, who are the richest people in the world, Every Single one of them come from average to poor backgrounds.

Yeah right!!

And who has been preaching you the great American Dream.

As a rough rule of thumb 1% of Americans own 33% of net wealth, the next 9% own another 33% of net wealth and the bottom 50% own just 3%. And that net wealth doesnt just disappear when the old guy dies which is one of the reasons Paris Hilton has such a big smile on her face. As a rough rule of thumb only one third of billionaires are self made - maybe it is a bit higher in the US but certainly not over 50%.

Dont forget there must be at about 7 Walton's who grew up in a billionaire lifestyle that are now in the top 30 richest Americans.

[Stramash]

For some reason I'm thinking of Michael Moore's documentary "SIKCO". Get a DVD and give it a chance, will you?

I thought Michael Moore was actually Fred Savage in disguise??

:?

[Stramash]

If you look at the Richest Americans, who are the richest people in the world, Every Single one of them come from average to poor backgrounds.

Yeah right!!

And who has been preaching you the great American Dream.

As a rough rule of thumb 1% of Americans own 33% of net wealth, the next 9% own another 33% of net wealth and the bottom 50% own just 3%. And that net wealth doesnt just disappear when the old guy dies which is one of the reasons Paris Hilton has such a big smile on her face. As a rough rule of thumb only one third of billionaires are self made - maybe it is a bit higher in the US but certainly not over 50%.

Dont forget there must be at about 7 Walton's who grew up in a billionaire lifestyle that are now in the top 30 richest Americans.

pretty damn close for coming from memory Robbie

The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%.

source - http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[Treborz]

Although according to forbes Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the two richest people in the world i doubt the top 10 is made up of many more americans.

In response to an earlier post there are 4 waltons at #'s 11,12,13 & 14 in the rich list although Gates and Buffet were both self made.

[condotown]

It's just a big game... and unless you have connections or luck, life is going to beat you down and force you to settle for less than you want or deserve.

Simple reason is that not EVERYBODY can have wealth or else the bar is moved up and the least wealthy become poor....

Kind of an ugly truth.

The only way to a modicum of prosperity would be an equal distribution of the worlds wealth and resources with non corrupt governance... as if that would ever happen.

On a positive note: As long as you set your sites lower, take pride in whatever work you do and are happy with what you have, then you can consider yourself a success....

[CiaranM]

the ethnic make up of the UK is predominantly white (around 98.6% if you group White British, White Irish and White Other together)

India and Pakistan provide around 3.1%, Black around 2%, and other Asian around 1.6%)

u wanna try those %'s again Iain !!! :roll:

[robbie36]

Simple reason is that not EVERYBODY can have wealth or else the bar is moved up and the least wealthy become poor....

Kind of an ugly truth.

The only way to a modicum of prosperity would be an equal distribution of the worlds wealth...

You know, you may well believe this but it simply isnt true for say a country like the US.

If you took 13% of total net wealth from the top 10% of households in the US or US$500,000 per household and distributed US$100,000 per household for each household in the bottom 50% of households (60m households) there would be a net transfer of US$6trn.

I have obviously created wealth at least in a relative sense for the bottom half of households, increasing net worth almost 5 fold. As wealth distribution is so unequal it makes next to no difference to the wealthy, the top 10% still own about 5 times more than the bottom 50% and of course the average person in the top 10% net worth is about 25x that of someone in the bottom half, so we dont have to distribute things equally.

More to the point if they did give up their 13% and gave it to the bottom half all those bad loans would go away, the banks would be recapitalized, the Government would get its TARP money and half the Government deficit would evaporate.

The bottom 25% of housholds net worth would increase from US$-2k to US$98k and the next 25% of households net worth would increase from US$56k to US$156k.

[Neo]

You know, you may well believe this but it simply isnt true for say a country like the US.

If you took 13% of total net wealth from the top 10% of households in the US or US$500,000 per household and distributed US$100,000 per household for each household in the bottom 50% of households (60m households) there would be a net transfer of US$6trn.

I have obviously created wealth at least in a relative sense for the bottom half of households, increasing net worth almost 5 fold. As wealth distribution is so unequal it makes next to no difference to the wealthy, the top 10% still own about 5 times more than the bottom 50% and of course the average person in the top 10% net worth is about 25x that of someone in the bottom half, so we dont have to distribute things equally.

More to the point if they did give up their 13% and gave it to the bottom half all those bad loans would go away, the banks would be recapitalized, the Government would get its TARP money and half the Government deficit would evaporate.

The bottom 25% of housholds net worth would increase from US$-2k to US$98k and the next 25% of households net worth would increase from US$56k to US$156k.

Sounds good. So the answer to the US's problems is communism? 8)

[condotown]

Simple reason is that not EVERYBODY can have wealth or else the bar is moved up and the least wealthy become poor....

Kind of an ugly truth.

The only way to a modicum of prosperity would be an equal distribution of the worlds wealth...

You know, you may well believe this but it simply isnt true for say a country like the US.

If you took 13% of total net wealth from the top 10% of households in the US or US$500,000 per household and distributed US$100,000 per household for each household in the bottom 50% of households (60m households) there would be a net transfer of US$6trn.

I have obviously created wealth at least in a relative sense for the bottom half of households, increasing net worth almost 5 fold. As wealth distribution is so unequal it makes next to no difference to the wealthy, the top 10% still own about 5 times more than the bottom 50% and of course the average person in the top 10% net worth is about 25x that of someone in the bottom half, so we dont have to distribute things equally.

More to the point if they did give up their 13% and gave it to the bottom half all those bad loans would go away, the banks would be recapitalized, the Government would get its TARP money and half the Government deficit would evaporate.

The bottom 25% of housholds net worth would increase from US$-2k to US$98k and the next 25% of households net worth would increase from US$56k to US$156k.

Ummmm ...

I really believe you pulled those numbers out of your ass...

[jayita]

hi

[robbie36]

Ummmm ...

I really believe you pulled those numbers out of your a*s...

Well I guess THAT goes to show this is a subject that you know next to know nothing about.

You will find all the data that I used here (A11) (although I did write the post without looking at it as I have read it before so I might be out by the odd US$1k.)

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2007/bull09_SCF_nobkgdscreen.pdf

Incidentally you can also see that even after the 13% wealth tax, the top 10% are 50% or so wealthier end 2007 than 1998, while bottom 50% net wealth hardly increased.

If you wish to adjust all the data to bring it up to date, it is possible to do with a reasonable degree of accuracy using the Q1 2009 US Household Balance sheet data here...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1r-5.pdf

Personally I dont see this reallocation of wealth as particularly unfair given how much the very wealthy have benefited relatively over the last ten years (and also that resolving the debt crisis and recapping the banks is going to have to have some costs for someone.)

If however you do still think it unfair, you should also consider the income side of the equation. The top 10% wealthiest have seen their incomes rise 50% between 1998 and 2007 while the bottom 50% in terms of net worth only saw incomes rise 15% (that's in the data too).

[Crustyjuggler]

hi

hey

[Stramash]

the ethnic make up of the UK is predominantly white (around 98.6% if you group White British, White Irish and White Other together)

India and Pakistan provide around 3.1%, Black around 2%, and other Asian around 1.6%)

u wanna try those %'s again Iain !!! :roll:

well to be fair Ciaran, those figures are from the 2001 census, but I would not imagine that the intervening 8 years have seen that dramatic a change.

Yes, they did surprise me though.

[CiaranM]

If however you do still think it unfair, you should also consider the income side of the equation. The top 10% wealthiest have seen their incomes rise 50% between 1998 and 2007 while the bottom 50% in terms of net worth only saw incomes rise 15% (that's in the data too).

the rich continue to get richer and the poor stay relatively poor ... it's been like that for a long time Robbie and can't see it changing anytime soon.

even though i do agree it is unfair and wouldn't be too much of a hardship on the super rich for some wealth redistribution !!