Moving "up" on the social ladder is embarrassingly easy into the United States if you know what you're doing. Social mobility is mathematically lower than other countries because of the tendency of people to not know what they're doing, or how it takes no real talent for people in other countries to make marginal improvements, or how there's really no place to go up once you've hit upper-middle class status. It's pretty easy to get yourself up upper-middle class status, but once you're there, it's really hard to get higher. The superrich are generally...not comparable to other people.
"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."You mean their money gives them superpowers or extra glamour or something? Or maybe they're blocking the paths upwards?
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?It's not that everyone doesn't know what they're doing, it's that it's harder than you think.
Especially with the recession. People are lucky to have a minimum wage job. And a minimum wage job is nowhere near enough to afford decent housing. And the system of "it takes money to make money" here is incredible. All of the things of down and out people keep them down and out. For instance, not having had a job for a long time, looks bad on a resume. The more of a slump you're in, the more likely you are to stay in a slump.
It's embarrassingly not easy to move up the Social Ladder in the United States.
Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]People set their sights a little too high with the whole American Dream thing. It isn't going to make you a millionaire, but it's not too hard to go from lower class to middle class, or to upper middle class. Lower higher class is difficult, but possible, and getting to upper class from poverty is nigh impossible.
But both sides of my family went from dirt poor to upper middle class. My parents had almost nothing, and now they both make right around 90k a year, my mother slaved her way to a nursing degree, became a nurse, and is now an administrator for a big medical insurance company, and my dad went from the Army to LAPD, he's now a senior detective.
The majority of what got both of them there was hard work, and race wasn't much of an issue, my mom is white and my step-dad is black. They own a house in suburban San Bernardino, a nice one. It's 3/4ths of the way paid off and they've only owned it for a handful of years.
No, Raw. The superrich are not blocking the way up. There is no conspiracy by the wealthy to keep the less wealthy that way. It's just tough to make the cutoff point between being tied to a salary, and not. Virtually everyone is tied to a salary. If they wanted to move, they would have to get a transfer or quit their job. The difference is that the very rich can live wherever they want, because they have enough capital (which usually takes generations to accumulate) to be able to live off the interest, or through investments, which can be done from anywhere.
To move up (which except in rare exceptions, has to be done from the upper middle class) you need to end up in a job on the fast track to being very high-earning. You probably won't become shockingly wealthy, unless you're very lucky. Your children, however, will inherit a good deal of money, and you'll be able to pass down connections (and stock/land) to them.
Alternatively, you could be a really lucky, talented performer or athlete of some kind.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.My sensible answer is that the American dream is making a better life for oneself and one's children, plain and simple.
My ridiculous answer is that the American Dream is running around naked reading a Playboy while totally plastered and singing obscene songs and NOT getting executed for it on grounds of moral degeneracy.
People keep talking anecdotes, as though this were evidence that social mobility is possible for everyone. The one common element I've heard in every story about someone rising from poverty to being fairly well off is luck. Luck that not everyone will have.
Of course a huge social jump is statistically possible, just like getting hit by a meteor. That doesn't mean a society is awesome. Hell, you could possibly rise to a higher level of wealth in a dictatorship by being a hard worker for the government, that doesn't make their society good. You could become wealthy by finding a buried treasure, and that doesn't really reflect on the society at all.
My point being, if you're talking upwards social mobility what you should be looking at is how easy/difficult it is, not whether or not it exists at all. Saying "they achieved it because they worked hard enough" is not only potentially inaccurate, misleading, and/or an oversimplification, but an insult to those who work extremely hard and never succeeded. It is also a horrible cop-out, because it's extremely difficult to disprove.
It just seems like people say "anyone can do it with hard work" to avoid uncomfortable truths about the level of control we have in our lives, as well as relive ourselves of guilt about the fate of the poor-if they're poor, it's just because their lazy/they want to be poor. That's the logical conclusion of "anyone can do it with hard work".
And the reason the U.S. was associated with this mindset is that, back in the day, we did have arguably the best upwards social mobility around. Back when we had tons of land for people to settle, and other countries social systems were still much more rigid.
Since then, I think the U.S. has been passed by other countries in terms of social mobility, and statistics
seem to confirm this. (Of course there are difficulties in measuring things like social mobility, and I know statistics can lie, but it's hard to argue with something like "Parental income is a better predictor of a child’s future in America than in much of Europe.")
edited 14th Jan '11 4:26:55 PM by deathjavu
Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.Well, guys, thanks a lot! If I hadn't hurt my hand during PE, I'd give you my own conclusion/thoughts now.. Hopefully I'll be better soon. But writing hurts ^^" (So I can't answer everyone individually, sorry!!)
Anyway, thanks a lot! I hope you had a good discussion too..:P Hopefully I'll be able to comment tomorrow..:)
Yay, my hand works again! Okay, so uhm.. here is my own humble opinion on The Dream..:)
I suppose that The American Dream is mostly history, and that is also the usual perspective I have been taught about it in. Which is exactly why I choose this project so I could find out if the dream still lives on..
I guess it depends a lot on who you ask, and if a "dream" even has to be achievable - wouldn't that make it something other than a dream? I wonder..
The thing I find most interesting is how universally The Dream can be interpreted. It can easily be both capitalist/conservative/libertarian and liberal/socialist.. (These American terms are messing with my brain!) In truth I guess it is more like The Human Dream - I mean, most humans strive to better ourselves and have success. We like to be able to move forward,- The incentive can be money, interests, or whatever depending on who you are or depending on which sociologists you believe in. And in a way I guess calling this "Human Dream of Progress" the "American Dream" makes sense in a metaphorical way - At least in a historical perspective. America was the new land with endless possibilities and an ever-moving "border" - So the country was like MADE for expansion and forward-striving. (Also, back in time, I guess most European countries ..hm..for lack of a better word; sucked in terms of social mobility?)
Whether it is still easier to archive The Dream in America than other countries in the west, I don't know..
I think the dangerous thing about The American Dream is that it can be seen more as a rule than a dream - people think it IS possible to get whatever you want if you try hard enough. This indicates that poor people are basically just too lazy, which.. Well.. Let's say I don't agree.
So I think that The American Dream is a nice dream with dream as the keyword? But that's my personal opinion.
Hearing this from the American perspective has been really rewarding..! I'll do my best to make sure that all opinions are well-represented in my presentation. Once again, thank you very much!
((I am still open to more input!))
... But conservatives are always screaming at society disintegrating, values falling and change generally sucking (YOU GOT CHANGE? COME ON, HELP A GUY OUT, WILL YA?).
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?That's not something, either, new or interesting. They'll do it if they think it will get votes.
Fight smart, not fair.I was talking about the voters.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Replace "screaming" with "angsting", "worrying", "being anguished".
edited 17th Jan '11 3:38:21 PM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Are you basing this on actual poll data or just what you see on the news? Cause one of those is composed entirely of screaming people.
Fight smart, not fair.Let's just say "complaining hysterically", shall we?

Aren't you one of the lowest countries in the west for social and class mobility.
That sorta seems to suggest that the dream isn't anything more then a cultural myth.
"When you cut your finger, I do not bleed." Response of a man who lived on the outskirts of a concentration camp.