Photo:1
Photo:2
Photo:3
Photo:4
Photo:1 Photo:2 Photo:3 Photo:4 |
| Inter- and Intra-generational mobility | |
| 2>
Intra-generational mobility ("within" a generation) is defined as change in social status over a single life-time. Inter-generational mobility ("across" generations) is defined as changes in social status that occur from the parents' to the children's generation.[5] These definitions have proven particularly useful when analyzing how social status changes from one time-period to another, and if a person's parents' social status influences that of their own. Sociologists usually focus on intergenerational mobility because it is easier to depict changes across generations rather than within one. This information helps sociologists determine whether social and economic inequality and equal opportunity in a culture changes over time.
Intra-generational mobility occurs when a person strives to change his or her own social standing. In some societies, this type of change is easier than in others. In social systems where people are divided into castes or ethnic groups, social mobility is limited. Any persons born into a certain caste or ethnic group will remain a member of that group for their entire life. However, in cultures where social standing is determined by factors that can change across generations, such as merit, education, skills, abilities, actions or wealth, people can move up and down the social ladder.
Intra-generational mobility can move a person either higher or lower in the social ladder. If a person starts at a low level, they may improve their status by (for example) working hard, getting a better job, or becoming more culturally sound,( a value judgement expressing the dominant values of that culture) to name a few possible approaches. Pierre Bourdieu describes three types of capital that place a person in a certain social category. These are economic capital, social capital, and cultural capital. Economic capital is command over economic resources such as money and assets. Social capital is resources one achieves based on group membership, relationships, networks of influence, and support from other people. Cultural capital is any advantage a person has that gives them a higher status in society, such as education, skills, and any other form of knowledge. Usually, people with all three types of capital have a high status in society.
Inter-generational mobility occurs across generations. This mobility is both merit- and non-merit-based. Ability and hard work affect social mobility, but so do race, gender, luck, and parents' wealth,. Parents also help children make important connections with people in order to expand their social network. Parents who can create social capital for their children tend to increase their children's social mobility. [6]
Research on American mobility published in 2006 and based on collecting data on the economic mobility of families across generations looked at the probability of reaching a particular income-distribution with regard to where their parents were ranked. The study found that 42 percent of those whose parents were in the bottom quintile ended up in the bottom quintile themselves, 23 percent of them ended in the second quintile, 19 percent in the middle quintile, 11 percent in the fourth quintile and 6 percent in the top quintile.[7] These data indicate the difficulty of upward intergenerational mobility. There is more intergenerational mobility in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada than in th U.S. In fact, of affluent countries studied, only Britain and Italy have lower intergenerational mobility than the United States does (and they are basically even with the U.S.) We know less about the long-term mobility of the top 1 percent, but all indications are that people in this rarefied group usually don’t drop very far down the ladder.[8].
Annette Lareau disusses child-raising in her book, Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life (2003). She describes two different ways to raise children: concerted cultivation and natural growth:
Concerted cultivation, normally used by middle-class families, incorporates scheduling many structured, organized activities for the child. Such children learn to use their language to reason with parents and other adults, and they often adopt a sense of entitlement.
Natural growth is almost the exact opposite of concerted cultivation. Occurring mainly in poor or working-class families, this style of childrearing does not include organized activities, and there is a clear division between the adult and the child. Children usually spend large amounts of their day creating their own activities, and they hardly ever speak with adults. In fact, adults use language in order to direct or order the children, never to negotiate with them.
These two different types of childrearing can affect inter-generational mobility. Children who grow up with a concerted cultivation style of childrearing learn from their parents how to talk with adults as equals and negotiate to get favorable outcomes in any situation. This skill helps them create powerful social networks, which can improve their social standing. Children with natural growth accomplishment tend to have a more difficult time improving their social standing. They lack the social skills and sense of entitlement that children raised with the concerted cultivation method have, and therefore are less likely to acquire good jobs (and therefore, improve their social standing). Children who have been raised with natural growth do learn to comply with authority figures, instead of arguing with them, which gives them an advantage over concerted cultivated children in certain fields of employment. However, those are generally the entry-level fields (which pay people to follow orders and not to think) and are therefore the lower-paying ones, whereas the middle-class concertedly cultivated children's reasoning skills aid them in attaining the higher-paying, higher-prestige white-collar jobs.
[edit] Tags:Culture,Education,Family,Social Networks,Sociologists,Information,Ethnic Groups,Inter-generational,Economic Capital,Cultural Capital,Social Capital,Social Network,Caste,Intra-generational Mobility,Social Status,Inter-generational Mobility,Inequality,Equal Opportunity,Castes,Social Ladder,Culturally Sound,Value Judgement,Economic Resources,Assets,Economic Mobility,Annette Lareau,Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, And Family Life,Concerted Cultivation,France, | |
| Absolute and Relative Mobility | |
| 2>
Absolute mobility measures whether (and by how much) living standards in a society have increased -- often measured by what percentage of people have higher incomes than their parents. Relative mobility refers to how likely children are to move from their parents’ place in the income distribution.[9] So, for example, if a person’s income increases from $32,000 at the beginning of their career to $36,000 a decade later, whereas most other people who began their work life around the same time experienced a larger increase, that person has experienced upward absolute mobility but downward relative mobility.
The more absolute mobility there is, the better off the population is than their parents, and the better off their children will be better off than them.[10] Relative mobility refers to the fluidity of a society. If your family is poor, you have a decent chance of moving up the relative income ladder.[10] Because relative mobility depends on one’s place in the distribution, it is a zero-sum phenomenon.[10] In other words, if one person moves up in relative terms, another by definition must have moved down. In contrast, absolute mobility is not zero-sum.
Although both absolute and relative mobility are both forms of intragenerational mobility, these two have very little to do with each other. High absolute mobility rates can co-exist with highly unequal relative mobility chances. Thus, you can have an economy with a lot of absolute mobility, and little relative mobility or an economy with a lot of relative mobility, and little absolute mobility. Social mobility is an act of moving from one social class to another. The amount of movement up and down the class structure would indicate the extent of social mobility prevalent in the society. The social mobility is greatly influenced by the level of openness of the society. An open society is the one where people attain their status primarily by their own efforts.
The extent of mobility may be taken as an index of meritocracy of a society indicating how far talented individuals born into lower strata can move up the socio-economic ladder; and vice versa, how far lazy rich people move down the ladder. In this respect, social mobility is an important political issue, particularly in countries committed to a liberal vision of equal opportunity for all citizens. In this perspective industrial societies are mostly open societies exhibiting high social mobility. Compared with them, pre-industrial societies have mostly been found to be closed societies where there has been low social mobility. People in such societies have been confined to their ancestral occupations, and their social status has mostly been prescribed.
The movement of people up or down the social hierarchy can be looked at either within one generation called intra-generational mobility or between generations labeled as inter-generational mobility. Intra-generational mobility consists of movement up and down the stratification system by members of a single generation (the-social class in which you began life compared with your social class at the end of your life). Inter-generational mobility consists of movement up and down the stratification system by members of successive generations of a family (your social class location compared with that of your parents, for example). Comparison is usually made between social class status of son and father. Mobility is functional. Open societies provide opportunities to their members for the development of their talents and working toward their individual fulfillment. At the same time a person can select the best person for doing a particular job
Social mobility can be classified as:
Vertical mobility: The movement of individuals and groups up or down the socioeconomic scale. Those who gain in property, income, status, and position are said to be upwardly mobile, while those who move in the opposite direction are downwardly mobile.
Horizontal mobility: The movement of individuals and groups in similar socio-economic positions, which may be in different work situations. This may involve change in occupation or remaining in the same occupation but in a different organization, or may be in the same organization but at a different location.
Lateral mobility: It is a geographical movement between neighborhoods, towns or regions. In modern societies there is a great deal of geographical mobility.[citation needed] Lateral mobility is often combined with vertical as well as horizontal mobility.
[edit] Tags:Stratification,Meritocracy,Closed Societies, | |
| Rules of status: ascription and achievement | |
| 2>
Achieved status is a position gained based on merit, or achievement (used in an open system). An open system describes a society with mobility between different social classes. Individuals can move up or down in the social rankings; this is unlike closed systems, where individuals are set in one social position for life despite their achievements. Ascribed status is a position based on who a person is, not what they can do (used in a closed system). When this ascriptive status rule is used (Medieval Europe), people are placed in a position based on personal traits beyond their control. Mobility is much more frequent in countries that use achievement as the basis for status. However, societies differ in the amount of mobility that occurs due to the direction of structural changes in their overall status systems. The process by which an individual alters the ascribed social status of their parents into an achieved social status for themselves is called Social Transformation.
The ability of an individual to become wealthy out of poverty does not necessarily indicate that there is social mobility in his or her society. Some societies with low or nonexistent social mobility afford free individuals opportunities to initiate enterprise and amass wealth, but wealth fails to "buy" entry into a higher social class. In feudal Japan and Confucianist China, wealthy merchants occupied the lowest ranks in society (at least in theory). In pre-revolutionary France, a nobleman, however poor, was from the "second estate" of society and thus superior, at least in theory, to a wealthy merchant (from the "third estate").
Mobility regimes can be positive and/or an negative sum. Structural mobility is mobility resulting from changes in the number and kinds of jobs available in a society. Examples: Great Depression, many job losses, the government and many people in need of major help. According to sociologist John H. Goldthorpe, social mobility is normally seen in two ways. The first being that it is a basic source of social "structuration." The second is that the extent of mobility may be a strong indicator of the balance of power and status within a society.
[edit] Tags:Evolutionary,Classes,Achieved Status,Social Classes,Ascribed Status,Status Systems, | |
| Structural and exchange mobility | |
| 2>
Structural mobility is a type of forced vertical mobility that results from a change in the distribution of statuses within a society. It occurs when the demand for a particular occupation reaches its maximum and more people are needed to v means trade-off. This means instead of positions reaching the maximum and more people being needed, positions are dropped and someone else must step up to fill the position. When ascriptive status is in play, there is not much exchange mobility occurring.
[edit] Tags: | |
| Upward and downward mobility | |
| 2>
Upward social mobility is a change in a person's social status resulting in that person receiving a higher position in their status system. Likewise, downward mobility results in a lower position. A prime example of an opportunity for upward mobility nowadays is athletics. There is an increased number of minorities seeking careers as professional athletes[citation needed] which can either lead to improved social status or could potentially harm them due to neglecting other aspects of their life (e.g. education). Transformative assets would also allow one to achieve a higher status in society, as they increase wealth and provide for more opportunity. A transformative asset could be a trust fund set up by family that allows one to own a nice house in a nice neighborhood, instead of an renting an apartment in a run-down community. This type of move would allow the person to develop a new circle of friends of the same economic status.
[edit] Tags: | |
| Country comparison | |
| 2>
Several studies have been made comparing social mobility between developed countries. One such study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?")[11][12][4] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. The four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children. (see graph)
[edit] Tags: | |
| Examples | |
| 3>
Notable examples of social mobility include Pierre Bérégovoy who started working at the age of 16 as a metal worker and later became Prime Minister of France, Ramsay MacDonald the illegitimate son of a farm labourer and a housemaid who became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Sir Joseph Cook, an Englishman who had no schooling and worked as a coal miner at the age of nine and went on to become Prime Minister of Australia.
[edit] Tags: | |
| Socio-economic mobility in the US | |
| 3>
Main article: Socio-economic mobility in the United States
At least five large studies in recent years have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower in America than in comparable nations, belief in America as a land of opportunity not withstanding.[9]
[edit] Tags:Nations, | |
| Popular opinion | |
| 4>
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.”[12] While another report found such beliefs to have gotten strong over the last few decades.[4]
[edit] Tags: | |
| Comparisons with other countries | |
| 4>
Along with the aforementioned “Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?" study 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."[13] A German study corroborates these results.[14] In spite of this low mobility Americans surveyed had the highest belief in meritocracy among 27 nations surveyed. [15].
[edit] Tags: | |
| Examples | |
| 4>
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.
[edit] Tags: | |
| Education factor | |
| 4>
Wages and earnings correlate with education. A 2009 survey of young adults[16] who worked full time [17] throughout a full year [18], found the median income of whose without a high school diploma ($21,000) was below the poverty level for a family of four ($22,050)[19] and less than half of what whose with a bachelor's degree earned ($45,000).[20]
Education and Income in the US(2009)[20]
Educational Attainment
Young Adult
Median Income
Master's degree or higher
$60,000
Bachelor's degree
$45,000
High School Diploma
(or equivalent)
$30,000
No High School Diploma
(or equivalent)
$21,000
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). [20]
The difference has worsened since 1979 when the average college graduate made 38% more than the average high school graduate. By 2011 college graduates averaged made 75% more income.[21] "Mobility" to the "class" of college graduates has declined. Those born with parents who graduated from college have far better odds of graduating from college than those born to high school graduates.[22]
[edit] Tags: | |
| Gender and race factor | |
| 4>
When examining status mobility within the American labor force, women and minorities hold jobs with less rank, authority, opportunity for advancement, and pay than men and whites ([23][24]. This concept is considered to be the "glass ceiling" effect. 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. 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.
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. However, there is information that suggests women adjust their jobs around their family responsibilities more than men do. Taking a break from the work force tends to decrease human capital when it comes to finding a job.[25] Women are also more likely than men to take leave from their jobs to care for others rather than themselves [26] [27][28]. This evidence makes employers wary of hiring and promoting women in the work force.[citation needed]
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.
According to economist George J. Borjas, intergenerational upward economic mobility among a wide variety of ethnic groups in the US averages a 5% to 10% in increase in income from the first to the second generation of immigrants. Overcoming language barriers and adjusting to the new environment and culture to American society creates barriers for new immigrants. This intergenerational mobility includes poor as well as middle income groups, although among the high income Borjas noted an equalizing tendency in income/status, whereby children of very successful immigrants tended to have lower, not higher, incomes/status than their parents.[29]
[edit] Tags:Human Capital, | |
| Impact of incarceration on social mobility | |
| 4>
Within the United States the prison population has been steadily increasing since the early 1970s and has now surpassed two million -- the highest per capita rate in the world. This boom is largely fueled by the “War on Drugs” and has created an underclass by providing a number of ways to deny one of the most important tools for social mobility, education.
The drug war has combined with public school zero-tolerance policies to remove tens of thousands of adolescents from their public schools.
Denial of higher education has been adopted as an additional punishment for drug offenders.
The war on drugs siphons drug users out of society and into prison.[30]
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.
[edit] Tags:Public, | |
| Class cultures and networks | |
| 2>
Cultural capital, a term first coined by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is the process of distinguishing between the economic aspects of class and powerful cultural assets. Bourdieu found that the culture of the upper social class is oriented more toward formal reasoning and abstract thought. The lower social class is geared more towards matters of facts and the necessities of life. He also Tags: | |
zote monety |