The social mobility lie

Sonia Sodha writes:

if we care about social mobility, then we should care about reducing assortative mating. 

To which Tim Worstall replies that this requires serious infringements of freedom.

I agree with Tim. Social mobility is the enemy of freedom. Enforcing it would require governments to prevent parents from doing their best for their children to stop them falling below the glass floor, and it would prevent firms from hiring whom they wanted.

It seems, then, that we have a conflict of values.

Except we don’t, because there’s nothing valuable about social mobility.

A simple thought experiment tells us this. Imagine a dictatorial society split into three classes - slave labour, guards, and rich and powerful oligarchs - in which children of the slaves have good chances of entering the higher classes either through education or perhaps lottery. We’d then have social mobility. But the society would nevertheless be unfree and unjust. Social mobility, then, is no sign of a good society.

In fact, there’s something downright dishonest about it. Social mobility pretends that if people from poor homes do well at school and work hard then they can escape their class. But they can’t. Four facts tell us this.

One is that people from poor homes are more likely to die early, even if they get a decent job later in life. In Status Syndrome Michael Marmot writes:

Where you come from does matter for your health…Family background, measured as parents’ education and father’s social class, are related to risk of heart disease.

A second piece of evidence comes from a study of Swedish stock market investors. Henrik Cronqvist and colleagues show that people whose parents were poor are less likely to hold growth stocks than people from richer backgrounds, even if they have the same current wealth. This doesn’t mean they make worse investment choices. (Quite the opposite – value stocks tend to beat growth stocks). But it does suggest that growing up poor makes you more anxious and less optimistic in later life. This chimes in with my experience.

Thirdly, people from working class backgrounds earn less than those from professional ones, even if they have similar jobs and qualifications. This might be because they have less access to social networks and good connections.

 Fourthly, the IFS shows that men from poor homes are less likely to be married in later life, even controlling for their own incomes. This is consistent with a more general pattern for the upwardly mobile to be lonely. We no longer belong to the class we come from, but don’t fit in to the one we join – in part because that class is chock full of twats who were born on third base but who think they hit a triple. As the great Jason Isbell sings:

Tried to go to college but I didn’t belong. Everything I said was either funny or wrong.

The truth is, then, that we cannot overcome the harm done by a class society. Scars don't completely heal. Waffle about hard work, merit and mobility are lies which function to legitimate inequalities and to give the rich and powerful the illusion that they deserve their fortune. The left should think less about how to increase social mobility, and more about how to abolish class divisions.

Comments

[Dipper]

very Toby Young. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08lgq9n

[Luis Enrique]

I don't often strongly disagree with you, but I do here. In fact I think your thought experiment about slaves, guards and oligarchs is a classic example of bad economics-style reasoning, moving from an unrealistic stylised model to make unwarranted claims about the real world.

There are many ways in which greater social mobility may be symptomatic of a better society. You write "Social mobility, then, is no sign of a good society." but in fact greater social mobility might be a very reliable sign of a good society. It depends on the extent to which changes which you would consider to improve society also coincide with great social mobility. For example, a reduction in class prejudice would increase social mobility. If it so happens that greater social mobility is most often observed in societies that have less class prejudice, are more equal, invest more in social infrastructure etc. etc. then mobility is a good sign of a good society.

[brian faux]

social mobility is a treatment for a chronic disease - the existence of class. Surely it is better to eradicate the disease than work on the palliative?

[Ravi]

I've always been uncomfortable about social mobility arguments for one simple reason: it is all predicated upon a person "doing better" (and therefore being better) by being socially mobile. But the implication that if you don't aspire to be socially mobile you are in some way lacking.

But someone has to do working class jobs such as care work, cleaning, driving (ok automation may eliminate driving jobs) and it is not unreasonable for those people to be valued for what they do and to be paid a decent wage to live provide for their families and lead fulfilling lives.

Let's focus on valuing those in working class jobs instead of implying they are in some way lacking for not wanting to be middle class.

[Tynnie Todgers]

Social mobility is a zero-sum game.

More people ending up on the same rungs of the ladder isn't social mobility, it's equality.

[Antoni Jaume]

" But the implication that if you don't aspire to be socially mobile you are in some way lacking. "

is pure fabulation on your part.

[Jim Harrison]

Intelligent oligarch have always recognized that a certain amount of real social mobility is crucial to the survival of the system. The illusion of social mobility is not enough. There are two reasons for this. Ruling classes must recruit people of talent and energy to avoid becoming ingrown and decadent, and dangerously able members of the lower orders must be co-opted before they threaten effective rebellion.So even if you're a fan of hierarchy, you have reason to wonder if the current regime of social stasis is supportable.

[Kaleberg]

Social mobility is often a sign of economic growth. When an economy is growing, there are all sorts of opportunities for people in various classes that don't exist in a static or shrinking economy. This is one reasons that conservatives often fight against economic growth.

[Strategist]

>>>Thirdly, people from working class backgrounds earn less than those from professional ones, even if they have similar jobs and qualifications. This might be because they have less access to social networks and good connections.

I think it might also be because (a) they are less money-orientated and/or (b)they have less sense of 'entitlement' or understanding of what pay claim is possible than the middle class, and so don't ask for a raise.