Posted on 11/28/2014 9:42:32 AM PST by Jan_Sobieski
DAVIS (CBS13) A UC Davis economics professorhas determined there is no American Dream. Gregory Clark is sharing his research as a hard truth with no hopewhether or not you can get ahead in America is as predictable as any formula.
In fact, he says, the formulas for social mobility in the United States show theres nothing to dream about. America has no higher rate of social mobility than medieval England, Or pre-industrial Sweden, he said. Thats the most difficult part of talking about social mobility is because it is shattering people s dreams. Clark crunched the numbers in the U.S. from the past 100 years. His data shows the so-called American Dreamwhere hard work leads to more opportunitiesis an illusion in the United States, and that social mobility here is no different than in the rest of the world...
(Excerpt) Read more at sacramento.cbslocal.com ...
So, the alternative is to lower the first world to third world status. They're succeeding.
BTW, the social architects themselves, jorge busho, O'Dummy, etc, are insulated against reaping the fruits of their tyranny.
When I was a child with five siblings in the fifties, we lived in a basement house with my father as the only earner. We were poor. I now have two sisters who both managed to earn more than one million dollars. All my other siblings did quite well. I was flat broke and deep in debt at one point in my life. Now my wife and I are doing quite well, thank you very much. The professor is full of leftist baloney.
This clown is full of it.
The keys to success are:
graduating 12th grade.
doing so without getting addicted drugs/alcohol.
getting pregnant (or getting someone pregnant)before being married.
Get a job and stay at it 1-3 years.
Do all those and you’re likley , at the least, not going to be poor.
Yeah...you leftists KILLING the American Dream
Clark’s research is very solid. Basically, he shows that social status is determined by innate, inherited characteristics that are only mildly shaped by social institutions or public policy.
The biggest correlation to living a successful life is to be raised in a household where both parents are present.
Maybe he should drive 25 miles to Napa Valley and ask the progressive elite what they intend to do about it, personally.
Under communism there is no way to get out of the miserable working class except to become a member of the regime and kiss regime a$$.
That is rapidly happening now in the USA, thanks to 0 and the democrats.
Not to mention the RINO country club set.
Surely the next batch will gleefully sate themselves at the trough we fill, holding down those who work while complaining that what is taken from the productive is not enough, and babbling fetid nonsense about 'social justice'.
Restore the freedom to fail. Turn off the teat to those who do not genuinely need it. Allow the productive to flourish, and even the writer's contorted calculations will show there is, indeed, social mobility--up and down.
If the American dream is no more, it is only invisible because it came to pass. That is, the dream summarized is that Americans become middle class. Thus the poor and the wealthy are outliers.
The vast majority of our society is oriented to the middle class as well. There is almost nothing the wealthy can do that is exclusive to them, that middle class and even the poor cannot do, at least in some form or another.
It’s easy to debunk the American Dream when you change the definition. The American Dream is not home ownership. It is not social mobility. The American Dream was the belief that this country offer a world of opportunities for a person to make the most of his or her inherent capabilities and willingness to work hard regardless of your circumstances of birth.
This does not mean anyone can become another Dwight Eisenhower or Oprah Winfrey. It does mean that a poor immigrant from India may own a modest motel here and live a comfortable life. It does mean a young man born to Mexican parents may become chief of police somewhere. It means a poor black kid may become a mega rich singing star.
We don’t ask if you are Tutsi or Hutu here, Catholic or Protestant, or Cambridge or Oxford. Is it perfect? No, too many idiots from the Ivy League are screwing things up because snobbery names them the “best and the brightest.” Too many harbor old bigotries. No country is perfect. But the American Dream is alive, as long as leftists aren’t allowed to destroy it.
This guy is a typical product of the current education system. To compare the USA to medieval England is beyond absurd. In medieval England the vast majority of the people could nor read or write; then again it seems our current education system wants to return to this period.
You would think that a college professor would know the number of students who are the first in their family to graduate from college is astronomical.
So either the claims by every college that a college degree assures upward mobility or this professor is a twit. They can not both be true. The numbers are too great.
The progressive, leftist, corporatist state has destroyed mobility and “the American Dream.”
And what do idiot leftists want to fix it? more government!
So I wonder if Gregory Clark's great great grandparents were tenured professors with no fear of losing their jobs at a well above median income salary. That's wth first question I'd ask if I were a student in his class.
In my opinion having grown up in the '40s and '50s -- "blue collar," "lower middle class" people did not expect to be super rich. We did expect and could look forward to having secure jobs and a peaceful retirement.
Those relatively halcyon days are gone. Some are certainly trying to make it gone for the current generation and others that follow.
The status of your children, your grandchildren, your great grandchildren your great-great grandchildren will be quite closely related to your average status now, he said.
This Bureau of Labor Statistics report w/Table 1 I think shows the future. And this was BEFORE Barry's latest blunder of welcoming millions and millions more surplus labor into our Country to drive down the labor participation rate.
First the outline of the report and then Table 1 (in two parts and in a separate reply) with the numbers. Imagine the Hispanic numbers plus the (tens of?) millions of cheap labor w/votes that Obama, the DNC, the RNC wallahs, the Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal, the progressives, and more want.
December 2013 -- This is from a year ago and before the latest Barack blunders.
Because of
The U.S. civilian labor force
However,
The labor force participation rate of women, which peaked in 1999, has been on a declining trend. In addition, instead of entering the labor force,
Moreover,
(IMO the BLS is forbidden to include mention of the Barack blunders -- the real reason that six years later we are still "recovering".)
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that the next 10 years will bring about an aging labor force that is growing slowly, a declining overall labor force participation rate, and more diversity in the racial and ethnic composition of the labor force.The U.S. labor force is
The growth in the labor force during 20122022 is projected to be smaller than in the previous 10-year period, 20022012, when the labor force grew by 10.1 million, a 0.7-percent annual growth rate.
Every 2 years, BLS projects labor force levels for the next 10 years. The present set of projections covers the 20122022 period and estimates the future size and composition of the labor force. The projection of the labor force is the first step in the BLS projection process in which the aggregate economy, industry output and employment, and occupational employment in the next 10 years are projected. Labor force growth is an important supply constraint on overall economic growth. The labor force projections are estimated by
According to the Census Bureaus 2012 population projections,
In order to carry out its projections,
Notes
Dedication: This 20122022 labor force projections article is dedicated to the memory of Howard N Fullerton, Jr., who was the senior demographic statistician in the BLS Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections. Howard retired in 2003 after 42 years of federal government service. His many responsibilities included projecting the future demographics of the labor force. Howard was the author of numerous Monthly Labor Review articles on the labor force and was a key member of the office whose publications were always informative and widely read.
1 The civilian labor force consists of employed and unemployed people actively seeking work, but does not include any Armed Forces personnel. Historical data for this series are from the Current Population Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 See Population projections: 2012 national population projections (U.S. Census Bureau); and Newsroom: U.S. Census Bureau projections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now (U.S. Census Bureau, December 12, 2012)
3 The CPS, a monthly survey of households, is conducted by the Census Bureau for the BLS. The survey provides statistics on the employment and labor force status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and older and is collected from a probability sample of approximately 60,000 households.
PART 1 OF 2
Group | Level | Change | % | change | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1992 | 2002 | 2012 | 2022 | 1992 2002 | 2002 2012 | 2012 2022 | 1992 2002 | 2002 2012 | 2012 2022 | |
Total, 16 years and older | 128,105 | 144,863 | 154,975 | 163,450 | 16,758 | 10,112 | 8,475 | 13.1 | 7.0 | 5.5 |
Age, years: | ||||||||||
16 to 24 | 21,617 | 22,366 | 21,285 | 18,462 | 749 | −1,081 | −2,823 | 3.5 | −4.8 | -13.3 |
25 to 54 | 91,429 | 101,720 | 101,253 | 103,195 | 10,292 | −467 | 1,942 | 11.3 | −.5 | 1.9 |
55 and older | 15,060 | 20,777 | 32,437 | 41,793 | 5,717 | 11,660 | 9,356 | 38.0 | 56.1 | 28.8 |
Gender: | ||||||||||
Men | 69,964 | 77,500 | 82,327 | 86,913 | 7,536 | 4,827 | 4,586 | 10.8 | 6.2 | 5.6 |
Women | 58,141 | 67,364 | 72,648 | 76,537 | 9,223 | 5,284 | 3,889 | 15.9 | 7.8 | 5.4 |
Race: | ||||||||||
White | 108,837 | 120,150 | 123,684 | 126,923 | 11,313 | 3,534 | 3,239 | 10.4 | 2.9 | 2.6 |
Black | 14,162 | 16,565 | 18,400 | 20,247 | 2,403 | 1,835 | 1,847 | 17.0 | 11.1 | 10.0 |
Asian | 5,106 | 6,604 | 8,188 | 10,135 | 1,498 | 1,584 | 1,947 | 29.3 | 24.0 | 23.8 |
All other groups(1) | - | 1,544 | 4,703 | 6,145 | ... | 3,159(2) | 1,442 | ... | 204.6(2) | 30.7 |
Ethnicity: | ||||||||||
Hispanic origin | 11,338 | 17,943 | 24,391 | 31,179 | 6,605 | 6,448 | 6,788 | 58.3 | 35.9 | 27.8 |
Other than Hispanic origin | 116,767 | 126,920 | 130,584 | 132,271 | 10,153 | 3,664 | 1,687 | 8.7 | 2.9 | 1.3 |
White non-Hispanic | 98,724 | 103,349 | 101,892 | 99,431 | 4,625 | −1,457 | −2,461 | 4.7 | -1.4 | −2.4 |
Age of baby boomers | 28 to 46 | 38 to 56 | 48 to 66 | 58 to 76 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
|
||||||||||
Group | Level | Change | % | change | ||||||
1992 | 2002 | 2012 | 2022 | 1992 2002 | 2002 2012 | 2012 2022 | 1992 2002 | 2002 2012 | 2012 2022 |
PART 2 OF 2
Group | % | distri | bution | Annual | growth | rate % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1992 | 2002 | 2012 | 2022 | 1992 2002 | 2002 2012 | 2012 2022 | ||
Total, 16 years and older | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.5 | |
Age, years: | ||||||||
16 to 24 | 16.9 | 15.4 | 13.7 | 11.3 | .3 | −.5 | −1.4 | |
25 to 54 | 71.4 | 70.2 | 65.3 | 63.1 | 1.1 | .0 | .2 | |
55 and older | 11.8 | 14.3 | 20.9 | 25.6 | 3.3 | 4.6 | 2.6 | |
Gender: | ||||||||
Men | 54.6 | 53.5 | 53.1 | 53.2 | 1.0 | .6 | .5 | |
Women | 45.4 | 46.5 | 46.9 | 46.8 | 1.5 | .8 | .5 | |
Race: | ||||||||
White | 85.0 | 82.9 | 79.8 | 77.7 | 1.0 | .3 | .3 | |
Black | 11.1 | 11.4 | 11.9 | 12.4 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 1.0 | |
Asian | 4.0 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 6.2 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 2.2 | |
All other groups(1) | ... | 1.1 | 3.0 | 3.8 | ... | 11.8(2) | 2.7 | |
Ethnicity: | ||||||||
Hispanic origin | 8.9 | 12.4 | 15.7 | 19.1 | 4.7 | 3.1 | 2.5 | |
Other than Hispanic origin | 91.1 | 87.6 | 84.3 | 80.9 | .8 | .3 | .1 | |
White non-Hispanic | 77.1 | 71.3 | 65.7 | 60.8 | .5 | −.1 | −.2 | |
Age of baby boomers | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | |
|
||||||||
Group | % | distri | bution | Annual | growth | rate % | ||
1992 | 2002 | 2012 | 2022 | 1992 2002 | 2002 2012 | 2012 2022 |
Notes:
(1)The all other groups" category includes
(2) Number shown is based on calculated, rather than estimated, 2002 figure.
Note: Dash indicates no data collected for category. Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.