UC Davis Economics Professor: There Is No American Dream

CBS Sacramento ^ | 11/26/2014 | Steve Large

[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 hope—whether 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 there’s nothing to dream about. “America has no higher rate of social mobility than medieval England, Or pre-industrial Sweden,” he said. “That’s 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 Dream—where hard work leads to more opportunities—is an illusion in the United States, and that social mobility here is no different than in the rest of the world...

[Jan_Sobieski]

If we would have only implemented Communism in the 20's, the world would be a MUCH, MUCH, richer and economically equal world!!! [sarc]

Hogwash! The wealth and prosperity generated by the average American has caused the entire world to radically change in the last 100 years. He is out of his mind...

[LouAvul]

"No American Dream" has been the objective of social architects for decades. The United Nations, et al, long ago gave up trying to raise the standard of living of the third world. They discovered that the third world is either too stupid or too corrupt to change their station in life.

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.

[driftless2]

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.

[TurboZamboni]

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.

[goodnesswins]

Yeah...you leftists KILLING the American Dream

[GrootheWanderer]

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.

[tx_eggman]

The biggest correlation to living a successful life is to be raised in a household where both parents are present.

[oblomov]

Maybe he should drive 25 miles to Napa Valley and ask the progressive elite what they intend to do about it, personally.

[I want the USA back]

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.

[Jean2]

Not to mention the RINO country club set.

[Smokin' Joe]

Some go up, some go down. Then, too, we have the pampered excesses of those who don't (refuse to) work, paid for by those who "don't pay their fair share" to those who pay nothing.

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.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Perhaps I overreacted...I have not read the full report. However, with so many (Horatio Alger) rags to riches stories in America (and looking at the wealth generated over the last 100 years) how can his assertion possibly be true?

Statistics have a special quality of aiding "Confirmation Bias"

[SoCal Pubbie]

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.

[CoastWatcher]

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.

[PGR88]

The progressive, leftist, corporatist state has destroyed mobility and “the American Dream.”

And what do idiot leftists want to fix it? more government!

[YankeeReb]

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.

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.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Clark crunched the numbers in the U.S. from the past 100 years. His data shows the so-called American Dream—where hard work leads to more opportunities—is an illusion in the United States, and that social mobility here is no different than in the rest of the world.

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.

Labor force projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate continues to fall

Because of

• the decreasing labor force participation rate of
  • youths and
  • the prime age group,
• the overall labor force participation rate is expected to decline;
• the participation rates of older workers are projected to increase, but
• remain significantly lower than those of the prime age group;
• a combination of
  • a slower growth of the civilian noninstitutional population and
  • falling participation rates
• will lower labor force growth to a projected 0.5 percent annually.

The U.S. civilian labor force

• —the number of people working or looking for work—
• has gone through substantial changes in
  • its size and
  • demographic composition
• over the last half of the 20th century;
• during the 1970s and 1980s,
  • the labor force grew vigorously as women’s labor force participation rates surged and
  • the baby-boom generation entered the labor market;

However,

• the dynamic
  • demographic,
  • economic and,
  • social forces
• that once spurred the
  • level,
  • growth, and
  • composition
• of the labor force have changed and
• are now damping labor force growth.

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,

• baby boomers are retiring in large numbers and
• exiting the workforce;
• once again, the baby-boom generation has become a generator of change,
• this time in its retirement.

Moreover,

• the jobless recovery of the 2001 recession,
• coupled with the severe economic impact of the 2007–2009 recession,
• caused disruptions in the labor market;
• in the first 12 years of the 21st century,
  • the growth of the population has slowed and
  • labor force participation rates generally have declined;
• as a result, labor force growth also has slowed.

(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

projected to reach 163.5 million in 2022¹ (See table 1);
• the labor force is anticipated to grow
  • by 8.5 million,
  • an annual growth rate of 0.5 percent,
• over the 2012–2022 period.

The growth in the labor force during 2012–2022 is projected to be smaller than in the previous 10-year period, 2002–2012, 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 2012–2022 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

• combining population projections calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau with
• the labor force participation rate projections developed by BLS;
• consequently,
  • the growth of the labor force is the result of simultaneous changes in the
  • civilian noninstitutional population and
  • the labor force participation rates of the various
  • gender,
  • age,
  • race, and
  • Hispanic origin groups.

According to the Census Bureau’s 2012 population projections,

• the U.S. population is expected to continue to grow slowly,
• to grow older, and
• to become more racially and ethnically diverse;²
• during the 2012–2022 period,
  • the growth of the labor force is anticipated to be due entirely to population growth,
  • as the overall labor force participation rate is expected to decrease from 63.7 percent in 2012 to 61.6 percent in 2022.

In order to carry out its projections,

• BLS analyzes and
• projects the labor force participation rates of
  • 136 different groups, including
    • the two genders,
    • 17 age groups, and
    • four race and ethnicity categories.

The basis of these projections is historical labor force participation trends in each of the various detailed categories, according to data provided by the BLS Current Population Survey (CPS) program³

Notes

Dedication: This 2012–2022 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.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

December 2013. Labor force projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate continues to fall

PART 1 OF 2

Table 1. Civilian labor force, by age, gender, and ethnicity, 1992, 2002, 2012, and projected 2022 (numbers in thousands)

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

December 2013. Labor force projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate continues to fall

PART 2 OF 2

Table 1. Civilian labor force, by age, gender, and ethnicity, 1992, 2002, 2012, and projected 2022 (numbers in thousands)

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

1. those classified as being of multiple racial origin and
2. the racial categories of
   • (2a) American Indian and Alaska Native and
   • (2b) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders.

⁽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.

[hinckley buzzard]

Of course it's humbug. Individual qualities are written off as random error. A good example of why using aggregate data to predict individual behavior is invalid.