Social Mobility, Has it gone in the UK?

[Mikeyboy]

So various surveys and quangos say that Social mobility in the UK is at an all time low and is in fact amongst the worst in the world.
And by that they don't mean people moving just up the social ladder but also down.

this means that the average 30 year old is less likely to become the CEO of the firm he works for or peer of the realm than it would have been for his equivalent in the 50's and likewise for a peer of the realm or CEO to make such a mess of their lives/jobs that they and their descendants become just better spoken people on a housing estate.


So whats caused this lack of motion.

a return of the class system?

Baby Boomers holding onto what they've got at the expense of the younger generations? (i.e. not retiring etc)

bad government policy on social welfare and taxation?

Or is it absolute rubbish, do people feel that they are getting a fair shake of the stick in terms of their ability to move up anything but the housing ladder?

[grumbledoak]

Surely it is the level of taxation keeping the hard working down, while the 'benefits' are pissed away by the feckless?

[Fittster]

Grammar schools, although anyone finding themselves in a secondary modern is doomed at the age of 11.

[toppstuff]

I think Taxation has a lot to do with it. We carry a very high tax burden relative to other countries, which stifles entrepreneurism IMO.

There are also too many people who have an over-inflated sense of entitlement , where social mobility has been replaced by a endless search for sources of credit.

[Jasandjules]

Did we ever really have true social mobility?

[yannon]

Grammar schools were the route to success for many bright working class kids.Their closure for PC reasons has ironicaly led to less social mobility.There is a such a skilled tax avoidance industry in britain that tax is almost voluntary for the rich.

[scorp]

grumbledoak said:

Surely it is the level of taxation keeping the hard working down, while the 'benefits' are pissed away by the feckless?

Or the poverty trap that makes it more sense to stay at home on benefits rather than getting up every morning to flipping burgers.

[Swilly]

Education and training is widely available to those who wish it.... and this is the key to social mobility.

Get the education/training, get the job, show your kahunas and away you go.

I think, generally, the work market place is a meritocracy. If you have the bkss and the ability then you'll go places...

[cymtriks]

If you have a stable society in a stable naion with a stable system of taxes and benefits and a stable system of access to education then after a few generations everyone will drift to their natural level.

A new set of circumstances will generate more mobility as people find new opportubities or barriers. After a while everything settles down as old advantages and disadvantages are eroded or replaced. After that most of what determines anyones position is hereditary so sons follow fathers and daughters follow mothers until the next big shake up.

It's that simple.

We have now had a fairly stable nation, system of tax, benefits, health, and access to education for decades so why would you expect mobility in a system that is static?

I can't see why anyone would assume that social mobility is automatically a good thing, it implies some kind of upheaval somewhere. Historically the biggest driver of social mobility has been war!

[Mikeyboy]

cymtriks said:

If you have a stable society in a stable naion with a stable system of taxes and benefits and a stable system of access to education then after a few generations everyone will drift to their natural level.

A new set of circumstances will generate more mobility as people find new opportubities or barriers. After a while everything settles down as old advantages and disadvantages are eroded or replaced. After that most of what determines anyones position is hereditary so sons follow fathers and daughters follow mothers until the next big shake up.

It's that simple.

We have now had a fairly stable nation, system of tax, benefits, health, and access to education for decades so why would you expect mobility in a system that is static?

I can't see why anyone would assume that social mobility is automatically a good thing, it implies some kind of upheaval somewhere. Historically the biggest driver of social mobility has been war!

While I can see the theory I cannot believe that everyone has naturally reached their level. By that
By that equation no-one from generation to generation is either smarter or more ambitious, dumber or less ambitious than their parents or grandparents.
What you have said is the classist point of view. Ie no-one has the right to move up or down unless there is some catastrophy.

[cymtriks]

Mikeyboy said:

cymtriks said:

If you have a stable society in a stable naion with a stable system of taxes and benefits and a stable system of access to education then after a few generations everyone will drift to their natural level.

A new set of circumstances will generate more mobility as people find new opportubities or barriers. After a while everything settles down as old advantages and disadvantages are eroded or replaced. After that most of what determines anyones position is hereditary so sons follow fathers and daughters follow mothers until the next big shake up.

It's that simple.

We have now had a fairly stable nation, system of tax, benefits, health, and access to education for decades so why would you expect mobility in a system that is static?

I can't see why anyone would assume that social mobility is automatically a good thing, it implies some kind of upheaval somewhere. Historically the biggest driver of social mobility has been war!

While I can see the theory I cannot believe that everyone has naturally reached their level. By that
By that equation no-one from generation to generation is either smarter or more ambitious, dumber or less ambitious than their parents or grandparents.
What you have said is the classist point of view. Ie no-one has the right to move up or down unless there is some catastrophy.

Most abilities are hereditary so after the effects of the opportunities and barriers of the previous environment have faded away people will tend to drift to a more or less inherited position in society.

It is nothing to do with class or about having rights, it is simply reality. There will always be some people who are more gifted, determined or lucky than their genes would suggest just as there will always be some that are less but these are exceptions.

Without any mobility in society itself you will not have anything more than "background noise" mobility for individuals one generation to the next. After decades of national, tax, health, education and benefit stability things have settled down. I can't see why this isn't obvious.

[rabw]

cymtriks said:

Mikeyboy said:

cymtriks said:

If you have a stable society in a stable naion with a stable system of taxes and benefits and a stable system of access to education then after a few generations everyone will drift to their natural level.

A new set of circumstances will generate more mobility as people find new opportubities or barriers. After a while everything settles down as old advantages and disadvantages are eroded or replaced. After that most of what determines anyones position is hereditary so sons follow fathers and daughters follow mothers until the next big shake up.

It's that simple.

We have now had a fairly stable nation, system of tax, benefits, health, and access to education for decades so why would you expect mobility in a system that is static?

I can't see why anyone would assume that social mobility is automatically a good thing, it implies some kind of upheaval somewhere. Historically the biggest driver of social mobility has been war!

While I can see the theory I cannot believe that everyone has naturally reached their level. By that
By that equation no-one from generation to generation is either smarter or more ambitious, dumber or less ambitious than their parents or grandparents.
What you have said is the classist point of view. Ie no-one has the right to move up or down unless there is some catastrophy.

Most abilities are hereditary so after the effects of the opportunities and barriers of the previous environment have faded away people will tend to drift to a more or less inherited position in society.

It is nothing to do with class or about having rights, it is simply reality. There will always be some people who are more gifted, determined or lucky than their genes would suggest just as there will always be some that are less but these are exceptions.

Without any mobility in society itself you will not have anything more than "background noise" mobility for individuals one generation to the next. After decades of national, tax, health, education and benefit stability things have settled down. I can't see why this isn't obvious.

Most of your expectations are hereditary too. People get used to their lifestyle as they're growing up and try to (at least) equal it.

[jeff m]

The tax system has the effect of stifling upward mobility for anyone in the PAYE system.

If all your relatives friends and aqaintances are employees then it's quite likely you will remain so too.

It depends on who you mix with when you are young. Whether you have aspirations to "break the mould", it's never too late.

I had a very mixed group of friends when I was young, including quite a lot of criminals (white collar), the others either own a small business, Directors on boards or HM Gov positions. Although a Re-Insurance friend has done pretty well, assume he is paye.

[Mikeyboy]

cymtriks said:

Mikeyboy said:

cymtriks said:

If you have a stable society in a stable naion with a stable system of taxes and benefits and a stable system of access to education then after a few generations everyone will drift to their natural level.

A new set of circumstances will generate more mobility as people find new opportubities or barriers. After a while everything settles down as old advantages and disadvantages are eroded or replaced. After that most of what determines anyones position is hereditary so sons follow fathers and daughters follow mothers until the next big shake up.

It's that simple.

We have now had a fairly stable nation, system of tax, benefits, health, and access to education for decades so why would you expect mobility in a system that is static?

I can't see why anyone would assume that social mobility is automatically a good thing, it implies some kind of upheaval somewhere. Historically the biggest driver of social mobility has been war!

While I can see the theory I cannot believe that everyone has naturally reached their level. By that
By that equation no-one from generation to generation is either smarter or more ambitious, dumber or less ambitious than their parents or grandparents.
What you have said is the classist point of view. Ie no-one has the right to move up or down unless there is some catastrophy.

Most abilities are hereditary so after the effects of the opportunities and barriers of the previous environment have faded away people will tend to drift to a more or less inherited position in society.

It is nothing to do with class or about having rights, it is simply reality. There will always be some people who are more gifted, determined or lucky than their genes would suggest just as there will always be some that are less but these are exceptions.

Without any mobility in society itself you will not have anything more than "background noise" mobility for individuals one generation to the next. After decades of national, tax, health, education and benefit stability things have settled down. I can't see why this isn't obvious.

while many physical attributes are hereditary there is little or no evidence that intelligence is. Ambition is more environmental than some personal attributes but is not exclusive to a social background. Many multimillionaires and self made people in fact come from poor or underachieving backgrounds.
Also the last part of what you have said here doesn't seem to fit with your first statement. Are you now saying that there is Social mobility and anyone can achieve it.

[crofty1984]

Fittster said:

Grammar schools, although anyone finding themselves in a secondary modern is doomed at the age of 11.

I went to a comprehensive and didnàt do too badly.

[cymtriks]

Mikeyboy said:

cymtriks said:

Mikeyboy said:

cymtriks said:

If you have a stable society in a stable naion with a stable system of taxes and benefits and a stable system of access to education then after a few generations everyone will drift to their natural level.

A new set of circumstances will generate more mobility as people find new opportubities or barriers. After a while everything settles down as old advantages and disadvantages are eroded or replaced. After that most of what determines anyones position is hereditary so sons follow fathers and daughters follow mothers until the next big shake up.

It's that simple.

We have now had a fairly stable nation, system of tax, benefits, health, and access to education for decades so why would you expect mobility in a system that is static?

I can't see why anyone would assume that social mobility is automatically a good thing, it implies some kind of upheaval somewhere. Historically the biggest driver of social mobility has been war!

While I can see the theory I cannot believe that everyone has naturally reached their level. By that
By that equation no-one from generation to generation is either smarter or more ambitious, dumber or less ambitious than their parents or grandparents.
What you have said is the classist point of view. Ie no-one has the right to move up or down unless there is some catastrophy.

Most abilities are hereditary so after the effects of the opportunities and barriers of the previous environment have faded away people will tend to drift to a more or less inherited position in society.

It is nothing to do with class or about having rights, it is simply reality. There will always be some people who are more gifted, determined or lucky than their genes would suggest just as there will always be some that are less but these are exceptions.

Without any mobility in society itself you will not have anything more than "background noise" mobility for individuals one generation to the next. After decades of national, tax, health, education and benefit stability things have settled down. I can't see why this isn't obvious.

while many physical attributes are hereditary there is little or no evidence that intelligence is. Ambition is more environmental than some personal attributes but is not exclusive to a social background. Many multimillionaires and self made people in fact come from poor or underachieving backgrounds.
Also the last part of what you have said here doesn't seem to fit with your first statement. Are you now saying that there is Social mobility and anyone can achieve it.

Firstly your statement about intelligence is debateable to say the least.

Though it is certainly true that some rich people came from poor backgrounds this does not disprove anyhting I've said. This is what "backround noise" is, asmal ammount of mobility will always be apparent.

Nothing is contradictory about my summary.

It is this simple:
Stable society = low social mobility
Long term stable society (like ours) = social mobility at the level of background noise
majority of factors influencing success = inherited or cultural within a segment of society

So we have low social mobility. It isn't a problem. In fact it might indicate that the aims of social mobility enthusiasts have been met, after all if everyone moved to the right place today how much mobility would you see tomorrow apart from background noise?

[thehawk]

Surely we have recently witnessed the greatest period of social mobility in history - isn't 90% of the population now 'Middle Class'?