Basic Human Dignity Continued

If we can smugly marginalize those not working, a marginalization helped along by racial attitudes, the emergent structures of the job market make it difficult to apply the old standards of blame.  When 60 minutes features a panel of heretofore middle class people who have lost work, who desperately want to work, but because they have struggled to find work over an extended period of time, find themselves not only unemployed, but increasingly unemployable.  The 60 minutes panelists, black and white -- nearly all of whom looked comfortable in suits -- nearly all of whom were educated, well-spoken and professional -- nevertheless found themselves in line for food stamps.   Nearly all articulated well the sense of shame, the loss of recognition and personal identity that came with the loss of work, the nagging sense that "they are right, something must be wrong with me that I find myself in this situation, that I cannot extricate myself from this situation."  The likes of Herbert Caine as a viable (if only briefly) conservative presidential candidate points to the deeper structure, the persistent belief that, no matter the structural barriers, no matter the overt (and covert) bigotry, upward mobility is not only possible, but the likely reward for cleverness and hard work.  As many have pointed out, Caine has allowed conservatives to reassure themselves that it's not about race, rather it is about values, and people who are entangled in the socialist safety net and cannot extricate themselves are there because they lack some intrinsic quality.  For those with pluck (and here it helps to remind ourselves of the luck in pluck) it is possible that they will get ahead on the strength of initiative alone, and even more likely in the absence of the regulatory state's rolls of red tape.

The difficulty, of course, is that there is only the anecdotal exception to support the mythology of upward mobility.  It is still possible, though less and less likely.  In the recent issue of the New Republic, Timothy Noah writes, "when American's express indifference about the problem of unequal incomes, it's usually because they see the United States as a land of boundless opportunity," particularly compared to the likes of western Europe.  As he points out, however, it just isn't true.  "Most of western Europe today is both more equal in incomes and more economically mobile than the US."  Likewise, in a recent edition of the New York Times (Jan 4, 2012), Jason DeParle writes, "despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62% of American's (male and female) raised in th top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths."  He goes on to point out, that "similarly 65 percent of those born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths."  There is some residual mobility of the middle incomes, as DeParle reports, "even by measures of relative mobility, Middle America remains fluid. About 36 percent of Americans raised in the middle fifth move up as adults, while 23 percent stay on the same rung and 41 percent move down, according to Pew research. The “stickiness” appears at the top and bottom, as affluent families transmit their advantages and poor families stay trapped."  While it is encouraging that 36 percent of Americans have moved up, it is disturbing that slightly more Americans, 41 percent, are moving down into the bottom two-fifths.   There is as much, and slightly more, downward mobility.  I won't belabor the point, except to point out that, as income inequality increases, income mobility decreases. The mechanism may not be clear, but the correlation is clear enough and ominous.  It is worth pointing out that those in the bottom two-fifths, in sheer headcount, outnumber those in the top two-fifths by a considerable margin.  At what point will the majority of Americans be low income, and poor?

To be Continued