The Upward Mobility Myth

[arnegrim]

Do you believe that everyone has the intellect, stability and temperment to become a doctor or similarly high-education high-pressure career?

Not at all... which is why we have checkers... or landscapers... or truck drivers... or... or... or...

None of this validates the idea that upward mobility is a myth.

Precisely. The question is not "why is this person a checker?" The question is, "if checkers are necessary to run the company, why are checkers not valued?"

They are valued.

You are not happy because they are not as valued as the executives... yet they have chosen not to do what those people spent years doing in order to get to that position. That is on them, not the executives.

BTW, I do agree that CEOs get paid way too much... but I think my idea of where their salaries should be and where you think they should be are still quite off.

 

[Milla]

Yes... and fortunately (or unfortunately) there are many in our country who do not want to do what it takes to get beyond the point of 'checker'.... it is available to them... they are stopping themselves. Would the system work if everyone were CEO's...? No... but not everyone wants to be a CEO or put in the effort to make that kind of money. That doesn't change the fact that upward mobility is a reality.

Of course not everyone can or should be making 22 million dollars a year (CEO money). But if someone works full time, they should be making a wage sufficient to take care of them and their family, and should be treated with respect by their employer. Especially when they are working for corporations as profitable as Wal-Mart or the like, who don't have the tenuousness of a small business, and can afford to extend good treatment to their employees.

 

[Milla]

They are valued.

Have you lived full time on an entry level job for a major US corporation? If so, did you feel valued? If you did...can you recommend that corproation to the rest of us? Because in my menial labour jobs I was always treated as scum.

BTW, I do agree that CEOs get paid way too much... but I think my idea of where their salaries should be and where you think they should be are still quite off.

Really? Where do I think they should be? I don't recall ever saying anything about that in this or elsewhere.

 

[arnegrim]

Of course not everyone can or should be making 22 million dollars a year (CEO money). But if someone works full time, they should be making a wage sufficient to take care of them and their family, and should be treated with respect by their employer. Especially when they are working for corporations as profitable as Wal-Mart or the like, who don't have the tenuousness of a small business, and can afford to extend good treatment to their employees.

Most can... if they handle their money right.

 

[arnegrim]

Have you lived full time on an entry level job for a major US corporation? If so, did you feel valued? If you did...can you recommend that corproation to the rest of us? Because in my menial labour jobs I was always treated as scum.

Yes I have... what do you mean by 'valued'?

Really? Where do I think they should be? I don't recall ever saying anything about that in this or elsewhere.

The implication I get is that you think it should be much lower then it is.

 

[Milla]

Most can... if they handle their money right.

Possibly, depending on where one lives. In my area it can be possible to exist on a very low wage; housing is cheap. Until someone in the family gets sick or injured and the tailspin of lack of health insurance beings. And God forbid it should be the wagearner. Minimum wage and minimum/no benefits make it nearly impossible for people in such positions to create and maintain any sort of personal financial safety net. The average American is three to six months away from homelessness.

Which wouldn't be such a dangerous issue if there were better government safety nets, but that's a different thread.

Yes I have... what do you mean by 'valued'?

Were you being paid a living wage and being treated with respect?

 

[Scholar in training]

The average American is three to six months away from homelessness.

Could you qualify this statement?

Which wouldn't be such a dangerous issue if there were better government safety nets, but that's a different thread.

Safety nets aren't the solution. Back in the days of privitization, companies were the ones who took care of their employees. I don't know what happened down the road, but I imagine that the "safety" nets took away the need for companies to look after their employees, or maybe when big corporations came into the picture it became harder to do so, or maybe both. What I do think is that these security nets have eliminated an atmosphere of personal responsibility that used to exist within the workplace, at least in the United States. Afterall, if you believe that the government is going to take care of your workers, why should you worry about them?

 

[Milla]

Could you qualify this statement?

I'll see if I can hunt up some actual figures on this. In general, people don't have sufficient savings, credit and/or resources to continue paying for their shelter/food for more than a few months of not receiving a wage for whatever reason - illness, job loss, whatever.

Safety nets aren't the solution. Back in the days of privitization, companies were the ones who took care of their employees. I don't know what happened down the road, but I imagine that the "safety" nets took away the need for companies to look after their employees, or maybe when big corporations came into the picture it became harder to do so, or maybe both. What I do know is that these security nets have eliminated an atmosphere of personal responsibility that used to exist within the workplace, at least in the United States.

An interesting point of view, and one I had not previously considered. I shall have to mull it over. I'd be interested to see some sort of overview of how well companies were taking care of their employees. What time period you are speaking of when you say "in the days of privitization"?

 

[nvxplorer]

None of this validates the idea that upward mobility is a myth.

You're not viewing it from the proper perspective.

When viewing the statistics, they show that upward mobility is indeed a myth. In fact, the gap between the wealtiest and the poorist is widening, not shrinking. If upward mobility were as easily acheived as some suggest, this would not be the case.

In individual cases, yes, someone can improve their standing, but in the economy as a whole, this is increasingly difficult.

It's also worth discussing what is meant by upward mobility. If it is defined as getting a raise, a promotion, a higher paying job, then these opportunities exist. However, they exist only to the level allowed by the economy. There is a fixed level of engineering positions available, for example, and if the number of qualified applicants exceeds this level, there will be people who are necessarily prohibited from improving their life in this manner.

If upward mobility is defined as moving from the lower/middle class into the upper class, then this is extremely difficult to acheive. The odds are heavily against it.

Moving up to the elite class (top 1%) is essentially impossible. Winning the lottery is about the only chance someone has, which speaks to its improbability.

The graph below is interesting. The top 1% control 39.1% of the wealth. The top 5% own 61.4%. These are 1997 figures, and I assume the gap is even wider today.

 

[zoink]

Zoink,

So your refutation to an economic argument (which you fully understand), is an English lesson?

Interesting.

Yes, it is most interesting. We would not want to give up the debate high ground of ambiguity this early in the game would we.

Sincerely,
zoink

 

[nvxplorer]

I just noticed we have members from several countries in this discussion. This makes it a little difficult to communicate effectively, as each country has a different system (meaning different laws and regulations in capitalist countries).

I'm curious about others' opinions.

I am from the USA, by the way.

 

[nvxplorer]

Yes, it is most interesting. We would not want to give up the debate high ground of ambiguity this early in the game would we.

Sincerely,
zoink

Oh, come on, zoink. The terms rich and poor are perfectly clear in a general sense. I don't need to split hairs in defining them. Their meaning is understood.

 

[HouseApe]

Safety nets aren't the solution. Back in the days of privitization, companies were the ones who took care of their employees. I don't know what happened down the road, but I imagine that the "safety" nets took away the need for companies to look after their employees, or maybe when big corporations came into the picture it became harder to do so, or maybe both. What I do think is that these security nets have eliminated an atmosphere of personal responsibility that used to exist within the workplace, at least in the United States. Afterall, if you believe that the government is going to take care of your workers, why should you worry about them?

When did companies ever look after their employees? Why do you think workers organized into labor unions? In very small companies where the owner took care of a few valued employees that might happen. But competitive pressure can't allow that to happen in the vast majority of cases.

A company's job is to look after its shareholders, not its employees.

 

[arnegrim]

Possibly, depending on where one lives. In my area it can be possible to exist on a very low wage; housing is cheap. Until someone in the family gets sick or injured and the tailspin of lack of health insurance beings. And God forbid it should be the wagearner. Minimum wage and minimum/no benefits make it nearly impossible for people in such positions to create and maintain any sort of personal financial safety net. The average American is three to six months away from homelessness.

Which wouldn't be such a dangerous issue if there were better government safety nets, but that's a different thread.

So... you want more $$ to come home... as well as more $$ to pay for safety nets?

Where do you propose to take this $$ from?

Were you being paid a living wage and being treated with respect?

Yes. As much as the position demanded.

 

[arnegrim]

You're not viewing it from the proper perspective.

When viewing the statistics, they show that upward mobility is indeed a myth. In fact, the gap between the wealtiest and the poorist is widening, not shrinking. If upward mobility were as easily acheived as some suggest, this would not be the case.

In individual cases, yes, someone can improve their standing, but in the economy as a whole, this is increasingly difficult.

It's also worth discussing what is meant by upward mobility. If it is defined as getting a raise, a promotion, a higher paying job, then these opportunities exist. However, they exist only to the level allowed by the economy. There is a fixed level of engineering positions available, for example, and if the number of qualified applicants exceeds this level, there will be people who are necessarily prohibited from improving their life in this manner.

If upward mobility is defined as moving from the lower/middle class into the upper class, then this is extremely difficult to acheive. The odds are heavily against it.

Moving up to the elite class (top 1%) is essentially impossible. Winning the lottery is about the only chance someone has, which speaks to its improbability.

No. If you look at the statistics of those who were middle to lower class and won the lottery... within a few years the majority had returned to that state... why do you think that is?

 

[arnegrim]

When did companies ever look after their employees? Why do you think workers organized into labor unions? In very small companies where the owner took care of a few valued employees that might happen. But competitive pressure can't allow that to happen in the vast majority of cases.

A company's job is to look after its shareholders, not its employees.

Unions... you think unions look after their members?

 

[HouseApe]

Unions... you think unions look after their members?

From the experience I've had with friends who are in unions, the answer is absolutely.

 

[mnphysicist]

In the past, a lot of companies, large and small looked after their employees. A patriarchal dictatorship brings a huge amount of loyalty, and potential for growth. However, such management techniques cannot ebb and flow with the economy, they are in it for the long term, and as a result, it is rare to see in a publically traded company. Some management guru's state the model is seriously dated, I personally don't think so, but it does require a much better handle on financial management than most of todays companies are capable of. Spreadsheet MBA's and true visionary management do not mix.

A friend had upwards of 3000 employees, had his own onsite medical clinic for routine matters. In addition, he provided quite a number of company houses, (not the company town of years past, i think he had a hundred or so properties), but a place to live for people whose wages were on the low side of the scale. Here is the cool part, he knew every employee, and they knew him. He was the proverbial grandfather type of boss, and even if you were a newbie and 19, he took the time to get to know you. As a result, his business grew and grew. But he passed away. Then the company went public, and today, I think they might have 100 employees if that.

The right person can look out for both shareholders and employees. Their goals in the long term are not contradictory. In the short term, no. Some years things are going to take a real header due to the high fixed overhead costs, and no amount of producitivty gains or loyalty will help.

Some unions do look after their members, and do a great job at it. Many however, are subject to the same short sided thinking of a public company. And as a result, they have their own interests at heart, not their membership. Effectively, they are the tail, and when economic fluctuations happen, they go alone for the ride, and the members get dragged through the dirt when the employer either pulls out, or goes bankrupt.

Ron

 

[CJ.23]

We all have the same opportunities... too many choose not to take the chance or put in the effort.

Curious. How? If a chap is born in to a family which is wealthy, and inherits twenty million dollars at 18, how are his chances teh same as a person who was born dirt poor?

Genuine question.

cj x

 

[CJ.23]

Unions... you think unions look after their members?

That has been my experience in Britain. I believe some American unions were however controlled by crime or communists? My experience of unions has been completely positive, both as an employer and an employee.

cj x