There is NO American Dream?
Gregory Clark is very good at both social history and economic history. His latest work, however, leans on what I see as a very weak reed. He finds surnames that are associated with wealth and tracks those surnames down the generations. And he finds that in later generations those surnames continue to be associated with wealth.
That is all well and good but he is using only a very small sampling of the population so can tell us nothing about the society at large. The well-known effect of a man making a lot of money only for his grandchildren to blow the lot is not captured by his methods.
So if the American dream consists of raising up a whole new lineage of wealth, we can agree that such a raising up is rare, though not unknown. But if we see the American Dream as just one man "making it" (regardless of what his descendants do) Clark has nothing to tell us about it. And I think that latter version of the dream is the usual one.
But his findings that SOME lineages stay wealthy is an interesting one. And he explains it well. He says (to simplify a little) that what is inherited is not wealth but IQ. As Charles Murray showed some years back, smarter people tend to be richer and tend to marry other smart people. So their descendant stay smart and smart people are mostly smart about money too.
And note that although IQ is about two thirds genetically inherited, genetic inheritance can throw up surprises at times. I once for instance knew two brown-haired parents who had three red-headed kids. The hair was still genetically inherited (there would have been redheads among their ancestors), but just WHICH genes you get out of the parental pool when you are conceived seems to be random. So you do get the phenomenon of two ordinary people having a very bright child. And that child can do very well in various ways -- monetary and otherwise. I was such a child.
It has powered the hopes and dreams of U.S. citizens for generations. But the American Dream does not actually exist, according to one economics professor.
Gregory Clark, who works at the University of California, Davis, claims the national ethos is simply an illusion and that social mobility in the country is no higher than in the rest of the world.
'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 - it's shattering people's dreams.'
After studying figures from the past 100 years and applying a formula to them, Mr Clark concluded that disadvantaged Americans will not be granted more opportunities if they are hard-working.
Instead, they will be stuck in their social status for the rest of their lives - and their position will, in turn, affect the statuses of their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, he said.
'The United States is not exceptional in its rates of social mobility,' the professor wrote in an essay published by the Council on Foreign Relations. 'It can perform no special alchemy on the disadvantaged populations of any society in order to transform their life opportunities.'
Speaking to CBS Sacramento, he added: 'The status of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great-great grandchildren will be quite closely related to your average status now.'
However, not all of Mr Clark's students agree with his findings, with some pointing out that although parents' wealth has an effect on a child's life, 'it is not the ultimate deciding factor'.
SOURCE. More HERE.
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).