Is America The Land of Opportunity ?

[russ_watters]

Is America "The Land of Opportunity"?

I seem to remember posting a poll on this as much as a year ago. Recent threads have gotten me thinking about it again. I'm looking for opinions and arguments, so a yes/no poll won't be sufficient.

My basic thesis is that yes, America is, "The Land of Opportunity." By this, I mean socially: class mobility.

One of the justifications for modern liberalism seems to me to be that people reject this idea. If so, that means we've failed to be what America was created to be - equality of opportunity is the fundamental principle by which this country was founded (its the first point in the body of the Declaration of Independence). The idea that we've failed at it is the basis for things like Affirmative Action (that's its specific, stated purpose), welfare, unemployment compensation, social security, medicare, etc. So the reason I object to these social programs except in extreme circumstances, is my belief in the "American Dream" of class mobility.

My example of class mobility, from another thread:

A little reality check: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h01ar.html is the military pay chart. If you're a real screw-up who has done everything but get arrested, you should be an E-4 by the end of 4 years (just treading water, you should be an E-5, and if you're a good sailor, you should be waiting on the results of the E-6 test), by which time you are 21. At $1,957 a month, not including a housing allowance(or other special pay like sea pay), which starts at about $600 if you live in a poor area and are not married , you're already well-into the second fifth. All it takes is keeping the multiple screw-ups relatively minor and making one big decision (joining the Navy).

Case-in point: one of my co-workers was, iirc, 32-years-old when I left. He'd just passed his E-6 exam, having gone up and down the ranks several times to that point (he was arrested several times). By age 28 or so, he had settled-down a little. At $2,888 a month, not including his housing allowance or sea pay, he's cracked the 3rd fifth.

I utterly reject the contention that America is not "the land of opportunity."

Opinions?

 

[member 5645]

I agree with you and your example, but other are going to whine about the fact that the military or being poor isn't much of an option (I'm not one of them, I still plan to join the military after med school).
I'd like to add that there is no country friendlier to the entrepreneur right now. As one, I can speak for the fact that there are a million government rules made to assist in business creation, growth, and rewards for hiring others.
But let's go one step further down.
A person with no education beyond high school (free) can get a job at any grocery chain in the area. Here in Texas, that job pays ~10/hr starting with a cap of ~13.50 after 2 years. Doesn't sound like much, until you realize that all of them offer full benefits with this.

That is 13.50*40*50 (Brought down 2 weeks for the two chains that offer time off, but not paid vacation) = $27,000 + health insurance

That's right! 27,000 for nothing more than completing high school and showing up to work on time to do your job properly. Basic math, the ability to read, and a polite smile earns a ticket to stay out of poverty. I haven't even begun to mention if you were to break into a management position.

For those of you reading that are in LA and NYC, bare with me. $27,000 doesn't sound like a lot, but cost of living is not equal here.

EDIT- do I need to tell my own story of being 20 year-old college drop out turning down 50,000/yr+ jobs because I can make more being self employed? Hard work and positive thinking is the key. The opportunity is fully here!

 

[fourier jr]

um... yeah i want to start up a automobile company in the US, and nobody will try to stop me... sure... :uhh:

 

[Locrian]

I'd agree with someone if they said there was a great deal of opportunity for almost everyone in the US.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I hate Russ' example. Showing class mobility by dividing up income brackets doesn't make much of a case. Russ showed that people in the first bracket could move to the third by joining the military. Well let us suppose, for a moment, that the military would take every human being in the bottom 2 brackets, and that every one of them joined. Then they'd all increase their pay to somewhere around the same levels. Sounds great, except that the next time you divided the US pay scale up into 5ths, a substantial number of them would be in the bottom.

Obviously they'd be better off, yet they'd still be lowest income brack in the US. If you are going to divide the US up in 5ths, then when you make your case that one person goes up, you've also made another case that another person has gone down. I don't mean this to sound like I don't think people can progress in the US: I mean that by comparing people to each other, and arbitrarily setting the bar, we don't make a case that they can.

Which leads to the following question:

When we say the US is the land of opportunity, what do we mean by opportunity?

You can't just argue money, because money is an abstract. Maybe we should argue that opportunity means the opportunity to buy things, which is an extension of the money argument. It seems to me the only meaningful argument is made by taking opportunity to mean the opportunity to be happy.

It's just that that argument is the hardest to make.

 

[loseyourname]

um... yeah i want to start up a automobile company in the US, and nobody will try to stop me... sure...

Is that your idea of an argument? You pick what is probably the second-most difficult industry to break into due to initial cost (the airline industry is the only one I can think of that is harder) and conclude that, since you cannot start up there, you cannot start up anywhere? The upper echelon of Forbes magazine is littered with self-made success stories (Paul Allen, Mark Cuban, Bill Gates, the entire Walton family, Michael Eisner). My own little neighborhood here in Long Beach is chock-full of small business owners who have worked their asses off to bring themselves up from the lower middle-class.

 

[fourier jr]

ok then, i'll try to start up a software company and/or make computers, and nobody will try to stop me... (especially not microsoft)

 

[loseyourname]

ok then, i'll try to start up a software company and/or make computers, and nobody will try to stop me... (especially not microsoft)

Of course they will! That's called competition, silly. If you start up a lemonade stand and manage to make a non-trivial profit, someone will come along and try to put you out of business. That's the way it works. It doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there. There are plenty of people trying to stop Microsoft, but that doesn't mean they turn no profit.

 

[Andromeda321]

I believe this country is filled with unlimited opportunity for indaviduals willing to work hard to achieve success. Opportunity is useless unless you are willing to take advantage of it.
For all interested parties, I say this primarily because of the life my father has led. He was born in a refugee camp in WWII where his first cradle was an old flour crate. Thanks to working hard in high school and throughout college he got a full scholarship to one of the best universities in the country and eventually got a doctorate in electrical engineering. Later on he founded a successful computer software company that now employs hundreds of other people. Had my family stayed in the "old country" or emigrated to any other country I sincerely doubt all this would have happened. There is a reason people desperately want to come to the US and why it is the wealthiest nation: such things never happen by chance.

 

[Gokul43201]

Can't disagree.

 

[PerennialII]

Agree very much when tieing this to what is typically meant by 'the land of opportunity', the nonexistence of economic restraints and as such the created free opportunity is what leads to best possibilities for class mobility. Whether its a good social construct is another thing, introduction of structures like welfare etc. which don't really belong in it is to me wrestling over this harsh aspect of it.

 

[Smurf]

For people who's goal in life is "The American Dream" so to speak, meaning their goal is to make some money, turn that money into more money, turn that money into even more money and then die an old rich man with lots of Cars and a Big house and has the ability and will to get there. Then Yeah, of course it is (but declining I think, if Europe or China ever get its act together it will be replaced entirely - mind you that's not saying I want that)

 

[Gokul43201]

For people who's goal in life is "The American Dream" so to speak, meaning their goal is to make some money, turn that money into more money, turn that money into even more money and then die an old rich man with lots of Cars and a Big house and has the ability and will to get there. Then Yeah, of course it is (but declining I think, if Europe or China ever get its act together it will be replaced entirely - mind you that's not saying I want that)

Umm...I came here to learn and do research in Physics. I'm working under a professor who was the first person to measure an effect first proposed in the 80s but thought to be undetectable. There are currently about 6 groups in the world that can do the kind of measurements that we do. I get to talk to some really interesting physicists, attend and give talks at some of the biggest physics conferences. I'm happy with my choice.

 

[the number 42]

We need to unpack the idea. Opportunity to do what - join the military, open a car factory, be a top academic? Depending on what your starting point is, some opportunities will be more open than others e.g. the working class kid might join the military & the middle class kid work at a university.

I don't know about the US so much, but certainly in the UK only people who are born into families that can give them opportunities can take advantage of them e.g. someone born into an area with lots of social problems is more likely to go to a worse school, surrounded by unmotivated peers, go home to parents who don't help with homework, won't or can't pay for private tuition, or don't/can't monitor what mischief they are getting up to. No, I won't apologise to these schools and parents, as these things are broadly true, and it not being PC to say so doesn't make it less true. There will be many exceptions to the rule, and this includes the bright kid whose parents (or parent) don't care about their academic ability, but the kid goes ahead and achieves anyway.

Now if we talk about making money i.e. being a self-made man, well that's a different story. I think most societies have their people who do well for themselves no matter what circumstances they are in, and it doesn't require a formal education. Has anyone see the film (or read the book) King Rat? In the UK we tend to be less proud of money for its own sake, and that's not a bad thing in my opinion.

Finally, we could do a nature/nurture debate on this one, but let's not. If we assume that all people are born equally able to kill, and all people have the same IQ, it will keep the discussion simple.

 

[Polly]

I'll say whatever you say darling :tongue2: . Seriously like a self-made man in Hong Kong used to say a piece of wood will float in any waters. This is extrapolation again, but people can be ingenious in doing a bit better whatever the system. My mother's youngest brother was forced out of high school when he was "seduced" by a slightly older woman at the age of 18 (he is incredibly handsome and women, good decent women, bad beautiful women threw themselves at him. One of his live-ins is the hottest most curvy woman I have ever seen). Anyway bad company and his natural "entrepreneur spirit" got him in and out of jail many times. And he got better and better with his connection and know-how. You will be surprised that in an oppressive communist system in the PRC, he never ran out of scams to make money, it could be speculation of currency, making some agency-fees or making false antiques (made chunks of money out of it). One cannot deny that he could have done much better in a free society of course but his story also shows there are opportunities everywhere and it depends on whether we are smart enough to spot them.

 

[Kerrie]

...his story also shows there are opportunities everywhere and it depends on whether we are smart enough to spot them.

that and smart enough to create opportunity.

yes, america is the land of opportunity, but the competition is much higher today then say 50 years ago. there are more regulations, laws, fees. etc that can create some obstacles, but not entirely possible. one must be diligent in their efforts to achieve the goals they have set upon themselves. along with being persistent in this effort, a little bit of luck and nice sum of cash always helps the process easier, this you cannot deny.

 

[Andromeda321]

along with being persistent in this effort, a little bit of luck and nice sum of cash always helps the process easier, this you cannot deny.

You can't deny it but then was there ever a time it was not the case? It's just in many other countries if you don't have a lump of money and a good name say goodbye to your dreams whereas here you've got a chance no matter what. And no matter where you are and what you do luck will play a part of it regardless of what situation you find yourself in.

 

[russ_watters]

For people who's goal in life is "The American Dream" so to speak, meaning their goal is to make some money, turn that money into more money, turn that money into even more money and then die an old rich man with lots of Cars and a Big house and has the ability and will to get there. Then Yeah, of course it is (but declining I think, if Europe or China ever get its act together it will be replaced entirely - mind you that's not saying I want that)

I have never met someone who believed that money itself was an ends. This is another straw-man argument (though if you can name one, please do). The American dream is (in my view) class mobility, and in that case, money is a means to an end. There is a huge difference.

A few examples: Paul Allen quit Microsoft after making his pile - If I can find the quote, I will, but he said something to the effect of 'I've made enough.' Bill Gates continues to work for Microsoft - but no longer as CEO (though I'm sure he still has considerable power). He's sold most of his MS stock, so he won't be making more money from MS. He continues to work for MS because he enjoys it.

 

[cragwolf]

No, the USA is the not the land of opportunity. It is a land of opportunity. There are increasingly many other such lands in this world. But, as some have mentioned, it is getting a lot more competitive. Woe to those who lack the intelligence to compete. No more (or rather, not enough) manufacturing and manual labour jobs for them to rely on as before. I don't know if it's PC to feel sorry for people who aren't particularly gifted in the brains stakes. A desire to work will probably not be enough in the future.

 

[Smurf]

I have never met someone who believed that money itself was an ends. This is another straw-man argument (though if you can name one, please do). The American dream is (in my view) class mobility, and in that case, money is a means to an end. There is a huge difference.

Of course money is not an ends, it's little peices of paper, money is a means to stuff. America, being the emblem of capitalism and consumerism is all about getting more stuff. Yes I do buy into these (what you would call) "conspiracy theories", I do believe my views on this would be identicle if I did live there; and yes, I have been there several times for weeks on end.
I'll ask you what your definition of Class Mobility is if not the ability to move to a nicer area, get a better education and have a wider TV? (Yes, I am over emphasising).

 

[russ_watters]

Of course money is not an ends, it's little peices of paper, money is a means to stuff. America, being the emblem of capitalism and consumerism is all about getting more stuff. Yes I do buy into these (what you would call) "conspiracy theories", I do believe my views on this would be identicle if I did live there; and yes, I have been there several times for weeks on end.
I'll ask you what your definition of Class Mobility is if not the ability to move to a nicer area, get a better education and have a wider TV? (Yes, I am over emphasising).

Well, so long as you realize that by overemphasizing, you change the whole point...

For the vast majority of Americans, "class mobility" is a positive thing that has nothing to do with greed, as you are trying to imply. Obviously, to those in the upper 5%, class mobility doesn't apply at all: they have nowhere to go but down!

 

[loseyourname]

Of course money is not an ends, it's little peices of paper, money is a means to stuff. America, being the emblem of capitalism and consumerism is all about getting more stuff. Yes I do buy into these (what you would call) "conspiracy theories", I do believe my views on this would be identicle if I did live there; and yes, I have been there several times for weeks on end.
I'll ask you what your definition of Class Mobility is if not the ability to move to a nicer area, get a better education and have a wider TV? (Yes, I am over emphasising).

It's not always about the cars and the TV, you dork. Many people just want to not live with the constant threat of violent crime in their neighborhood and not live from paycheck to paycheck. Both physical and financial security is a big part of it. There are plenty of people that stop once they have those and could care less about additional buying power.

Jesus, you're cynical, especially for a 17 year-old.

 

[Locrian]

Yes I do buy into these (what you would call) "conspiracy theories", I do believe my views on this would be identicle if I did live there;

Identical to what? What are you suggesting? I find myself on the other side of an argument with other US citizens as often as not. Heck, if anything, the country is pretty split right now, with extremely varying views on a number of issues. These views aren't as polarized as you might think either; they are wide reaching and contain many middle positions.

Nobody's views are identical. Yours wouldn't be either, if you lived here.

 

[the number 42]

As Polly (*mwah* *mwah*) quotes:

...a piece of wood will float in any waters.

It sounds as if the general argument supported by members is that the US may be one of the best places in the world for such floaters to reach the top.

But so far nobody has taken up my point about the type of opportunities available e.g. academic. Are these equally open to everybody, or should this thread be entitled "The Land of [Business] Opportunity"?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I recently saw again references to studies that I had been seeing for a couple of years, to the effect that social mobility in the US is in fact notably less than in many other countries. Google has failed to find these sites for me again, but I assure you this was good sociology, not partisan sniping. Has anyone else seen this?

 

[PerennialII]

I recently saw again references to studies that I had been seeing for a couple of years, to the effect that social mobility in the US is in fact notably less than in many other countries.

Sounds plausible ... by sharing the "opportunity" a bit more equally than in the US a greater overall movement by the numbers seems like a possibility, whilst this means that the gap between the classes overall becomes smaller. The systems of many countries can be viewed to act as reset buttons.

 

[wasteofo2]

I'd just like to point out the inherent bias in this conversation.

If you're participating in this conversation, you have a computer with internet acess. There are plenty of Americans whom do not have a computer with internet access, or even a computer at all. There are plenty of people in America who don't have these opportunities that are being discussed, and because they have no opportunity, they can't discuss this here.

 

[the number 42]

I'd just like to point out the inherent bias in this conversation.

If you're participating in this conversation, you have a computer with internet acess. There are plenty of Americans whom do not have a computer with internet access, or even a computer at all. There are plenty of people in America who don't have these opportunities that are being discussed, and because they have no opportunity, they can't discuss this here.

Good point, but isn't this bias the result of self-selection? The people who aren't contributing to this discussion just goofing off, just as they probably did all through high school. They would rather register their protest by making themselves part of the national crime statistics, which is about the only initiative they are ever likely to show.

 

[loseyourname]

I recently saw again references to studies that I had been seeing for a couple of years, to the effect that social mobility in the US is in fact notably less than in many other countries. Google has failed to find these sites for me again, but I assure you this was good sociology, not partisan sniping. Has anyone else seen this?

That probably depends on which classes are being looked at. Not that I have any backing, but it seems anyway that moving from the very lowest class into the middle class would be far more difficult than moving from the middle class into the upper classes. It also depends on what is meant by "middle class." The term is so widely encompassing that, if it is being used generally, a person can seriously increase their buying power and social status without moving out of the middle class. Another thing is that Russ didn't seem to be claiming that class mobility is necessarily going to be very prevalent, only that it was possible and encouraged by the American ethos, very Horatio Alger. Any person with the drive and intelligence to make a good life for themselves should be able to do it.

Of course, this is all speculation. Russ remains the only person to post any actual numbers.

 

[the number 42]

Of course, this is all speculation. Russ remains the only person to post any actual numbers.

Show your numbers to the kids in Downtown LA. (Dang, we've been here before). Second thoughts: Show your numbers to all of the stockbrokers from Downtown LA.

 

[selfAdjoint]

That probably depends on which classes are being looked at. Not that I have any backing, but it seems anyway that moving from the very lowest class into the middle class would be far more difficult than moving from the middle class into the upper classes. It also depends on what is meant by "middle class." The term is so widely encompassing that, if it is being used generally, a person can seriously increase their buying power and social status without moving out of the middle class. Another thing is that Russ didn't seem to be claiming that class mobility is necessarily going to be very prevalent, only that it was possible and encouraged by the American ethos, very Horatio Alger. Any person with the drive and intelligence to make a good life for themselves should be able to do it.

Of course, this is all speculation. Russ remains the only person to post any actual numbers.

I am still without firm confirmation, but I seem to recall the movement in question was between the income quintiles.

 

[loseyourname]

Show your numbers to the kids in Downtown LA. (Dang, we've been here before). Second thoughts: Show your numbers to all of the stockbrokers from Downtown LA.

Do you listen to nothing? There are very few kids and certainly no stockbrokers in Downtown LA. It's barely started to become a residential neighborhood in the last 5 years. Young professionals and USC students. That's it.

Heck, my dad grew up in East LA. That's the bad part. His mom stabbed his neighbor and his brother was shot. He's done fine. It isn't easy, but the opportunity is there. He even has a government job. That should warm your heart - the government helping people get out of the ghetto.

 

[russ_watters]

I am still without firm confirmation, but I seem to recall the movement in question was between the income quintiles.

There is a flaw in using income brackets (yes, I know I'm the one who defined class mobility according to the brackets), and that is that 20% is always 20% - if people get richer, that doesn't necessarily mean they change brackets, it could just mean the brackets themselves change.

In the US, that means the upper limit of the bottom 5th is $17,984 today, and in 1963, it was $14,002.

I'm looking around for other countries - HERE is a graph for the UK - it has no history, but its interesting to see where their brackets fall today and how substantial income redistribution is.

In any case, the point of this thread is how easy it is to move up - and as we all know, even if its easy, some people will choose not to do it. I would imagine the opportunities are similar in most western nations - I wonder how much the income redistribution helps/hurts it.

 

[Locrian]

In any case, the point of this thread is how easy it is to move up - and as we all know, even if its easy, some people will choose not to do it. I

Yea, but what does that mean? Since, as you've admitted, when you move up someone else moves down...

If it's so easy to move up, that must mean it's easy to move down. You could move up a notch, have your income rise by inflation one year and be moved down one - and yet, you wouldn't be worse off for it. Heck, you could never increase your income at all and have upward social mobility if those above you just stopped making so much darn money.

I'm not sure this entire thread, from start to finish, makes any sense at all.

 

[Locrian]

It is clear to me now that I could be more effective if I replaced my last posts with one that more accurately points out my problem with the argument made by the opening post. You see, I too agree that the US has a lot of opportunities for its residents. My big problem is the standard by which this was definined: class mobility.

Class mobility? What classes, exactly, and how are they to be defined? If this thread gives us any indication, classes are represented by splitting the population up equally and seeing who makes more money each year. So basically, when you say the US is a land of opportunity, you mean that here you can make more money that other people. There is no suggestion that you are healthy, happy, well off etc, but just that you are capable of competing financially with your peers.

If everyone in the US made 1/10th as much money - but the money could still only buy as much as it does now - then we'd all be worse off. But hey, there would still be mobility. The converse is true as well; if we, after inflation, all made more money, we'd be better off, and I propose we'd have more opportunities. Yet we'd all still be in the same class brackets.

So here are some opportunities I think are more reasonable judges of whether the US is the land of opportunity - though I'll admit, they might not be the traditional factors.

Opportunity to travel
Opportunity to speak freely
Opportunity to choose one's plot in life, for better or worse
Opportunity to associate with whom we choose
Opportunity to marry whom we choose - with a few notable exceptions
Opportunity to make as much money as the market will provide us

Ok, so there are many more. But I consider a list like that to be a much better judge of whether the US is a land of opportunity. It just makes more sense to me personally. Maybe others would disagree.

One problem I have with the entire conversation, are the statements made implicitly. It is my opinion that, implicit in the statement "America is the land of opportunity" is the statement "if you work hard, you will succeed." I consider the first statement true and not the second. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the second isn't being implied by the speaker. However, I have a suspicion I'm right, and it always make me uncomfortable when the subject comes up.

 

[russ_watters]

Yea, but what does that mean? Since, as you've admitted, when you move up someone else moves down...

I used the income tables largely as an example of where the divisions are. The question is maybe better stated: can you do better - and if so, how hard (or easy) is it to do better?

It is important to note though: since the scale is a sliding one, one person doing better does not automatically imply another is doing worse.

If it's so easy to move up, that must mean it's easy to move down. You could move up a notch, have your income rise by inflation one year and be moved down one - and yet, you wouldn't be worse off for it.

Certainly, but I'm more concerned with the question of how hard or easy is it to move up. Staying there is a separate question, though in my opinion, staying there is easier than getting there.

Heck, you could never increase your income at all and have upward social mobility if those above you just stopped making so much darn money.

That is not correct: if your income stays the same, your buying power stays the same and everything related to it stays the same. This is where using the fifths thing breaks down again - a better measure for the purpose of this thread would be relative to the poverty line, an arbitrary "middle class" living condition, and an arbitary wealthy living condition. But such numbers are harder to find. My examples covered it though: I demonstrated that it is relatively easy to make significantly more money and thus significantly improve your living conditions.