Talk:Social mobility
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Social mobility, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
This page has a severe Marixst slant, indeed. It seems that the purpose of the article is to state that even in meritocratic societies with great social mobility, the large majority of individuals are still "forced" into the role of the Proletariat. On the contrary-- if 100% of society showed the same ambition as those few upwardly mobile individuals, the resultant economic explosion would eventually have us all living what we currently view as upper-class lifestyles. -- Upwardly Mobile 4 Apr, 2006
When reading this I felt that it had a slant, a marxist one. I don't think this is because of its content, but rather because of its diction. -- Anonymous Coward 24 Oct, 2005
This page would need some non-US examples. David.Monniaux 21:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- This is almost always the case in other articles after all. -- Taku 23:05, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] i don't buy this
Indeed, it is physically impossible to have more bosses than workers, thus it is impossible for the majority of workers to rise out of their social class.
This doesn't make sense. First, if person A runs a business, and person B run a business, and person C works for both of them, then in that situation you have more bosses than workers. This might not be the norm, but I don't understand why it's physicsally impossible.
Also, this statement seems to imply that becoming someone else's boss is the only way to rise out of a social class. What about musicians, actors, models, writers, and athletes who make it big? What about people who invest their money over time to become financially independent and then no longer need to work at all?
One counterexample that springs to mind is the case of slavery in the United States. I would argue that when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, all of the workers in that class rose out of their social class.
Or am I just not getting this? :) Tangentstorm 15:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a poor sentence, but for different reasons. I think the quote you give holds true if you consider the economy as a whole: you will always - by definition - need more supervisors than the supervised - excepting police states with unpaid informers ;o). I tried an edit using the following:
- "Since most workers labour in a hierarchical structure, with the number of positions available decreasing the further up the hierarchy one looks, opportunitites for progression are limited: and although one can suggest someone stuck in a rut could make an entrepreneurial leap, in practice this usually requires an investment in time and money unavailable to the average worker."
- But I didn't feel sufficiently comfortable with it, plus I would want to mention that risk is more risky for the have-nots than the haves. I would also want to say that the hierarchy works both as within any one company and alo as across companies as a whole: the higher up positions across the baord being less in number than the lower positions. I think we could use some help here. --bodnotbod 15:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-capitalist bias
Cut from article:
- A common error when discussing social mobility is to focus on a few exemplary cases while neglecting the average cases. The fact that a few people who were originally poor have become very rich does not prove that the society in general enjoys social mobility, indeed they are exceptions. This view is often passed off as matter-of-fact in the United States in order to perpetuate the myth of meritocracy.
Who says this is a common error? And who makes this error?
What are the various sides here? I daresay one side is criticizing the U.S. for not having high enough social mobility to justify a free market economy. The other side, presumably, is arguing that America is just fine and dandy, since anyone who works hard can get ahead.
This is a key point around which advocacy about Minimum wage laws often hinges (see also Living wage). In a stratified society, socialists would want to take from the rich and give to the poor to equal things out a bit. Free market advocates would say, "Get off you butt, turn off the TV and get to work or hit the books."
How can we write about this dispute in a fair way that doesn't slant the article toward one POV or another? Friday, help me out here, please. --Uncle Ed 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested sources
For those who are interested in contributing to this article, here are some free scholarly sources:
- Understanding Mobility in America Center for American Progress
- American Exceptionalism in a New Light Institute for the Study of Labor
- Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults? Institute for the Study of Labor
[edit] request for comments
On race and intelligence, please [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Social Mobility and The Welfare State?
this section needs to be removed and replaced with arguments that can cite their sources:
Some think that big government (welfare, social security, nationalized healthcare) impedes on social mobility by raising taxes on the rich. They say that higher taxes lowers incentives to work towards a better life.
Others point to studies that show that social mobility is greater in societies with significant welfare states.
- Some think that - WHO thinks that?
- big government (welfare, social security, nationalized healthcare) - the term big government is a pejorative and indicates bias towards the subject. this is weasel-wording and should be removed.
- They say that higher taxes lowers incentives to work towards a better life. - again who says that? i don't know of a single rich person that didn't want to get richer because of the increased tax burden. please provide a link to a study or a citation.
- Others point to studies that show that social mobility is greater in societies with significant welfare states. - who?
finally, the term "Welfare State" is another example of weasel-wording. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.223.226.6 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
- i feel this section is only saying "some groups say this, other groups say that" without supporting evidence, and with a biased tone to boot - i'm going to delete it. if anyone thinks otherwise, i'm open to discussion (ps - i'm the author of the above initial criticism of this section) 192.223.226.6 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
