Born poor, stay poor: the scandal of social immobility

[MichaelMcGuire]

There is a "stark gap" between the life chances of the poorest and the better-off in Britain, the Government will admit today, as it publishes alarming research that reveals how wide that gulf is.

The study, to be unveiled by Nick Clegg, shows that:

l One child in five is on free school meals, but only one in 100 Oxbridge entrants is.

l Only 7 per cent of children attend private schools, but these schools provide 70 per cent of High Court judges and 54 per cent of FTSE 100 chief executives.

l One in five children from poorer homes achieves five good GCSEs, compared with three out of four from affluent homes.

In response to the findings, Mr Clegg will take a political gamble by publishing new benchmarks so the public can track whether the Government is delivering its pledge to improve social mobility. Ministers admit they are making a rod for their own backs.

In a speech to the Sutton Trust, Mr Clegg will admit that the Coalition "cannot afford" to leave a legacy like the current position. "Morally, economically, socially: whatever your justification, the price is too high to pay. We must create a more dynamic society. One where what matters most is the person you become, not the person you were born," he will say.

The strategy document will admit: "No one should be prevented from fulfilling their potential by the circumstances of their birth. What ought to count is how hard you work and the skills and talents you possess, not the school you went to or the jobs your parents did.

"The UK is still a long way from achieving this ideal. Income and social class background have a significant impact on a child's future life chances and there have been few signs of improvement in recent decades."

Continue reading here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/born-poor-stay-poor-the-scandal-of-social-immobility-7771336.html

[pampango]

1. Recent study: UK last, US next to last in social mobility among developed countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Comparisons_with_other_countries

Several large studies of mobility in developed countries in recent years have found that [b[the US among the lowest in mobility. One study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?&quot found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. The four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children.

According to journalist Jason DeParle
At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints. Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes. Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.

[MichaelMcGuire]

2. London politik fancies itself to be the European Singapore

Between the top 10% and lowest 10% in incomes.
Inequality in London is 273:1
England 95.8:1 (No thanks to London)
Scotland 93.4:1
Wales 89.5:1

Source