Social Mobility at 10%

A Facebook friend of mine posted a quote by some guy lamenting the fact that 90% of those who are born rich die as rich, and that 90% of those who are born poor die as poor. This was to be taken as evidence that hard work doesn't matter and that the system is rigged against the poor.

No solution was proposed for this supposed problem, but I assume that the intent was to bolster support for inheritance tax, reverse discrimination and the abolishment of private schools and home schooling. That's usually the sort of remedies that people obsessed with relative wealth and social mobility propose. Rather than making an effort to better their lot, they want politicians to sort things out for them.

What's also missing from the picture is how much better off we are today than hundred years ago. It has taken no more than three generations to lift a huge part of the world out of poverty. What does it matter that social mobility is confined to 10% per generation, if the entire economy is moved up several notches in the same period?

Furthermore, 10% social mobility isn't bad. It translates to a turnover of 40% every five generations. Only people obsessed with perceived injustice towards themselves can complain about such a fluid system. To lament this healthy turnover is childish to the extreme. Like a kid lamenting the fact that his friend got an ice-cream. Instead of being happy on his friend's behalf, he resents it.

Only people with an immature and egocentric world view can lament a system that is as fluid as the one we live in. Instead of seeing themselves as one person connecting past and future generations, they see themselves as the end station. All generations before them had but one goal, and that was to produce them as their ultimate offspring. They are the end station, and as such, they deserve the very best the world can offer.

This egocentric world view is sad and empty, because the purpose of life is not consumption. Production isn't the purpose either. The purpose is to build a solid foundation for the future, and we do this in cooperation with others, even if we have no children of our own.

This means that we sacrifice some consumption now with the intent to make life better for people in the future. Instead of consuming everything we own, we put aside some of it for the children. We save and we invest in the education and wellbeing of our children or other people's children. None of this requires the "help" of politicians.

If we are good at laying a foundation for our children, chances are that they will either remain at their current status, or move up a notch or two. If we neglect our role as foundation builders, we're more likely to see our children descend into lower classes.

To succeed in this, we must encourage our children to do what's right for themselves and their future families. We must discourage gambling and over-consumption. We must encourage them to be polite and friendly, and respect people's right to privacy.

Our children are just as much a node in a long chain of generations as we are. That too, we must teach them so that our generational project is sustained into the future. It's not all about us, nor is it all about the future or the past. The right balance is where we get the most out of life for ourselves while at the same time building a solid foundation for our children.

Constance and William

Av Gustav Borgen – Norsk Folkemuseum: image no. NFB.49970, via digitaltmuseum.no., Offentlig eiendom, Lenke