Social Mobility In America

In 1931, James Truslow Adams introduced the term “American Dream” in his international bestseller The Epic of America. He described it as “that dream of a land...with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement... in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable...regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position” (Adams). Although this phrase has been challenged and changed since Adams’ time, the basic principle of the“American Dream” has prevailed. It is that of equal opportunity, where anyone can climb to the top rung of society “through sacrifice, risk-taking, and hard work” unencumbered by their initial social position (“American Dream”). Yet,

almost 90 years since Adams introduced this idealistic view of opportunity and upward mobility, it is still only a dream. The American reality of social mobility is predicated on a culmination of societal limitations, especially in regards to gender and racial discrepancies.
Gender disparities related to mobility have decreased substantially in recent decades, with women facing fewer barriers in the workforce, greater opportunity for upwards movement, and more equity in terms of income and class. Yet, significant gaps still exist in factors that contribute to the overall measure of social mobility. A 2015 Brookings Institution study highlights these inequalities, especially when looking at the “stickiness” towards the ends of the income spectrum. The report states that “47 percent of women born to parents in the bottom quintile remain there as adults, compared to 35 percent of men”, a statistic that shows women stick to the bottom rung of income more so than their male counterparts (Reeves and Venator). These women are less likely to be upwardly mobile because of nothing more than their gender. Brookings also finds that “women have a higher risk of being downwardly mobile than men”, meaning even the wealthiest women are more likely to fall from the top rung of income because of their gender alone (Reeves and Venator). Finally, A Pew Charitable Trusts study from 2014 found that men’s wages are “more important to increasing couples’ family income”, which is a main factor in upward social movement (“Women’s Work”). This finding reveals a glaring truth, that despite the individual gains of women throughout the country, their gender reduces this success and makes their income less valuable to society as a whole. Many factors contribute to the gender gap, which tips the scale of economic equality away from women. These include “career choice [and] the tendency for women to work fewer hours” and the increased likelihood of women to be single parents (Reeves and Venator). Factors such as this are byproducts of society and play a part in creating the “median American woman”. She represents the combined circumstances and decisions of women throughout the country and paints a clear picture of the roadblocks all women face due to their gender and its societal complexities. Overall, while women face more upward mobility today than ever before, the American dream of equal opportunity is not their reality, as gender still plays a significant role in the limitation of social mobility.
Although race plays a similar role to gender in measuring social mobility, the disparities within this demographic are increasingly complex and acutely limit upward mobility.

The most pronounced gaps can be seen between white and black Americans. In 2013, the Brookings Institution issued a report on the black-white gap and social mobility, analyzing trends in movement as well as the underlying conditions that contribute to them. The study arrived at two main conclusions: Black Americans “are more likely to be born into poverty” and “less likely to escape” (Reeves). These assertions go hand-in-hand, as the lack of social mobility that prevents economic “escape” contributes to the cycle of being born into poverty. Therefore, the limitation of upward movement for black Americans must be examined and dealt with before the cycle can be broken. The Brookings Institution analyzes mobility and race by first measuring the “stickiness” across the income spectrum. Black Americans face a trend similar to that of female Americans in this area, as “half of black adults raised at the bottom of the income scale remain stuck...compared to a third of whites” and are, in general, more likely to fall from the middle income quintile (Reeves). Furthermore, the common “stickiness” white, predominantly male Americans enjoy at the top of the income scale is not able to be compared to that of black Americans simply because there are “too few observations to report estimates” (Reeves). A similar Brookings study states that “black wealth barely exists”, as “the median wealth of a white household is now 13 times greater than for black households” (Rodrigue and Reeves). These observations combined show the severity of the restriction black Americans face when it comes to social mobility. These trends towards bottom-rung “stickiness” and downward movement are predicated only in race and make reaching the top of the income scale all but impossible. A second metric of social mobility employed by

Brookings Institution is that of “making it to the middle class by middle age” (Reeves). Again, it shows the limitation due to race, as “two in three whites clear this hurdle, compared to just three out of ten blacks” (Reeves). Many factors contribute to the racial economic gap, as the inequality between black and white Americans goes deeper than simple social mobility. For example, black individuals are less likely to graduate high school and face more discrimination in the workforce than whites, and black families are more likely to be headed by a single parent than white families. These societal factors contribute to the prevailing trend of stagnant and downward social mobility for black Americans and further prove that the dream of equal opportunity is not a reality in the nation today.