Inequality of Class and Culture

INEQUALITY OF CLASS AND CULTURE 4

Inequalityof Class and Culture

IntergenerationalMobility: Why There Was More Mobility For Those Born In 1958 ThanThose Born In 1970.

Due to technologyand advanced level of education intergenerational mobility has beenchanging depending on the level of income of the individual. On theother hand, the government rules concerning spending and consumptionrate and the rate of employment plays a crucial role by lowering orincreasing the social mobility of individuals. It is the role of eachand every individual to ascertain that there is mobility change astimes goes. It can only be achieved if young people can multi-task byacquiring degrees and working. It implies that one would obtain thedegree without the student loan and thus when entering the labormarket there would be no deduction of the wage to repay the loan. Thepaper will account for the changes that were experienced in 1958 to1970, and explain the reason behind more mobility for individuals whowere born in 1958 than their counterparts who were born in 1970.

According to (Mavis,et al., 2007, p1) shows that before the 1970s the economy was at onit peak and investments grew strongly as compared from 1970s to 1980swhen the highest and the strongest consumption of household wasnoted. During this period, there was household consumption and stronggovernment consumption leading to poor management, and thus thesocial status of the individual was lowered. This is one of theaccountable factors that lead to change and decline ofintergenerational mobility in the United Kingdom. During the 1950s to1960s, investment grew strongly making the labor market to expand. It is obvious that when there is investment then there is a highincome that is generated making individuals maintain and increasestheir intergenerational mobility (Black and Devereux, 2010, p52). Thesocial mobility of individual will change significantly when thelabor market is open since there are investments going on. This isone of the notable aspects that lead to a more mobility forindividuals who were born in 1958 than those born in 1970.

Moreover, the nextfactor that is accountable for more mobility for those born in 1958and decline for those born in 1970 is the adult earnings forindividual born in that period (Bratberg and Nilsen, 2005, p30). Forinstance, in the above explanation where there was a notable aspectof strong investment implies that parents were linked with wealth andthus individuals born in that period had the possibility to beboosted with income to come up with income generating projects. Theindividuals born in the 1970s are associated with strong householdconsumption, and government consumption that results to incurring ofloss and thus the economy will be at a stagnant stage making thecitizens dig deeper in their pocket so that they can afford the basiccommodities. The people who were born 1958 depended on their parentincome either being at the age of 16 or those adults who were attheir 50 and 40 had the advantage to be educated or generate projectsthat boosted them (Corak, 2013, p30). It is imperative that theremust be a difference between the two individuals since one is linkedwith investments and thus has a high income while the other isassociated with high consumption rate indicating that there is nogrowth in the economy.

In the 1950s and in1960s the workers had increased the gross domestic product (GDP) ofUnited Kingdom and thus the government had the revenue to make theeconomy bearable by opening loan access to the young people and ordergeneration who were to invest and later return the fund to thegovernment so that it could boost other individuals to start incomegenerating projects (Isaacs and Sawhill, 2008, p51). Through theseprojects notable improvements have occurred regarding education andindustrialization due to the open market economy that was encouragedat that time. The labor market after that was competitive in the1950s due to investment opened up expansion to another internationalcommunity’s so that they could invest making the economy morestable regarding the revenue it earned from the trade. Thegovernment played a crucial role by opening the labor market andsetting the wage that individual was to be paid for working in theindustries.

In respect to that,the next major accountable factors that lead to the change of moremobility for those born in 1958 than those born in 1970 according toBlanden et al. (2004) is education background. The parents had theincome to educate their children, and others were well educatedmaking the intergenerational mobility successful. For instance, dueto investments and the an open labor market the parents were linkedwith a high social mobility making it possible to educated theirchildren up to university level without straining. The open labormarket economy played a crucial role in ensuring that poverty levelduring 1958 was significantly reduced. The intergenerational mobilityfrom 1950 to 1960 increased based on the fact that there was apositive change in the education where the parents were stableregarding income, and thus it had to be passed from them to theirchildren (Cremer and Donder, 2010, p17). The trend has been notedeven at the moment where the generation of those parents who werepoor in the 1970s has a chance for a bright future due to educationand other factors in their background. The education background in1958 had to be uplifted based on the fact that the economy wasflourishing, and the parents of individuals born in 1958 were welleducated and this implied that the intergenerational mobility couldnot decline (Jonsson, 1993, p43). The individuals born in the 1970sdid not rely on the parent income since the parents were associatedwith high consumption level, and thus poverty level was high. Itimplies that intergenerational mobility had to decline since thechildren had to work alone, and they could not depend on theirparents (Goldthorpe, 2014, p25).

Theintergenerational mobility declined over time due to employmentfluctuations. For instance, in 1971 up to date in the United Kingdomthe male employment decreased with 13 percent while the employmentfor female increased with 14 percent. It is an indication thatemployment among the working class individuals kept on changingmaking it an accountable factor that lead to more mobility forindividuals born in 1958 as compared to the decline of individualswho were born in 1970. This implies that females who are associatedwith child care had to balance between child care and work (Smeeding,2011, p16). The economy had to decline based on that the capableworking males did not get the employment opportunity. The femalesusually go for maternity leaves, and they do not like to engage onrisk jobs that are more paying. This implies that there is going tobe a decline of intergenerational mobility making the individuals whoborn in 1958 to have a more mobility than those born in the 1970s.The parents of individuals born in 1958 employment rate were stableand did not fluctuate since the economy depended on the investmentsof individuals (Gregg, Macmillan and Vittori, 2014, p30). It isimperative that they could afford to educate their children withoutany challenges, and the institutions were well developed tofacilitate quality and standardized education. Due to hard economictimes the parents of children born in 1970 did not have enough fundsto carry projects that would generate income due to the fluctuationof the employment. It means that sometimes an individual would beunemployed resulting to a hard economic situation for their families.The trend would continue if the children did not get the requirededucation so that there would be decrease of intergenerationalmobility. Unemployment contributes greatly to a decline of mobilityfor the individuals born in 1970 (Gesthuizen and Wolbers, 2010, p30).

The next accountablefactors that lead to change and more mobility for individuals born in1958 than those born in 1970 is the family income (Ermisch,Francesconi and Siedler, 2006, p 14). The entire family if it well-upregarding wealth contributes greatly in the social mobility of theentire family. If the family income is low, then it implies that theentire family has to undergo certain challenges. Family income helpsto increase the intergenerational mobility by being supportive to theextended family. The individuals born in 1958 were well exposed tofamily income that is above the set income index and thus they had tobe educated and operate businesses that linked then with an exposureto entrepreneurial activities. The self-employed individuals canattain their goals through the help of other members in the familyand thus the children will follow the steps set by the entire family(de Haas and Rodríguez, 2010, p12). The children born in 1970 werenot exposed to a stable economy and family income that couldencourage the children to depend on them. This is because of poorgovernance that leads to high growth in the consumption (Ichino, etal., 2011, p12). Due to high growth of consumption both to thecitizens and the government the economy did not flourish as expectedand thus the income that the family obtained was low as compared to1950s up to 1960s. The individuals born in 1958 were able to advancetheir education while still working and thus the labor market neededindividuals who are competent and have the experience to carry theroutines. Comparing with individuals who were born in 1970 it impliesthat some were educated but they did not have the required experienceso that they can be competent in the workplace. The differencebetween the family incomes resulted to more mobility for individualsborn in 1958 than individuals born in 1970 (Björklund and Jäntti,2009, p12). The intergenerational mobility had to decrease duringthat period due to such factors.

Through the familyincome, the children who are born in a well-up economy are preparedwell for the labor market since they have the idea of how to operatein the market due to exposure. The trend improves the futuregeneration on how they can manage the business. This trend willcontinue to the second and third generation, and thus the mobilitywill increase as the time goes on. The same notion applies whenchildren are given quality education (Barnett and Belfield, 2006,p17). The intergenerational mobility has to increase as time goes onbased on the fact that the parents or the family need to providesupport to the children by educating them and thus make their futurebe blight. The factor contributes greatly in the social mobilitysince with no education it implies that creative thinking andinnovative ideas cannot be achieved. The family income go hand inhand with education status of the individuals being in mind that ifyou cannot educate the children then the income level of the familyhave to decrease significantly (Mason, 2007, p17).

Additionally, thenext accountable factor for the change that caused more mobility forindividuals born in 1958 and a decrease for those born in 1970 arethe technology and industrialization. In the 1950s, industrializationand technology were being used in the companies and thus parents whowere linked with technological advancement could earn high income ascompared to those who were not educated (Dribe et al., 2015, p35).The difference has to occur in the social mobility based on the factthat they are aware of what is needed in the job market and thus theywill prepare their children with the required information. Theirchildren will enroll for university courses that are linked withtechnology so that they can compete with the labor market (Chetty andHendren, 2014, p12). On the other hand, the parents who are noteducated or they are not aware of industrialization and thecompetitive labor market implies that their children will be ondarkness, and one will just join the University to pursue a degreethat can help him to get employed. The differences between the twochildren will be noted in social mobility based on the fact that onehas been given the support in the labor market while the next is notgiven the required support so that he or she can be resilient in thelabor market (Chetty, et al., 2014, p35). It is the role of theparent’s to ascertain that supportive measures are established tothe children so that they will be competitive in the job market.

The last factor thataccounts for the decline of intergenerational mobility forindividuals born in 1970 as compared to more for the individuals bornin the 1958 is behavioral measures (Autor, 2014, p36). For instance,some individuals do not depend on their parents while other theycannot do without the support of the parents. This is a behavioralmeasure that an individual can rely on for the survival. Childrenborn in 1958 had the advantage than those born in 1970. For instance,those born in 1958 their parents had high income and they were ableto work and still advance their education while for those born in the1970 hard economic times were the order of the day (Li, et al., 2014,p36). It implies that some parents will educate the children whileothers will not be educated. This will indicate a difference in thesocial mobility between the two children who were born in 1958 and1970. The intergenerational mobility will decline for those childrenwho do not get the support from their parents.

Sociologicalperspectives

More mobility forindividuals who were born in 1985 than those born in 1970 relates tovertical and horizontal social mobility. For instance in the case ofindividuals who were born in 1958 who are associated with familyincome and good education background shows a vertical socialmobility. Those born in 1958 were able to get well paying jobs whichwill make the gap between those born in 1958 and 1970 to experiencewider gap in terms of wealthy and the opportunity they get. This willdepend on the level of education, family income and well paying jobs.The vertical mobility can either be upward or downward since he orshe is a working class individual. On the other hand, those who wereborn in 1970 will not have the advantage of obtaining well payingjobs like their counterparts since their parents did not have theincome to support and educate them based the economy was harsh.

The individuals whoare born in 1958 experience horizontal mobility based that they areeducated individuals than their counterparts who were born in 1970.The horizontal mobility works in a way that the individuals keep onchanging their occupation to ensure that they are going to obtaingreener pasture. For instance, due to the influence of their parentsthe individuals born in 1958 will have a higher social class. If oneis a nurse and finds other well paying job with the samequalification the social mobility of an individual will increase.This implies that individual is experiencing horizontal mobility.

Conclusion

It is the role ofparent to ensure that children get the standardized education so thatthey can be competitive in the labor market. For one to be employededucation is paramount since failure to educate them implies thatthey cannot be competitive in the open market economy. One of thefactors that are accountable for the decline of intergenerationalmobility among individuals born in 1958 and those born in 1970 is thefluctuation of employment rate in the open market economy.Additionally, unemployment contributes greatly to the decline ofsocial mobility. The second factor is educational inequalities thatdiffer according to the family income. A family with a high incomewill educate the children well, and they will attain courses that arecompetitive in the market (Olivetti and Paserman, 2013, p31). Afamily with low income will educate the children either in collegelevel and some will not be educated. Educational inequalities willresult to more mobility in a certain group of people while the otherwill decrease in the social mobility.

References

Autor, D. H. 2014. Skills, Education, and the Rise of EarningsInequality Among the ‘Other 99 Percent.’. Science,344(6186), 843-851.

Barnett, W. S., &amp Belfield, C. R. 2006. Early childhooddevelopment and social mobility. The future of children,16(2), 73-98.

Björklund, A., &amp Jäntti, M. 2009. Intergenerational incomemobility and the role of family background. Oxford Handbook ofEconomic Inequality, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Black, S., &amp Devereux, P. 2010. Recent developments inintergenerational mobility. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau ofEconomic Research.

Blanden, J., Gregg, P., &amp Macmillan, L. 2004. Accounting forIntergenerational Income Persistence: Noncognitive Skills, Abilityand Education*. The Economic Journal, 117(519),C43-C60.

Bratberg, E., &amp Nilsen. 2005. Intergenerational mobility:Trends across the earnings distribution.

Chetty, R., &amp Hendren, N. 2014. Where is the land ofopportunity? the geography of intergenerational mobility in theUnited States. Cambridge, Mass: National Bureau of EconomicResearch.

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., &amp Saez, E. 2014. Where isthe land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobilityin the United States (No. w19843). National Bureau of EconomicResearch.

Corak, M. 2013. Income inequality, equality of opportunity, andintergenerational mobility. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,79-102.

Cremer, H., &amp Donder, P. 2010. Education and social mobility.Munich: CESifo.

de Haas, H., &amp Rodríguez, F. 2010. Mobility and humandevelopment: introduction. Journal of Human Development andCapabilities, 11(2), 177-184.

Dribe, M., Helgertz, J., &amp Van de Putte, B. 2015. Did socialmobility increase during the industrialization process? A micro-levelstudy of a transforming community in southern Sweden 1828–1968.Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 41,25-39.

Ermisch, J., Francesconi, M., &amp Siedler, T. 2006.Intergenerational Mobility and Marital Sorting*. The EconomicJournal, 116(513), 659-679.

Gesthuizen, M., &amp Wolbers, M. H. 2010. Employment transitions inthe Netherlands, 1980–2004: Are low educated men subject tostructural or cyclical crowding out?. Research in SocialStratification and Mobility, 28(4), 437-451.

Goldthorpe, J. H. 2014. The role of education in intergenerationalsocial mobility: Problems from empirical research in sociology andsome theoretical pointers from economics. Rationality and Society,26(3), 265-289.

Gregg, P., Macmillan, L., &amp Vittori, C. 2014. Moving towardsestimating lifetime intergenerational economic mobility in the UK(No. 13/332). Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.

Ichino, A., Karabarbounis, L., &amp Moretti, E. 2011. The politicaleconomy of intergenerational income mobility. Economic Inquiry,49(1), 47-69.

Isaacs, J., &amp Sawhill, I. 2008. Getting ahead or losingground: Economic mobility in America. Washington, D.C.: BrookingsInstitution :.

Jonsson, J. 1993. Education, social mobility, and socialreproduction in Sweden: Patterns and changes. Stockholm: Almquist&amp Wiksell Intern.

Li, Z., Liu, L., &amp Wang, M. 2014. Intergenerational incomemobility and public education spending: Evidence from China. Childrenand Youth Services Review, 40, 89-97.

Mason, P. L. (2007). Intergenerational mobility and interracialinequality: the return to family values. Industrial relations: ajournal of economy and society, 46(1), 51-80.

Mavis, A., Allan, F., Geoff, T. and Gavin, W. 2007. OfficialStatistical Publications and Economic Statistics. Economic andLabor Market Review.HMSO: London.

Olivetti, C., &amp Paserman, M. 2013. In the name of the son (andthe daughter) intergenerational mobility in the United States,1850-1930. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of EconomicResearch.

Smeeding, T. 2011. Persistence, privilege, and parenting: Thecomparative study of intergenerational mobility. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Torche, F. 2013. How do we characteristically measure and analyzeintergenerational mobility?.

Torche, F. 2014. Intergenerational Mobility and Inequality: The LatinAmerican Case. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 619-642.