当今美国穷人难以改善他们的社会地位

作者:路不平  于 2012-1-6 01:31 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村

通用分类:村内互动|已有15评论

经济恶化,就业不振,美国梦在破碎。
比起其他发达国家,美国穷人更难于改善他们的社会地位。

说流动性差,是指家庭背景对个人成长有较大的影响。
在近邻加拿大,生活于社会底层10%的孩子,长大后依有16%停留在那里;在美国是22%;而生长于顶层10%的加拿大孩子,长大后依有18%停留在那里;在美国是26%。

作为个人,美国的穷人要更努力,方能脱贫。

这是纽约时报上一篇文章 Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs 所惊醒的。

转部分如下:

[Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs]

WASHINGTON — Benjamin Franklin did it. Henry Ford did it. And American life is built on the faith that others can do it, too: rise from humble origins to economic heights. “Movin’ on up,” George Jefferson-style, is not only a sitcom song but a civil religion.

But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement “up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.” National Review, a conservative thought leader, wrote that “most Western European and English-speaking nations have higher rates of mobility.” Even Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who argues that overall mobility remains high, recently wrote that “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”

Liberal commentators have long emphasized class, but the attention on the right is largely new.

“It’s becoming conventional wisdom that the U.S. does not have as much mobility as most other advanced countries,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think you’ll find too many people who will argue with that.”

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents’ educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.

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.

By emphasizing the influence of family background, the studies not only challenge American identity but speak to the debate about inequality. While liberals often complain that the United States has unusually large income gaps, many conservatives have argued that the system is fair because mobility is especially high, too: everyone can climb the ladder. Now the evidence suggests that America is not only less equal, but also less mobile.

John Bridgeland, a former aide to President George W. Bush who helped start Opportunity Nation, an effort to seek policy solutions, said he was “shocked” by the international comparisons. “Republicans will not feel compelled to talk about income inequality,” Mr. Bridgeland said. “But they will feel a need to talk about a lack of mobility — a lack of access to the American Dream.”

......


高兴

感动

同情

搞笑

难过

拍砖

支持
3

鲜花

刚表态过的朋友 (3 人)

发表评论 评论 (15 个评论)

4 回复 sousuo 2012-1-6 01:34
中国呢?

什么比例?
4 回复 路不平 2012-1-6 02:56
sousuo: 中国呢?

什么比例?
对政府施政的满意度:中国>70%;美国<20%。
6 回复 解滨 2012-1-6 02:57
这是美国 FXXX left wing liberal 的胡说八道! 我来美国时不就是个穷人吗,相信贝壳村很多人来美国时也是穷人,后来不都成了小康?  

美国穷人大多数是因为懒才无法进入中产阶级。 上小学、中学时懒,不愿学习,考不出好成绩来。 进不了大学也就一辈子靠最低工资过日子。 打工时不努力,无法得到提拔,又不愿意吃苦自己创业。 很多大学生学的是软学科,如社会学、经济学、音乐,也不容易找到好工作。
4 回复 sousuo 2012-1-6 03:01
我问的不是这个,而是文章中提到的从底层到上层的比例。

但为什么人民从令人满意的地方往不令人们满意的地方迁移呢?
4 回复 路不平 2012-1-6 03:07
解滨: 这是美国 FXXX left wing liberal 的胡说八道! 我来美国时不就是个穷人吗,相信贝壳村很多人来美国时也是穷人,后来不都成了小康?  

美国穷人大多数是因为懒才 ...
"美国 FXXX left wing liberal "是美国的主流。
6 回复 路不平 2012-1-6 03:14
sousuo: 我问的不是这个,而是文章中提到的从底层到上层的比例。

但为什么人民从令人满意的地方往不令人们满意的地方迁移呢?
"从底层到上层的比例",我找到了会告诉你。
第二个问题,不知你指的是什么?
我问过一些来美新移民,有的是面子问题,;有的是真以为这里是天堂;有的是不服输,想来美闯出一片天。
5 回复 sousuo 2012-1-6 03:39
同样的原因,为什么没有反方向的?

说的不是海龟呀。
6 回复 路不平 2012-1-6 03:57
sousuo: 同样的原因,为什么没有反方向的?

说的不是海龟呀。
你不厚道啊。
同样的960平方公里,一边是3亿人,一边是14亿人,人均自然资源就差很远。
再说了,懒,是人的本性呢。
3 回复 sousuo 2012-1-6 04:09
才明白,原来懒人都跑了。

可那边的懒人怎么就发展出一个可以容纳其他懒人饿地方呢?

日本比我们人口还密吧,也许他们不懒。
5 回复 路不平 2012-1-6 04:28
sousuo: 才明白,原来懒人都跑了。

可那边的懒人怎么就发展出一个可以容纳其他懒人饿地方呢?

日本比我们人口还密吧,也许他们不懒。
嘿嘿,您不明白的事还很多...
3 回复 sousuo 2012-1-6 04:47
不是,这些在我都不是问题的。

只是到了你的逻辑底下,这就都变的不明白了,
5 回复 xinsheng 2012-1-6 09:35
知道中产挤进上层的比例吗?这个恐怕很低很低。
7 回复 路不平 2012-1-6 22:03
xinsheng: 知道中产挤进上层的比例吗?这个恐怕很低很低。
美国的中产,日子很不好过
3 回复 路不平 2012-1-6 22:03
sousuo: 不是,这些在我都不是问题的。

只是到了你的逻辑底下,这就都变的不明白了,
你是聪明人
1 回复 sousuo 2012-1-6 22:13
路不平: 你是聪明人
正常人而已

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

关于本站 | 隐私政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 | 刊登广告 | 转手机版 | APP下载

Copyright © 2001-2025 海外华人中文门户:倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. 更新:GMT+8, 2025-4-16 17:51

倍可亲服务器位于美国圣何塞、西雅图和达拉斯顶级数据中心,为更好服务全球网友特统一使用京港台时间

返回顶部