"U.S. ranks near the bottom in six categories that contribute to a socially just market economy"

In the past half century, the 50-plus cohort have seen a lot of changes come, and while I suspect every generation gets to say that, I'm wondering if, as an American, my Baby Boomer generation has seen both the very best and the very worst of changes to impact our country at this point in our young history.

I'll leave it up to the reader to determine what the very best of those changes might be, since they are so subjective. 

But I think many of us will agree that some of the very worst of the changes that have come in our time are related to issues of social justice, income equality/poverty, and an overall decline in the standard of living for a very large number of us. 

The statistics are sobering.  Even if they're skewed, they remind us that something has gone pretty damned wrong and the American Dream seems to have morphed into the American Nightmare for a good portion of our citizens.  

I'm an eternal optimist, and I have no doubt that we can change the course of American history.  But I'm also a realist and understand that change is uncomfortable, hard, and most of all, it takes time, lots of time.  

The social justice movement needs to be ready for the long haul here; the results are going to be incremental, and the battles will be hard fought; I think we've all seen what we're up against and the lengths those who enjoy the status quo are willing to go to to keep it that way.  

But I refuse to believe we all are, at our core, "basically selfish, driven by fear of death and the hope of personal gain."  I think people are instead good, driven by a desire to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated, and have a sense of fairness, compassion and love for each other. 

To believe otherwise invokes a future that I have seen glimpses of in the past 50 years and know it's not a future I care to be a part of...

U.S. Ranks Poorly on International Social Justice Index

Posted on October 31, 2011 by Michael Morrison

I’m beginning to feel like Talthybius, a Greek character and bearer of bad news. A cross-national comparison study, “Social Justice in the OECD – How Do the Member States Compare?,” released last week examines social justice in Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

Here’s the bad news — unfortunately the U.S. ranks near the bottom in six categories that contribute to a socially just market economy. Specifically the U.S. ranked 27^th on a social justice index, ahead of only Greece, Chile, Mexico and Turkey. A total of thirty-one OECD countries were involved in the study.

The following figure summarizes country rankings on an index of social justice comprised from data on 1) poverty prevention, 2) access to education, 3) labor market inclusion, 4) social cohesion and non-discrimination, 5) health, and 6) inter-generational justice. (Each contributing factor to the overall index has sub-categories. See the appendix at the end of the post to identify each factor’s sub-categories.)

Nordic countries — Iceland (1^st), Denmark (2^nd), Norway (3^rd), Sweden (4^th), Finland (5^th) and Sweden (6^th) — have the highest social justice rankings.
Notably, Canada ranks in the top 10, placing 9^th overall. At the bottom of the scale are Turkey (31^st), Mexico (30^th), Chile (20^th), Greece (28^th), United States (27^th) and Spain (26^th).

Factors which adversely affected the U.S. overall rank included relatively low scores in poverty prevention (29^th), health (23^rd), access to education (20^th), and inequalities in income distribution (28^th).

Conclusion

Again, bad news for our country. However, we have a choice. We can bury our head in the sand and ignore the evidence or we can evaluate the evidence and develop a collective conviction to implement policies to make our country, using President Reagan’s classic phrase, a “shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.” 

Reality is socially constructed and we have free will. I join the incompatibilists who accept free will and deny determinism, holding the view that some form of indeterminism is true, meaning that it is possible to change undesirable societal conditions, albeit it’s no easy task!

Appendix

Here’s a brief summary of the factors and sub-categories which comprise the social justice index.

The Decline in Economic Mobility: An American Crisis and Opportunity

Posted on October 30, 2011 by Michael Morrison

The researchers at the Economic Mobility Project do excellent analyses tracking trends and factors relating to economic mobility in the U.S. If you are interested or concerned about economic or social mobility in America I would strongly recommend examining the research at their site.

As a teaser to encourage you to go to the Economic Mobility Project I’m presenting a few graphs below as an anticipatory set of findings available from their research.

This following graph demonstrates the U.S. ranks behind European countries in relative mobility, debunking the idea that America has the greatest mobility in the developed world.


The next figure supports a known fear that we are living in an age where many people lead a less prosperous life than their parents’ generation. Specifically, men in their 30s have less income then men in their fathers’ generation.


Why did this happen? Many reasons can be identified for causing the trend: globalization, the decline of unions, technology advancements, skill-biased inequalities, tax policies and the gap in productivity (output) and what is paid the American worker for that production. This last item is examined in more detail, identifying three time periods depicting a changing relationship between median income growth and productivity gains, measured as productivity per hour.



From 1947 to 1974 productivity and median income grew together (Figure 7). A divergence between productivity gains and median income growth occurred during 1974-2005 (Figure 8), with a huge widening occurring in the years 2000-2005 (Figure 9).

The Center for American Progress also has considerable evidence reflecting downward economic mobility trends in the U.S. In their report, Understanding Mobility in America, a number of key findings relating to intergenerational mobility are reported, including the following:

• Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
• Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
• Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.
• African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.
• The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.
• After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.
• By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.

In addition, the Center for American Progress examined short-run, year-to-year income movements and reached the following conclusions:

• The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91 and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04.
• Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of households who experienced significant downward short-term mobility. The share that saw their incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to 16.6 percent in 2003-04.
• The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income, while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04, the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510 and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile saw no increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top decile ($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large negative income shocks.
• For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led to an increase in the frequency of large negative income shocks, which may be expected to translate to an increase in financial distress.
• The median household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04, a year when GDP grew strongly, than it was it was during the recession of 1990-91.
• Upward short-term mobility for those in the bottom quintile has improved since 1990-91, with no significant offsetting increase in downward short-term mobility.
• Households whose adult members all worked more than 40 hours per week for two years in a row were more upwardly mobile in 1990-91 and 1997-98 than households who worked fewer hours. Yet this was not true in 2003-04, suggesting that people who work long hours on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families.

The Social Security Administration confirms disturbing trends in median income in the U.S. The SSA reports in 2010 the median income was $26,364, just slightly above the official poverty level of $22,025 for a family of four. The narrow gap between the poverty level and median income occurred as the number of people with annual incomes of $1 million or more rocketed upward, rising 18 percent in 2010 compared to 2009.

Conclusion

More and more evidence reveals increasing inequality and declining economic mobility in America. The American Dream is fading during our lifetime. One of America’s greatest achievements has been the growth of a large, robust middle class. This glorious and historic achievement is waning, producing a challenge to reverse diminution of American quality of life. Querulous tones among the two major parties aren’t productive and short-term forecasts for bi-partisan solutions aren’t encouraging. The existing environment in Washington reminds me of my kindergarten teacher asking, “can’t you kids just get along?”

The question is, are we up to the task to restore the Dream or will complacency, gridlock and downright greed drive a wider gap between the great American middle class and the relative few who have achieved incredible wealth.

Every parent I know desires a better life for their children and grand children than what we, the baby-boomers, enjoyed. Redoubtable baby-boomers have shaped the nation in many ways. Perhaps this era represents our greatest challenge and opportunity. If I’ve added the Census Bureau’s figures correctly there are over 80 million baby-boomers living (2010). Eighty million committed baby-boomers could make a significant  difference in political and economic outcomes if we just ask ourselves, “is a proposed policy in the best interests of our children and grand children’s future?”
Get involved in a constructive manner! (Same goes for generations labeled Generation X, Generation Y, also known as the Millennial Generation (or Millennials), Generation Next, Net Generation and Echo Boomers.)