I can't find a report on the study Bill Maher is referencing, but assuming that it's out there. That's (1) really sad and (2) not suprising.



Also, if someone can find a link to the study, I'd like to see it.

It seems like the French youth of North African decent are having a fabulous time climbing the social ladder. Oh wait, they aren't going anywhere.

You found an anecdotal story. The entire study must be wrong!

Don't know if this is what you are looking for B, but it might help explain what you are saying. I, too, heard this on Bill Maher, it sounds like what he is talking about.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-08.htm

Published on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 by the Globe and Mail / Canada
Worlds Apart on the Vision Thing
by Jeremy Rifkin

In a partisan America, where virtually every value has become fair game for criticism and controversy, there is one value that remains sacrosanct: the American Dream -- the idea that anyone, regardless of the circumstances to which they're born, can make of their lives as they choose, by dint of diligence, determination and hard work. The American Dream unites Americans across ethnic and class divides and gives shared purpose and direction to the American way of life.

The problem is, one-third of all Americans, according to a recent U.S. national survey, no longer believe in the American Dream. Some have lost faith because they worked hard all their lives only to find hardship and despair at the end of the line. Others question the very dream itself, arguing that its underlying tenets have become less relevant in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. For the first time, the American Dream no longer serves as the rallying point for everyone in America.

A new European Dream, meanwhile, is beginning to capture the world's imagination. That dream has now been codified in the form of a draft European constitution, and Europeans are currently debating whether to ratify its contents and accept its underlying values as the core values of a new Europe. Europe's vision of the future may have greater resonance -- a kind of grand reversal, if you will, of what occurred 200 years ago when millions of Europeans looked to America in search of a new vision.

Twenty-five nations, representing 455 million people, have joined together to create a "United States" of Europe. Like the United States of America, this vast political entity has its own empowering myth. Although still in its adolescence, the European Dream is the first transnational vision, one far better suited to the next stage in the human journey. Europeans are beginning to adopt a new global consciousness that extends beyond, and below, the borders of their nation-states, deeply embedding them in an increasingly interconnected world.

Americans are used to thinking of their country as the most successful on Earth. That's no longer the case: The European Union has grown to become the third-largest governing institution in the world. Though its land mass is half the size of the continental United States, its $10.5-trillion (U.S.) gross domestic product now eclipses the U.S. GDP, making it the world's largest economy. The EU is already the world's leading exporter and largest internal trading market. Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European; only 50 are U.S. companies.

The comparisons are even more revealing when it comes to the quality of life. In the EU, for example, there are 322 physicians per 100,00 people; in the United States, it's 279 physicians per 100,000 people. The United States ranks 26th among the industrial nations in infant mortality, well below the EU average. The average lifespan in the 15 most developed E.U. countries is now 78.2 years, compared to 76.9 years in the United States.

When it comes to wealth distribution -- a crucial measure of a country's ability to deliver on the promise of prosperity -- the United States ranks 24th among the industrial nations. All 18 of the most developed European countries have less income inequality between rich and poor. There are now more poor people living in America than in the 16 European nations for which data are available.

America is also more dangerous: The U.S. homicide rate is four times higher than the EU's. Even more disturbing, the rates of childhood homicides, suicides and firearms-related deaths in the United States exceed those of the other 25 wealthiest nations. Although the United States has only 4 per cent of the world's population, it contains one-quarter of the world's entire prison population.

Europeans often say Americans "live to work," while they "work to live." The average paid vacation time in Europe is now six weeks a year. By contrast, Americans, on the average, receive only two weeks. When one considers what makes a people great and what constitutes a better way of life, Europe is beginning to surpass America.

Nowhere is the contrast between the European Dream and the American Dream sharper than when it comes to the definition of personal freedom.

For Americans, freedom has long been associated with autonomy; the more wealth one amasses, the more independent one is in the world. One is free by becoming self-reliant and an island onto oneself. With wealth comes exclusivity, and with exclusivity comes security.

For Europeans, freedom is not found in autonomy but in community. It's about belonging, not belongings.

The American Dream puts an emphasis on economic growth, personal wealth and independence. The new European Dream focuses more on sustainable development, quality of life and interdependence. The American Dream pays homage to the work ethic and religious heritage. The European Dream, more attuned to leisure, is secular to the core. The American Dream depends on assimilation. The European Dream, by contrast, is based on preserving one's cultural identity in a multicultural world.

Americans are more willing to use military force to protect what we perceive to be our vital self-interests. Europeans favor diplomacy, economic assistance to avert conflict, and peacekeeping operations to maintain order. The American Dream is deeply personal and little concerned with the rest of humanity. The European Dream is more systemic in nature and, therefore, more bound to the welfare of the planet.

That isn't to say that Europe is a utopia. Europeans have become increasingly hostile toward newly arrived immigrants and asylum-seekers. Anti-Semitism is on the rise again, as is discrimination against Muslims and religious minorities. While Europeans berate America for having a trigger-happy foreign policy, they are more than willing, on occasion, to let the U.S. armed forces safeguard European security interests. And even its supporters say the Brussels-based EU's governing machinery is a maze of bureaucratic red tape, aloof from the European citizens they supposedly serve.

The point, however, is not whether the Europeans are living up to their dream. We Americans have never fully lived up to our own dream. What's important is that a new generation of Europeans is creating a radical new vision for the future -- one better suited to meet the challenges of an increasingly globalizing world in the 21st century.

Canada finds itself caught between these two 21st-century superpowers. Sharing a common border with the most powerful economy in the world makes Canada more vulnerable to U.S. economic and political influence, and some observers even suggest that Canada might be forced eventually to become part of a greater American transnational space. The North American free-trade agreement may be the first step down that road.

On the other hand, Canadians' own deeply felt values are more closely attuned to the emerging European Dream. Could Canada lobby to become part of the European Union? In a world of instant communications, fast transportation and global economic integration, the prospect of Canada's enjoying at least a special associational partnership with the EU is not inconceivable. The EU and Canada laid the foundation for such a possibility in their 1996 joint political declaration on EU-Canada relations, designed to focus on economic, trade, security and other transnational issues. Canada could edge ever closer to its European soulmate in the decades to come.

Jeremy Rifkin, founder and president of the Washington-based Foundation on Economic Trends, is the author of 14 books, including his latest, 'The European Dream'.

(I just did a Google search of you topic heading, that might help)

That sounds like similar findings, but I don't think Bill Maher would reference a 2 1/2 year old study, especially with the word "new." He's definitely too careful for that.

Once you think your dick is of certain length, it's hard to to accept a more modest reality.

The American ideal is being muddied not by situational struggles, but by an eroding attachment to the struggle and belief that made it strong. A nation that works hard to provide continued invincible dominance to its business leaders while allowing inexperienced fools to make the most crucial decisions for its childrens' education...a nation that goes home to spastic television entertainment and escapist video games...is a nation that is ready to pass on its power, glory, and influence to more eager hands.

Are you saying that the idea of the American Dream has become a victim of its own success, or that the decadence that we see today is just a more amplified version of a decadence that has always existed?

I always knew the American dream was a load of garbage. Apparently retards still believe in it though.

How is the belief that persistence, hard work, and risk taking will give you a better life a load of garbage.
I must be one of those idiots who believed in it so much that it worked.
Persistence, hard work and risk taking is the only formula for success I know. It works regardless of what you are looking for success in. I guess that makes all successful people idiots in your book.

I trust commondreams like I trust Bu$h.


I have never seen a study, that's not on a very slanted website, that says class mobility is lower in the US than elsewhere. I think Bill has gone way to far into the Rush/Hannity world of telling his audience what they want to hear. And they definitely want to hear that the reason they are not rich is "because of the system" and not because of their own failings.

Can't someone find this study so I don't have to be at the mercy of broken_iris' opinion of Bill Maher and/or Common Dreams?

I think both of those can co-exist and both are probably true.

Jesus, this was hard to find!



http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressA ... report.htm

I'm not saying that, and it appears that France wasn't listed as one of the countries that is faring better than the US and Britain. My point was that the European social system also fails people, more specifically the newer, non European immigrants. I just don't think the solution is more government social programs, because those only seem to work out well in northern European countries, and we already have enough of a budget mess.

I read an article in the last two weeks that reviewed a study that showed the biggest factor in achieving success is persistance. It also noted that those coming from a middle class or higher backgrounds had more persistance than kids from lower economic classes.

So it seems to me you either buy into the thery and work hard and keep working. Or you adopt a self-defeating attitude and blame the system.

All I know is that at my job, you literally have to put in your notice and have another job lined up (so that you'll really quit) if you want to negotiate for more than the 4% cap on yearly raises. I plan to be doing this shortly, because I'm seriously underpaid.

Unless you get a promotion, you can't even get a raise at my job. They have merit raises maybe once every 4 years. I've only been there 2 and in that time was promoted last year, so I got an increase. After this year that's going to be a problem for me though.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressA ... report.htm[/quote]


Eh.

Study doesn't address the effects of immigration of class mobility. Of course countries with low illegal and low migrant-worker immigration will have higher mobility. How are low income Americans suppose to improve if illegal immigrants take all the jobs @ lower wages? Control for that and I'll believe it.

thanks for the insight. it was nice of you to pry yourself away from your barbara ehrenreich book long enough to contribute.



interesting that the article does not say that social mobility is the most difficult in these two countries. it says only that the two nations are plagued by low social mobility. outside of the correlation between education and class mobility (see below), it does little to explain why such static social mobility exists.

it's an important distinction.



if i read this correctly, it basically makes the claim that those in the middle and upper classes account for the greatest mobility between classes (due to greater educational opportunity) while those in the lower classes seem mired in such a state, permanently relegated to a life of laborious nothingness.

*detour warning*

the most recent issue of the economist has an interesting article documenting how the complexion of london's neighborhoods has and hasn't changed since 1898. they found that the majority of those sections that were affluent in 1898 were also affluent today, perhaps moreso. additionally, many working class areas that were described as "middling" or "well-off" have since become either "well-off" or "wealthy."

most interesting, however, is that nearly all of the areas described as "poor" in 1898 remain poor today. the lack of growth is striking (they even have sweet color-coded maps that make the constrast that much more pronounced).

why? their conclusion (and one i happen to agree with): in 1898, the least well-off generally resided in tracts of government-provided social housing. in 2001, the least well off also reside in similar housing tenements. such poverty has been "fossilized."

*detour over*

in the long run, incentives matter. government provided goods and services, particularly the big stuff (housing, education, etc.), can erode one's initiative to, well, be socially mobile. after all, if the choice is between not working at all and making the equivalent of, say, $20,000 and working 40+ hours per week and making, say $25,000, it should be of little surprise that many choose the former. a lower rate of social mobility is often a function of people rationally responding to the perverse incentives created by governments and their "anti-poverty" crusades.

methinks this phenomenon of low social mobility is most observable in nations that have institutionalized welfare states, thus facilitating inter-generational poverty.