Social Mobility in the U.S

Social mobility in the United States refers to the ability of individuals or groups to move between different social classes and economic levels. It is often seen as a key component of the American Dream, which embodies the hope for a better life through hard work and opportunity. Social mobility can occur in various forms, including upward mobility (moving to a higher social class), downward mobility (moving to a lower class), and lateral mobility (moving within the same class). Two primary concepts in studying social mobility are structural mobility, which arises from changes in the economy affecting groups, and circulation mobility, which relates to individual movements between social strata without altering the overall class structure.

Despite the American narrative of being a "land of opportunity," there are significant barriers to social mobility. Factors such as educational access, neighborhood conditions, and economic inequality can restrict upward movement, especially for children in low-income families. Studies show that many Americans often attain similar social statuses to their parents, suggesting that intergenerational mobility is limited. Additionally, the effects of personal relationships and networks are emerging as influential in shaping an individual's sense of social mobility. Understanding these dynamics is crucial to assessing the broader implications of social mobility in a diverse and evolving American society.

Published in: 2023

By: Auerbach, Michael P.

Subject Terms

Social Mobility in the U.S.

Abstract

Social mobility—or the pursuit of a better life—is a priority in any modern society, particularly capitalistic societies. As the exemplar of international capitalism, the United States has long exuded how upward mobility can occur for present and future generations. This paper looks at the permutations of social mobility and offers a detailed portrait of how it functions in American society.

Overview

Political campaigns, particularly those for the presidency, can be both delicate and volatile. A misconstrued comment or image can become political fodder for opponents and a death knell for a campaign. Some comments, in particular, resonate with the American electorate. In the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan stood at a podium opposite the beleaguered incumbent, Jimmy Carter, and asked voters a simple question: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" With a stagnant economy, high inflation, an embassy hostage standoff, and an energy crisis, the question was purely rhetorical (Wirthlin, 2004). Decades later, its impact is still felt in presidential elections. In the twentieth century believe that the country's leadership is responsible for making their lives significantly and quantifiably better (Wirthlin, 2004).

This desire for improvement, or upward social mobility, is part of what is construed by “The American Dream.” Many Americans also experience horizontal or downward social mobility as they move into lateral or lower social strata. Regardless of direction, social mobility is an integral part of American society. This paper looks at the permutations.

Social Mobility. Sociologists define social mobility as "the movement of individuals and groups between different class positions as a result of changes in occupation, wealth, or income" (Giddens, 2007). They also identify six types of social mobility, two of which are structural mobility and circulation mobility. Structural mobility refers to movement between social classes that occurs as a result of a change in a society, such as an economic expansion. Structural mobility, as the name suggests, is not attributable to factors particular to individual people or groups, but rather to environmental conditions that affect an entire population.

Circulation mobility, on the other hand, is more individual in focus. It refers to movement between social classes that is attributable to factors particular to individual people. With circulation mobility, no class is enlarged or diminished; rather, the class structure remains stable while individuals rise or fall within it. Circulation mobility is also called exchange mobility because, in it, individuals simply exchange positions with one another, rather than rise or fall as a group. Oftentimes, this type of mobility occurs as a result of an individual's talents, efforts, or opportunities, or lack thereof. Societies that have a high degree of circulation mobility are said to have a high degree of equality, since, in these societies, individuals can move into higher social strata.

Sociologists continue to debate whether these two concepts should be treated separately in the study of social mobility. As an individual's social status changes, they may it useful to take advantage of structural changes. A more progressive perspective of social mobility in the United States allows for an overlap between social mobility and structural mobility as part of a larger paradigm.

Job Prospects. In any capitalistic society, one of the first steps in achieving upward social mobility is gainful employment. Most Americans believe that a well-paying job and a better life can be obtained through drive, ambition, and skill. Historically, when one has viewed the number of available jobs in the US in comparison to the numbers in developing countries, the American dream has appeared viable. Certainly, many people do move upward into better jobs and higher social strata when economies enlarge and diversify.

There are, however, reasons to question the United States' reputation as the "land of opportunity." Social mobility depends not just on the number of well-paying jobs but also on the number of individuals who move into higher-paying positions. If growth is widespread enough to ensure that a large cross-section of the population can ascend, then upward social mobility is considered high. Conversely, if only some of the population is moving upward and others remain at the same level, then upward social mobility is stunted.

A key point emerges from a study of the United States economy in the twenty-first century. The nation has experienced growth in several important industries, such as technology, research and development, health care, and even government. Nonetheless, because many of these industries require a certain skill set or educational background, not every American can take advantage of this prosperity.

When one takes this factor into account, a different picture of American social mobility takes shape. In fact, although there have been many economic booms in America during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the period during which upward social mobility reached its highest point was immediately following the Great Depression. When the US finally emerged from this economic downturn, a tremendous number of Americans seized on countless professional opportunities and found themselves immediately moving into a higher social and economic standing (Beller & Hout, 2006).

The point to be gleaned here is that social mobility as a general concept does not simply review the accomplishments of one or even several samples of the overall society. Rather, it acts on the premise that all individuals operate on an equitable plane—if they are able to move upward or laterally in large numbers, then sociologists see an appreciable growth in social mobility. The US has experienced such growth, due in large part to its diverse industrial composition and ability to recover relatively quickly from economic crises.

Geographic Positioning. Over the course of the twentieth century, much has occurred in the United States that has encouraged movement to different locales. Many baby boomers, for example, have traveled extensively throughout the world, while their parents either curbed travel before and during World War II or only traveled through combat deployments.

Throughout human history, men and women have traveled to different geographic regions in pursuit of better opportunities to increase their incomes and reduce their cost of living. For example, people have often migrated to cities because jobs were more plentiful, it was easier to travel to their workplaces, and more resources were available to ensure a comfortable lifestyle.

The technological advances that occurred in the late twentieth century in the US and elsewhere have added a new dimension to the traditional view of social mobility. Many individuals continue to physically move to regions where job opportunities are more plentiful. However, the fact that so much of business in the modern American economy can be conducted from thousands of miles away means that a new distinction must be made between movement and mobility. The first of these terms is indicative of physical transmission, while the latter may not necessarily entail any sort of relocation (Kaufmann, 2006). In a country that has helped to create and integrate the global economy via modern technology, the US seems poised to serve as an interesting case study in the divining of these two terms that, at one time, seemed clearly one in the same.

Economic Opportunities. If one were to ask a sample of American citizens the top reason they would like to move upward in society, the vast majority would cite higher income. To some degree, social mobility is dependent upon an individual's actions. Those seeking to move into higher social strata must develop and hone their skills, receive career training, take advantage of available government services, and work diligently to move upward in their chosen industries. Still, it is not uncommon for these resources and opportunities to be available to some, but not others. Inequity is an ongoing issue in the US, one that often prevents individuals from moving into a higher stratum and achieving the same dreams as others. Some individuals may attend better public school systems or attend private schools. Others may have access to better public services or even find themselves in a geographic area that is more conducive to social mobility than other areas.

Research has also consistently shown that the physical neighborhood and community that a child grows up in have an inevitable impact upon the potential for social mobility. As reported by the Pew Research Center in 2012, residential segregation according to income has increased over the years, solidifying the reality that children born into low-income families usually grow up in low-income areas. According to the study, 28 percent of households with lower incomes were located in majority lower-income census tracts. Some of the difficulties experienced by children developing in such disadvantaged neighborhoods cannot be easily overcome, even through later relocation (Smith, 2014).

Indeed, researchers studying intergenerational mobility have found that families' social statuses tend to remain the same over time in the US (Mazumder, 2007). That is, as children grow up, they tend to attain the same social status as their parents and grandparents did. Other studies suggest that children may even attain lower statuses than their parents in contemporary American society (Mazumder, 2007). These findings have led many comparative sociologists and the media to call into question the idea of the US as a true "land of opportunity" (Mazumder, 2007). While President Barack Obama’s state of the union address in 2014 specifically highlighted income and opportunity inequality as major issues for the country, studies, including one conducted by economists at Harvard University that same year, have claimed that social mobility in the United States has remained relatively the same, sparking further debate (“Mobility, measured,” 2014).

Further Insights

Comparing Generations. One of the most effective ways of assessing social mobility in the US is by comparing the status of individuals with that of their parents. In this sense, President Reagan might have asked, "Are you better off today than your parents were at your age?"

Indeed, much has happened in modern US history, and these changes are important indicators of the evolution of the American experience. In the twenty-first century, Americans are living longer and having fewer children than past generations of Americans. At the same time, there are fewer government services available than in decades past, largely due to a much more complex socioeconomic environment (Antonucci, Jackson, & Biggs, 2007).

To understand intergenerational mobility in the US, one must understand the generations themselves. Americans of the twenty-first century are as diverse as the situations and incidents that defined them. Baby boomers, born in the early 1940s through 1960, are the products of parents who fought in World War II and whose postwar dedication to raising a well-groomed, well-heeled family inadvertently gave rise to a spirit of independence and rebelliousness. Members of generation X, born in the 1961–81 timeframe, are also the products of the Cold War, a roller coaster–like economy, and a resulting lack of government assistance programs (Howe & Strauss, 2007). Similarly, the millenials, or members of generation Y, who were born in the 1980s and 1990s, grew up in an era of economic growth, but also wage stagnation, growing public debt, and widening wealth disparity, which culminated in the Great Recession and its concomitant job loss and devaluation of homes (Girod & Shapiro, 2012; Ebeling, 2013). Even the economic conditions for each generation created singularities that distinguished the varying ages being compared. Those who lived in times of economic growth and prosperity have a different outlook on life than those whose lives developed during periods of stagnation and negative growth.

Even though each generation is in many ways unique and incomparable, the common traits of each generation can be used to review the changes (or lack thereof) that have occurred in the passage of time. This article next looks at some of the changes that have occurred between generations and their impact on social mobility in the United States.

Intragenerational Mobility in the U.S. Thus far, this paper has discussed social mobility in terms of how an individual takes action to move into a different stratum. In the previous section, the reader gleaned how social mobility is gauged by comparing the position of a parent and his or her children, taking into account the number and quality of opportunities and resources that are available. In essence, this paper has focused on how individuals move into higher, lower, or lateral strata.

Next, however, this essay turns its attention to the why concerning some forms of social mobility. "Intragenerational" mobility refers to how an individual's changing personal attitudes and interests over a lifetime may prompt that movement. It may also affect the economy, especially when one individual representing a certain age group comes into contact with another.

For example, a man who has worked his whole life, paying into a retirement system so that when he retires himself, he and his family will be comfortable, may be surprised to know that retirement benefits have been curtailed as he is about to leave his work. His dedication to the company may not ever be questioned, and he may have even applied himself to keeping a tight company budget. His attitudes about those benefits would likely shift away from the company and toward receipt of those benefits in a move into a different socioeconomic class. Adding to the challenge of the situation, he might have to fight for those benefits with a corporate leader who demonstrates the exact same dedication that he did at the leader's age (Spitznas, 1998).

Intragenerational mobility has long been an interesting facet of the larger framework of mobility. In the US, which has throughout its history demonstrated a great predisposition to evolve industrially and economically, the changing perspectives of the individuals who comprise the nation's economy provide a very clear illustration of this important concept.

Other Factors. In 2023, a New York Times article focused on a factor not previously considered regarding social mobility—the company a person keeps. While education, a two-parent household, and medical care are examples of well-established factors that contribute to social mobility, the level of household income of friends, or cross-class interactions, may also have positive causal effects. Citing Raj Chetty, a Harvard economist, the article suggests that access to friends who do not live in poverty can have a positive influence on a person’s sense of social mobility. These relationships may provide examples of the types of opportunities that exist, as well as fostering a sense of ambition. This can also expose children to pathways toward achieving higher education and in developing strong and connected personal networks.

Conclusion

Social mobility is not just a discipline utilized for academic pursuits, but also a gauge that is useful for answering the question then presidential candidate Ronald Reagan asked of voters in 1980: "Are you better off now than you were before?" Indeed, social mobility is an interconnected series of indicators of social stratification and economic performance. By studying these components, a society's population can be better understood in terms of what they seek in making a better life for themselves.

The United States is well-qualified to serve as a case study in this pursuit. After all, the US is hardly a homogenous society, whether in terms of social stratification, workforce composition, cultural diversity, or regional distinctions. It is also one of the more dynamic of the world's national systems, in that it seizes upon evolutionary industrial, technological, socioeconomic, and political developments that occur constantly.

Social mobility is based on a number of factors, many of which were outlined in this paper. In a general sense, however, it relies on two major forces: individual choice and initiative in one hand, and systemic change in the other (the latter of which is known as structural mobility). The focus of social mobility is on movement upward, downward, and laterally.

This essay has focused on the goal of social mobility as a mechanism that ensures a better way of life for the individual. In American society, that better way of life begins with an optimal job and economic condition. There may be opportunities that become manifest, social services and programs that may provide a boost, and better job potentials in other geographic regions. Individual initiative, in these conditions, is paramount to the accomplishment of upward or lateral mobility.

Additionally, there are environmental conditions over which the individual may not have control but are nonetheless critical to upward social mobility. Structural mobility is at the core of the industrial changes that entice job applicants as well as the economic environment that fosters the opportunities that inspire individuals to seek ways to better their lives. A growing school of sociological thought connects social and structural mobility, and evidence from the United States’ experience lends credence to this theory.

American history has also given appropriate examples of two important methods of studying social mobility trends in a given system. The first, intergenerational mobility, provides an illustration of the comparative social and economic situations of mothers and fathers and the statuses of their children. This field has indeed proven useful for demonstrating how far a society has come in terms of movement into higher strata. As demonstrated in this paper, mobility does not necessarily depend on opportunities, but on the system that creates those opportunities for mobility.

On the other hand, intragenerational mobility casts a light on another important aspect of growth. Just as the playing field may change, so too does the individual. He or she may have a change in perspective, one that can ultimately contribute to the varying directions and degrees of mobility in his or her lifetime.

Social mobility (that is, the pursuit of a better life) is a central theme in any modern society, and yet is critical in capitalistic environments in particular. As the icon of international capitalism, the United States has long provided exceptional examples of how stratification and the pursuit of upward mobility can occur, and may well continue to do so for generations to come.

Terms & Concepts

Downward Mobility: Movement into lower social strata.

Intergenerational Mobility: Comparison between the social mobility of an individual and that of his or her parent or parents.

Intragenerational Mobility: Change that affects an individual’s pursuit of social mobility.

Lateral Mobility: Status adjustment that occurs on a horizontal basis rather than vertically.

Stratification: Establishment of socioeconomic levels or classes.

Structural Mobility: Social movement in which the environment's changes facilitate upward or downward mobility for an individual or his or her society.

Upward Mobility: Movement into better jobs and higher social strata.

Vertical Mobility: Movement up or down the social strata due to job or other life or environment changes.

Bibliography

Antonucci, T. C., Jackson, J. S., & Biggs, S. (2007). Intergenerational relations: Theory, research and policy. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 679–693. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27629855&site=ehost-live.

Beller, E., & Hout, M. (2006). Intergenerational social mobility: The United States in comparative perspective. , Opportunity in America, 16, 19–36. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=22466157&site=ehost-live.

Dribe, M., Van Bavel, J., & Campbell, C. (2012). Social mobility and demographic behavior: Long term perspectives. Demographic Research, 26, 173–189. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77051560

Ebeling, A. (2013). Gen X and Gen Y wealth stagnates. Forbes.com. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=86164223.

Girod, G., & Shapiro, E. (2012). Generation screwed. Newsweek, 160(4/5), 40–41. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=77855340..

Homan, P., Valentino, L., & Weed, E. (2017). Being and becoming poor: How cultural schemas shape beliefs about poverty. Social Forces, 95(3), 1023–1048. Retrieved March 5, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=121143086&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Kaufmann, V. (2006). On transport history and contemporary social theory. ournal of Transport History, 28, 302–607. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27638706&site=ehost-live.

Lui, L. (2013). A comparative study of intergenerational mobility. Sociological Research, 52, 16–27. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86457294 .

Mare, R. (2011). A multigenerational view of inequality. Demography, 48, 1–23. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=59341988.

Mazumder, B. (2007). Trends in intergenerational mobility. Industrial Relations, 46, 1–6. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=23481422&site=ehost-live.

(2014, February 1). Mobility, measured. The Economist. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured

Smith, R. (2014). Income inequality: The defining challenge of our time. Policy & Practice‗i, 72, 5–34. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=95396972&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Spitznas, T. J. (1998). Generation gaps: How the different generations affect individuals in the national economy. Westchester County Business Journal, 37, 4. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Regional Business News. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=1284596&site=ehost-live.

Teixeira, R. (2006, October 26). What the public really wants on jobs and the economy. Center for American Progress. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/10/public%5f wants.html.

Terriquez, V. (2014). Trapped in the working class? Prospects for the intergenerational (IM)mobility of Latino youth. Sociological Inquiry, 84, 382–411. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=97131509&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Wirthlin, D. (2004, August 18). The quadrennial question. The New York Times. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E3D7103FF93BA2575BC0 A9629C8B63.