Overview
Social mobility is not as attainable as it once was. The decrease in upward mobility, as Reeves argues in his book, is the result of the upper middle class’s direct actions that rig the socio-economic playing field in their favor. Defining he upper-middle class as those individuals who form the top quintile of the income distribution, roughly those who make at least $112,000 annually, Reeves argues that this rigging of the system is the result of winning the parental lottery, passing down their status from generation to generation, operating in a meritocracy that rewards merit to skills developed overwhelming by people who form the upper-middle class, and engaging in opportunity hoarding (keeping good opportunities accessible amongst themselves). This text is not so much a scathing review of upper middle class customs and traditions as it is a call to action on how people of the upper middle class can open the door–which they’ve spent decades if not centuries locked with a deadbolt–for those in the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder to rise. Of course this opening of the door, Reeves posits, does come with a price tag the upper middle class may not be willing to stomach: a willingness to accept that some of their own children will slide down from their upper middle class status as others of merit rise up.
Class, Your Born into It
Reeves states: “Upper middle-class status is passed down to the next generation more effectively than in the past and in the United States more than in other countries.” I recall learning about primogeniture, the idea that the first born male should inherit all his families wealth, being one of the reasons why men chose to leave Europe to try their luck in the new world. While the ancestors of many people claiming an “American” heritage may have fought for the idea of what we now call the American Dream, according to Reeves the people who form the upper-middle class managed to create a neo-primogeniture, a polygeniture (my word not his) if you will where all children born to well off parents are at least guaranteed to maintain the wealth status possessed by their parents.
My Two Cents
Honestly, I do not consider it evil for parents to do what is within their power to help their children to a certain extent. For example, leaving an inheritance for their children or using their networks to give their children experiences future employers will value in an employee. What I do object to is if and when these opportunities present themselves, and there are other candidates who aren’t as well connected but have greater qualifications or interest and the less connected individual gets disregarded as a result of not having an ‘in’. It is in these types of behind the scenes interactions that we have to reflect as a society. Do we want to continue with the status quo here? And what are we losing/who are we losing as a result of people looking out only for their own?
This Is What Opportunity Hoarding Looks Like
Reeves brings people marrying within their class further solidifies their children’s positions. “Children raised in them are on a different track than ordinary Americans, right from the very beginning”. Children raised in the upper middle class are expected to go to college and later join the work force in power positions such as doctors in the medical profession or lawyers in the legal profession. More likely then not, upper middle class children are well acquainted with professionals in these fields through their parents. Out with the marrying up concept, and in with the marrying within concept.
Reeves claims, “whether upper middle-class children go to a private or public school, they are likely to be learning from good teachers, in a fertile learning environment, and with plenty of extra curricular opportunities” and “the real problem in higher education is not about debt, but distribution and quality”. Essentially Reeves is making two points. The first, when it comes to K-12 education and the children of the upper middle class whether you pay for a private institution or go to your local public school you’re still getting a quality education because the teachers are high quality and the experiences at your disposal are more diverse than the neighborhoods they’re located in. The second point is that in the pursuit of post secondary education, where many non-upper middle classers accrue crippling debt, there are a ton of options but few are academically sound. While I understand Reeves’ argument about debt potentially distracting from a larger issue in higher education when it comes to for profit universities, like the now infamous Trump University, I have to say not all debt accrued for higher education is from garbage institutions. Paying for a college degree is costly in the United States for someone whose parents can’t afford to bankroll them, and with the minimum wage the way it is and stagnating wages, paying your way through college on your own is more difficult now that it was in the boomer age. In short opportunity hoarding observed in primary and secondary education is seen in educational institutions holding on to the most effective teachers, while in tertiary education it looks like legacy admissions or legal bribery by way of donations.
In Reeves’ own words opportunity hoarding as it pertains to the book falls under three groups, “exclusionary zoning, college admissions, and the allocation of internships”. Where people can afford to live dictates where they can go to school, and when wealthier zones fight against multifamily housing structures in their backyard they have to recognize, intended or unintended, they are keeping children who need it the most out of better resourced schools with more highly qualified staff. Colleges who pride themselves on legacy admittances have to recognize that those legacies may not have been as deserving to attend the institution as a non-legacy student. People who offer internships have to recognize who is being given an opportunity, who isn’t, why that is, and how can we do better/be more equitable? I’m not saying always pick the poor candidate. I’m saying if you can afford to have an equal number why not have a mix of economically wealthy and economically disadvantaged and offer a stipend to the economically disadvantaged in order to lift the economic burden for candidates who are as equally qualified for a position/opportunity as their wealthier counterparts.
Would a Rose in Any Other Accent Smell as Sweet
Reeves is an Englishman by birth, but he’s since become a U.S. citizen. He briefly mentions that class distinction and accent in the UK carries more weight than in the U.S. He writes, “Americans tend to think their children will be judged by their accomplishments rather than their accents.” On this point I respectfully disagree. Americans, particularly those who don’t speak using the mainstream dialect (examples of non mainstream dialects include African American Vernacular English and Southern dialects) recognize their children will be judged by their accomplishments and their accents. As a society we’re conditioned to make judgements on people by how they dress, speak, and behave.
Final Call… to Action
In short the major problem is that American society is seeing less absolute mobility between the classes and more relative mobility. Basically, in terms of the amount of money being made from generation to generation it looks like kids are doing better than their parents, but when we adjust for inflation kids are actually doing worse. It’s not millennials’ love for avocado toast that’s keeping them in their parents’ houses longer, it’s the fact that our earned dollars buy less now then they did when our parents and grandparents were our age! To get to absolute mobility we have to decide as a society on whether or not we believe in a true merit and not only what that means, but how that impacts the lives of all children. Reeves suggests adopting radical policies like selective high schools in Chicago that have slots designated for student from certain areas and will accept them even if they score lower on the entrance exams. I actually think lowering the bar for entrance exam performance can be damaging because when students learn that, it can make them think they aren’t as smart as their peers when in reality they’re excelling in spite of their circumstances and despite the fact that they did it alone without prior coaching through tutors. Language and messaging matter.