
Income mobility has been rising fastest in Britain - randomname2
https://gavinkellyblog.com/where-has-income-mobility-been-rising-fastest-britain-179e168189be
======
Malarkey73
It's just really difficult to understand what this means.

The first big caveat is that 1990s to 2010s stops at the financial crisis. Due
to austerity the UK has since then seen the greatest period of wage stagnation
of all the advanced nations except Greece. But employment has remained high.
So whilst the report is a picture of time before the crash its not clear to me
what has happened since.

Second - Yes I think I do care more about the overall level of poverty and
inequality. I'm not happy if people are moving in and out of destitution.

Third - I really don't understand how to square this analysis with the obvious
fact that half as many people own their own home now as in the 80s. For 25-34
year olds its gone from 65% to 27% during the period of this study . What's
that downward income mobility? I sthat a good thing? Or does that not count as
it's not income?

.. I just don't really know what this is saying..?

~~~
easytiger
> 25-34 year olds its gone from 65% to 27% during the period of this study

back then people used to be in full time work from 16-21. Education has
assumed the role work once had. Most people I know are in Education untill mid
to late 20s. 1/15 into their 30ies on and off. further to that 100 years ago
home ownership was in the 15% area. Standards of living where "worse" by
modern metrics (of course that's not true per se IMHO).

~~~
downrightmike
The jobs that are available now for 16-21 are subsistence jobs. It makes more
economic sense that they spend the time in school and get out of the sub
livable wage jobs.

------
zucchini_head
The article doesn't touch upon education much at all, which I believe is a
central part of social (im)mobility. Problems arising in society later on will
simply stem from the early life of members of society, not afterwards. It's a
common principle that education is the key to societal equality, in some way.

All I can offer is my story on this. I've lived in the UK all my life in all
sorts of regions from those of lower working class (my hometown) to my recent
years where I've lived in rather upper-class "lawyer-doctor-business owner"
regions. The difference in education between the lower and upper classes is
stark. Let me explain.

Upper-class children are enrolled in schools of like-minded high-achievers
full of entrance exams and interviews (provides a non-zero floor to student
"intelligence/quality" at the school), and strict rules/discipline. They are
further pushed towards degrees leading to higher paying careers - Finance,
Medicine, Law, by their families and the schools themselves. Their families
purchase extra tutoring, they have smarter parents (this is a positive
feedback loop across generations!) to guide them, and so on...

Compare this to lower-class children, who, in the UK (and i'm pretty sure
everywhere else essentially) are enrolled in "state schools" (free). These
schools have no entrance requirements (there is zero floor for student
quality), the families almost never purchase extra tutoring, and are much less
pushed towards "meaningful" degrees. The schools offer equal environments to
the best and the worst of students.

This imbalance in education (and by extension upbringing in general) is what
seeds everything else. And indeed, in the past few years the UK government has
recognized all the above. How they plan of solving it? The reintroduction of
"Grammer Schools"! These are state schools (still), but _do_ have enterance
requirements, thereby allowing lower-class students of high
intelligence/quality a chance to separate from the worst students in state
schools and enroll in a more challenging education. There is much debate in
the UK whether this will work, or will simply just allow children of rich
families to more-often/further separate themselves from poor families. Time
will tell.

That's my 0.02c anyway: Education.

~~~
pjc50
If grammar (you spelt this incorrectly) schools were effective at improving
society as a whole, you'd be able to measure an effect in the places in the UK
where they were retained. Especially Northern Ireland.

Instead you have to address what happens to the 50% of people who _don 't_ get
into the selective schools. You can't improve overall quality through
rejecting students, because there's no "away" to reject them to!

People who are actually involved in education are more likely to tell you that
the key factor for most of the lower-achieving students is obstacles,
especially out of school; are they getting enough sleep and 3 square meals a
day? Do they have at least one parent around who's engaged in their education?
What obstacles does that _parent_ face? Is the child being bullied at school
or home? etc.

~~~
Wildgoose
I find it interesting that the non-Grammar "comprehensive/secondary modern"
schools in areas with Grammar Schools actually perform better than
Comprehensive schools (such as the one I attended) in areas where Grammar
Schools have been abolished.

Does this mean that such schools apply more focus to issues such as the ones
you list in order to better compete?

~~~
pjc50
Possibly. The key issue is the politics; selective public schooling allows the
schools to be treated unequally by the resource allocation system, where the
one with the worse performing pupils gets less resources and is less preferred
by staff, reinforcing the cycle.

~~~
throwaway426079
If I understood correctly, you are taking the opposite view from the parent
post?

------
seanhandley
Gavin Kelly is associated with Downing Street. It's in the conservative
government's interest to downplay social issues caused by its policies.

I smell a conflict of interest.

~~~
steffandroid
He worked at Downing Street until 2010, under the Labour government at the
time.

------
dijit
Reads like an opinionated piece which is cherry-picking it's stats.

The report he's citing most heavily is indeed about social mobility, but
social mobility isn't always "up", social mobility measured by OECD is the
state of flux and certainly by itself does not correlate at all with
improvements in social class from the lower levels.

The author also talks about "more equal" not equating to "more mobile" and
he/she is absolutely correct, however the way it's phrased makes me believe
he/she is intending to change the mind of the reader as to whether more equal
is a good thing.

Overall I'm not coming to the same conclusion as the author from the source
material. Flux is bad if you're middle/working class are ending up in the poor
class. Which is happening from what I can tell anecdotally.

