A quote: "According to research from the Brookings Institution, only 58 percent of Americans born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that category, and just 6 percent born into the bottom fifth move into the top."
That outcome statistic doesn't support your claim -- that there is inequality of opportunity. BTW I think it's true that opportunity equality doesn't exist or is seriously undermined, but the above isn't meaningful evidence for or against.
This is what's wrong with social science -- a single observation with no meaningful controls is put forth as evidence for or against a claim.
Those who deny that equality of opportunity exists will use the above result to support their view -- only 6% of the population moved from the bottom to the top. That's deplorable, yes?
Those who support the idea that equality of opportunity exists will use the same numbers in support of the opposite conclusion -- after all, a full 6% of those at the bottom made it to the top. Excuse me? It's only meaningful if 100% of those at the bottom arrive at the top? But that undermines the meaning of "bottom" and "top" and makes the entire exercise meaningless. Surely you don't think everyone at the bottom must end up at the top, do you? That confuses equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
See the problem? The argument in the linked article is meaningless because it can be used to argue for either side of the issue with equal justice.
That outcome statistic doesn't support your claim -- that there is inequality of opportunity. BTW I think it's true that opportunity equality doesn't exist or is seriously undermined, but the above isn't meaningful evidence for or against.
This is what's wrong with social science -- a single observation with no meaningful controls is put forth as evidence for or against a claim.
Those who deny that equality of opportunity exists will use the above result to support their view -- only 6% of the population moved from the bottom to the top. That's deplorable, yes?
Those who support the idea that equality of opportunity exists will use the same numbers in support of the opposite conclusion -- after all, a full 6% of those at the bottom made it to the top. Excuse me? It's only meaningful if 100% of those at the bottom arrive at the top? But that undermines the meaning of "bottom" and "top" and makes the entire exercise meaningless. Surely you don't think everyone at the bottom must end up at the top, do you? That confuses equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
See the problem? The argument in the linked article is meaningless because it can be used to argue for either side of the issue with equal justice.