where "Not brought up yet." to describe a whole mess of rural life
relating to the term "Social mobility" leading to a "Social economic vacuum."
A society that makes nothing so they have nothing helping no one.
Less income to afford to grow or have good credit as credit takes money
you have to buy something for good credit. Healthcare can't afford to use it.
Lack of sales etc all kept in check in the cost of low pay.
Your zip code keeping you impoverished because of the surroundings of unskilled
drug making people and crime. Like how you would move to a bad neighborhood
to find out your car insurance jumped up costing you more. Like having less pay!
And having a education does not get you out of poverty! Relating it's said
"Your education is only worth the paper it's printed on." Rural places can't afford
good paper. So many colleges are more in view as a career college with the pay
out in the world as such! You get what you pay for in the world and they are broke!
Education is needed and so if you can't make it there you need to go where the money
is. "A small town might have a low cost of living but so does a trailer park, doesn't
mean you would want to live there!" - My college sociology instructor.
There is too much stuff to post so do the research for a light of whats around you!
According to the 2007 "American Dream Report" study, "by some measurements" relative mobility between generations -- "we are actually a less mobile society than many other nations, including Canada, France, Germany and most Scandinavian countries. This challenges the notion of America as the land of opportunity." Other research places the U.S. among the least economically mobile countries.
Another 2007 study ("Economic Mobility Project: Across Generations") found significant upward "absolute" mobility from the late 1960s to 2007, with two-thirds of those who were children in 1968 reporting more household income than their parents (although most of this growth in total family income can be attributed to the increasing number of women who work since male earnings have stayed relatively stable throughout this time).
However, in terms of relative mobility it stated: "contrary to American beliefs about equality of opportunity, a child’s economic position is heavily influenced by that of his or her parents." 42% of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution ("quintile") remain in the bottom, while 39% born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top. Only half of the generation studied exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles. Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in 1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22% went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are rarer). 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%.
According to a 2007 study by the US Treasury Department, Americans concerned over the recent growth in inequality (after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent from 1979 to 2007 while it grew only 9% for the lowest 20%) can be reassured by the healthy income mobility in America: "There was considerable income mobility of individuals [within a single generation] in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period".
Other studies were less impressed with the rate of individual mobility in the United States. A 2007 inequality and mobility study (by Kopczuk, Saez and Song) and 2011 CBO study on "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income, found the pattern of annual and long-term earnings inequality "very close", or "only modestly" different. Another source described it as the mobility of "the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early thirties," rather than poor people rising to middle class or middle income rising to wealth.
Noting that the 2005 year faced the U.S. recession of December 2007 on.
Income mobility became a slug at that time for the poor along with groups
keeping workers from getting raises. "Americans for Prosperity" keeping the pay
low so many workers would stay home more often for more isolation from sales!
~~~~~A child born to parents with income in the lowest quintile is more than ten times more likely to end up in the lowest quintile than the highest as an adult (43 percent versus 4 percent). And, a child born to parents in the highest quintile is five times more likely to end up in the highest quintile than the lowest (40 percent versus 8 percent).
This is due to lower- and working-class parents (where at least one has at most a high school diploma) spending less time on average with their children in their earliest years of life and not being as involved in their children's education and time out of school. This parenting style, known as "accomplishment of natural growth" differs from the style of middle-class and upper-class parents (with at least one parent having higher education), known as "cultural cultivation". More affluent social classes are able to spend more time with their children at early ages, and children receive more exposure to interactions and activities that lead to cognitive and non-cognitive development: things like verbal communication, parent-child engagement, and being read to daily. These children's parents are much more involved in their academics and their free time; placing them in extracurricular activities which develop not only additional non-cognitive skills but also academic values, habits, and abilities to better communicate and interact with authority figures. Lower class children often attend lower quality schools, receive less attention from teachers, and ask for help much less than their higher class peers. The chances for social mobility are primarily determined by the family a child is born into. Today, the gaps seen in both access to education and educational success (graduating from a higher institution) is even larger. Today, while college applicants from every socioeconomic class are equally qualified, 75% of all entering freshmen classes at top-tier American institutions belong to the uppermost socioeconomic quartile. A family's class determines the amount of investment and involvement parents have in their children's educational abilities and success from their earliest years of life, leaving low-income students with less chance for academic success and social mobility due to the effects that the (common) parenting style of the lower and working-class have on their outlook on and success in education.
The first target of the Millennium Development Goals was to decrease the extent of extreme poverty by one-half by the year 2015, which could not be achieved. Poverty remains a predominantly rural problem, with a majority of the world’s poor located in rural areas. It is estimated that 76 percent of the developing world’s poor live in rural areas, well above the overall population share living in rural areas, which is only 58 percent. Disparities between rural and urban areas is on the rise, particularly in many developing and transitional countries. Globally, rural people and rural places tend to be disadvantaged relative to their urban counterparts and poverty rates increase as rural areas become more remote. Individuals living in rural areas tend to have less access to social services, exacerbating the effects of rural poverty.
So that points to the need to bring the wages up to stop the poverty!
The bridge out of poverty... Raise the wages!
Well I don't think they can reach the middle class it's too far to go with no
foundation for it! Living down only to have minimum wage retirement
from spending your life at your dead end job!