Yallander Ford
Eng 101-113
Prof. Susan Horowitz
April 4, 2012

This idea of economic mobility, which is defined, as one’s ability to move up the economic ladder by means of hard work and a good education, is an idea deeply entrenched in the Psyche of the American society. It is taken for granted that once you obtain a college education and have a good work ethic, you will move through the economic rank. However, this premise is being severely challenged and by all accounts, not holding up. This is a point reverberated by both Holly Sklar in her piece “The Growing Gulf Between the Rich and the Rest of Us” and the publication “The Economist through their piece “Inequality and the American dream.”
Holly dismisses this idea by pointing out the fact that we have become a downward rather than an upward mobile society. This is quite evident when you examine the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us. She points out that median household income has fallen for the fifth year running, while at the other end of the spectrum the opposite holds true. She argues that to make it in the Forbes 400, one would have to amass $900 million, an increase of $150 million from four years ago. Sklar states they are bringing windfall profits to companies like Bechtel while they suspend regulations that shore up wages for workers. This is based on the no-bid contract given to father and son team Bechtel, although they had budget overruns and performed a shoddy job on a prior government project. Personally I notice many small businesses are struggling. Many of them would like the opportunity to receive a no-bid project so they can accumulate some earnings. But this opportunity has been disbursed to an already wealthy American.
While the basic premise of “The Economist” is that the present model works fine, it too cannot ignore the highly ever widening gap between the rich &poor. Hence, it contradicts itself. On the one hand it argues that the model is productive, prosperous and it’s one of the most effective in accumulating wealth. On the other hand, He emphasizes that many Americans are not happy with the model. Research shows that it is easier for poorer children to rise in society in European Countries than in America. The article states that the United States only meritocracy is its education system. The only probably with the education system is that it is unfair. I agree because based on experiences, in many poor neighborhoods, there is a lack of resources available for public schools. For example my sister, a NYC Board of Education teacher who teaches at a middle school for technology, hence the name technology. She just received a smart board for her classroom this year and she has been teaching for 5 yrs. Walking into the school you would not recognized that this was a technology based school. The technology aspects of the classrooms are missing. The economist complicates matters further when it mentioned Democrats who are afraid to defend this issue. They are not willing to offend the paymasters in the teacher’s union. This is a very cold-hearted move on the Democrats part. It fails the Poor Americans who cannot speak for themselves.
Both articles support the issue of Economic Mobility. They have similar views when it comes to the Rich and Poor. Although “The Economist” agreed with the American model, it questioned some of the irregularities of the American Model. Most definitely some of its practice needs to be reevaluated. The poor should benefit from the economy as well. Sklar makes it known that being rich in America is a benefit and for poor Americans the fight to reach upward is challenging. The Economist also emphasizes on the point that meritocracy is not practice as it should be. The school systems are failing the students. They are not receiving a fair and evenhanded education. In comparison to Sklar, “The Economist” focused more in depth on ways the system can improve economic upward mobility. Sklar focused on the rich moving upward and poor losing their place in society. While I agree with both articles, I cannot collaborate with the statement that the American model is a good one.
In conclusion, since it has been long established in America that if you work hard and get a good education you are almost certain to raise your economic profile and guarantee an opportunity to make a better life. I can go under the assumption that this meritocracy that once was believed to be one of the great systems of America is moving further away from the truth. The poor are losing the battle in economic mobility, instead of moving upward we are moving downward. Imagine no matter how educated you are, the fact is if you start out in the bottom 10% of society that’s where you will remain. The rich progress, while we regress.