<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html>
<head><link rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.ico" />
<title>Waking Up from the American Dream - Business Week reprint</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<link media="screen" title="default" href="/styles2.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<link media="screen" title="print" href="/stylesprint2.css" rel="alternate stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<link media="print" title="print" href="/stylesprint2.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
</head>
<body>
<!--#include virtual="/inserts/header.htm" -->
<div id="container">
  <div id="maincontent">      
	<div id="text" style="font-size:16px">  
        <div id="header"><h1>Waking Up from the American Dream</h1>
          <h2>Meritocracy and Equal Opportunity Are Fading 
          Fast</h2></div>          
		     	<div id="byline">		       
	<!--#include virtual="/inserts/gizmos.htm" -->

<p>by Aaron Bernstein<br />
                First published in <a href="http://businessweek.com" target="_blank">Business 
              Week</a> December 1, 2003 </p>                    			  
<div class="clearboth"></div> 
          </div> 		
        <p>There has been much talk recently of the &quot;Wal-Martization&quot; 
          of America, a reference to the giant retailer's fervent attempts to 
          keep its costs -- and therefore its prices -- at rock-bottom levels. 
          But for years, even during the 1990s boom, much of Corporate America 
          had already embraced Wal-Mart-like stratagems to control labor costs, 
          such as hiring temps and part-timers, <a href="/weekly_article/union_walmart_showdown_in_vegas.html">fighting 
          unions</a>, dismantling internal career ladders, and outsourcing to 
          lower-paying contractors at home and abroad.</p>
        <p>While these tactics have the admirable outcome of holding down consumer 
          prices, they're costly in other ways. More than a quarter of the labor 
          force, about 34 million workers, is trapped in low-wage, often dead-end 
          jobs, according to a new book entitled <em>Low-Wage America: How Employers 
          Are Reshaping Opportunity in the Workplace</em>. Many middle-income 
          and high-skilled employees face fewer opportunities, too, as companies 
          shift work to subcontractors and temp agencies and move white-collar 
          jobs to China and India.</p>
        <p>The result has been an erosion of one of America's most cherished values: 
          giving its people the ability to move up the economic ladder over their 
          lifetimes. Historically, most Americans, even low-skilled ones, were 
          able to find poorly paid janitorial or factory jobs, then gradually 
          climb into the middle class as they gained experience and moved up the 
          wage curve. But the number of workers progressing upward began to slip 
          in the 1970s, when the post-World War II productivity boom ran out of 
          steam. Upward mobility diminished even more in the 1980s as globalization 
          and technology slammed blue-collar wages.</p>
        <p>Many experts expected the trend to reverse as productivity rebounded 
          during the heated economy of the 1990s. Certainly, there were plenty 
          of gains. The long decline in pay rates turned around as supertight 
          labor markets raised the wages of almost everyone. College enrollment 
          boomed, too, and home ownership shot up, extending the American dream 
          to more families. Low interest rates and higher wages allowed even those 
          on the bottom to benefit. There was even a slight decline in the ranks 
          of the very poorest families, as measured by asset wealth -- those with 
          a net worth of less than $5,000 -- according to a study by New York 
          University economics professor Edward N. Wolff.</p>
        <p>But new research suggests that, surprisingly, the best economy in 30 
          years did little to get America's vaunted upward mobility back on track. 
          The new studies, which follow individuals and families over many years, 
          paint a paradoxical picture: Even as the U.S. economy was bursting with 
          wealth in the 1990s, minting dot-com millionaires by the thousands, 
          conventional companies were cutting the middle out of career ladders, 
          leaving fewer people able to better their economic position over the 
          decade.</p>
        <p>During the 1990s, relative mobility -- that is, the share of Americans 
          changing income quintiles in any direction, up or down -- slipped by 
          two percentage points, to 62%, according to an analysis of decade-long 
          income trends through 2001 by Jonathan D. Fisher and David S. Johnson, 
          two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While two points may 
          not sound like much, it's bad news given how much progress might have 
          been made amid explosive growth. Essentially, says University of Chicago 
          economics professor and Nobel laureate James J. Heckman, &quot;the big 
          finding in recent years is that the notion of America being a highly 
          mobile society isn't as true as it used to be.&quot;</p>
        <p>In fact, according to a study by two Federal Reserve Bank of Boston 
          economists that analyzed families' incomes over three decades, the number 
          of people who stayed stuck in the same income bracket -- be it at the 
          bottom or at the top -- over the course of a decade actually increased 
          in the 1990s. So, though the boom lifted pay rates for janitors and 
          clerks by as much as 5% to 10% in the late 1990s, more of them remained 
          janitors or clerks; fewer worked their way into better-paying positions. 
          Imelda Roman, for one, makes about $30,000 a year as a counselor at 
          a Milwaukee nonprofit -- barely more than the $27,000 or so, after inflation 
          adjustments, that the 33-year-old single mom earned as a school-bus 
          driver more than 10 years ago. Says Roman, who hopes to return to college 
          to improve her prospects: &quot;It's hard to find a job with a career 
          ladder these days, and a B.A. would be an edge.&quot;</p>
        <p>What Roman faces is an economy that is slowly stratifying along class 
          lines. Today, upward mobility is determined increasingly by a college 
          degree that's attainable mostly by those whose parents already have 
          money or education. &quot;It's clear that unless you go to college, 
          you can't achieve a high trajectory in life. Education is the key to 
          success in America today,&quot; says Aramark Corp. CEO Joseph Neubauer. 
          He gives scholarship money to hundreds of disadvantaged kids every year 
          through the Horatio Alger Assn., a group of successful Americans who 
          try to help others make it, too.</p>
        <p>The gap in advancement shows up clearly in longitudinal studies such 
          as Wolff's and the Boston Fed's, which track the same people over many 
          years. These give a better picture of long-term economic mobility than 
          the annual government surveys of wages and incomes, since even highly 
          educated employees usually start at the bottom and work their way up 
          the economic ladder.</p>
        <p>For mobility to increase in relative terms, which is the standard way 
          economists measure it, someone has to move down the pecking order to 
          make room for another to move up. But the Boston Fed study found less 
          movement in both directions. Some 40% of families didn't change income 
          brackets over the decade, vs. 37% in the 1980s and 36% in the 1970s, 
          according to the authors' analysis of annual longitudinal surveys by 
          the University of Michigan.</p>
        <p>The changing dynamic of the U.S. economy clearly has the most impact 
          on those at the bottom. Some 49% of families who started the 1970s in 
          poverty were still stuck there at the end of that decade, the Boston 
          Fed study found. During the 1990s, the figure had jumped to 53%, even 
          after accounting for two-earner families. A key reason lies with the 
          creation of millions of jobs that pay less than a poverty-line wage 
          of $8.70 an hour, according to Low-Wage America, a massive research 
          project involving case studies by 38 academics. Most of the workers, 
          such as nursing assistants or food preparers, &quot;have no educational 
          credentials beyond a high school diploma,&quot; the authors found.</p>
        <p>Problem is, that all-important sheepskin is out of reach for most students 
          from low-income families. Although college enrollment has soared for 
          higher-income students, more children from poor families can only afford 
          to go to community colleges, which typically don't offer bachelor's 
          degrees. The number of poor students who get a degree -- fewer than 
          5% in 2001 -- has barely budged in 30 years, according to an analysis 
          of Census Bureau data by Thomas G. Mortenson, who publishes an education 
          newsletter from Oskaloosa, Iowa.</p>
        <p>In turn, the lack of mobility for those who don't or can't get a degree 
          is putting a lid on the intergenerational progress that has long been 
          a mainstay of the American experience. Last year, Wichita State University 
          sociology professor David W. Wright and two colleagues updated a classic 
          1978 study that looked at how sons fared according to the social and 
          economic class of their fathers. Defining class by a mix of education, 
          income, and occupation, they found that sons from the bottom three-quarters 
          of the socioeconomic scale were less likely to move up in the 1990s 
          than in the 1960s. Just 10% of sons whose fathers were in the bottom 
          quarter had made it to the top quarter by 1998, the authors found. By 
          contrast, 23% of lower-class sons had done so by 1973, according to 
          the earlier study. Similarly, only 51% of sons whose fathers belonged 
          to the second-highest quarter equaled or surpassed the economic standing 
          of their parents in the 1990s. In the 1960s, 63% did.</p>
        <p>That's the pattern Michael A. McLimans and his family follows. Now 
          33, with two young children, the New Holland (Pa.) resident has spent 
          the past decade working at pizza chains such as Domino's and Pizza Hut 
          (YUM ). He made it to assistant manager but found that he could earn 
          more, $9 to $12 an hour with tips, as a delivery driver. He and his 
          wife, a hotel receptionist, pull down about $40,000 a year -- far from 
          the $60,000 Michael's father, David I. McLimans, earns as a veteran 
          steelworker. &quot;I save every dime I can so my kids can go to college, 
          which neither of us can afford to do,&quot; says Michael.</p>
        <p>Increasingly, the story's the same for immigrants, who have been the 
          most celebrated symbols of U.S. mobility. But compared with immigrants 
          in the 1960s and '70s, a larger share of newcomers today are high school 
          dropouts, including hundreds of thousands of poor villagers from Mexico. 
          They encounter a plentiful job market that pays better than the one 
          they left behind -- but find fewer paths to a middle-class lifestyle, 
          according to several recent studies. Over the long term, the spread 
          between immigrant and native-born incomes is about three times greater 
          today than it was a century ago, according to Harvard University sociology 
          professor Christopher Jencks. Says Harvard economics professor George 
          J. Borjas: &quot;If you come here as an adult, it's very hard to get 
          more education, which is the only way to get ahead today.&quot;</p>
        <p>Restoring American mobility is less a question of knowing what to do 
          than of making it happen. Experts have decried schools' inadequacy for 
          years, but fixing them is a long, arduous struggle. Similarly, there 
          have been plenty of warnings about declining college access, but finding 
          funds was difficult even in eras of large surpluses. One radical approach: 
          that college be treated the way high school is, as a public good paid 
          for by taxpayers. Presidential candidate Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) 
          has proposed making the first year's tuition free at all community and 
          public colleges for any student willing to work 10 hours a week. That 
          may never happen, but clearly, if the U.S. couldn't shake off a creeping 
          rigidity in the best of times, it will take a conscious change to reverse 
          course now.</p>
        <h5>&copy;2003 Business Week</h5>
        <h4>ReclaimDemocracy.org <a href="/index.html">Home Page</a></h4>        
        <h4>Featured articles on <a href="/global_corporatization/index.html">Globalization</a></h4>
        <h4>Featured articles <a href="/labor/index.html">on Labor Issues</a> </h4>
        <!--#include virtual="/inserts/sendthispage.html" -->
          <!--#include virtual="/inserts/fairuse.html" -->         
		  <!--#include virtual="/inserts/footer.htm" -->      
    </div>       
  </div>
         <!--#include virtual="../inserts/leftnavn.html" -->
</div>
</body>
</html>