> At 05:04 PM 3/27/01 -0800, John Gulick wrote:
> >Do you/we really want to make the argument that Society A is better
> >than Society B b/c there is a higher degree of inter-generational mobility in
> >Society A ? Both Society A and Society B have a persistent and tenacious
> >social class structure, one grounded in unfreedom and exploitation, but in
> >Society A there is more upward (and hence downward) mobility.
>
> The point in Denmark being the #1 country for social mobility versus the US
> being the worst among the countries studied is that in Denmark there isn't
> a hell of a difference between the top & the bottom, while in the US there
> is. If someone moves from one quartile to another in Denmark they're not
> really moving all that far, which of course makes it easier to make such a
> move. In other words, the reason they have mobility is precisely because
> they don't have a "persistent and tenacious social class structure."
Oh, but the Danes most certainly do have a "persistent and tenacious social class structure." What they also have is relatively egalitarian income distribution due to redistributive social spending. And therefore movement between income quartiles is, as Patrick says, not "moving all that far."
But as any honest Dane will tell you, the relatively egalitarian income distribution masks "persistent and tenacious" class privileges. Wealth distribution is very unequal. For example, landlords have not lost their power and privilege even under a fairly, and firmly, administered rent control system.
The persistence and tenacity of the social class structure is, however, relatively transparent to Danes (as opposed to the mystification - a brew composed of racism, sexism, primitive religious beliefs, and relentless propaganda/entertainment - that disguises the ruling class in the U.S.).
In other words, it is precisely awareness of persistent social class structure that has enabled, so far, the Danish working class to obtain a relatively egalitarian income distribution.
john mage