New York Times poverty beat-writer Jason Deparle, who once described Clinton's welfare reform proposal as 'a bill that begrudges poor infants their Pampers' and predicted it might cause women to 'camp out on the streets and beg,' made Thursday's front page with the claim that America is becoming 'less equal...less mobile' with the poor stuck in place, in 'Harder for Americans to Rise From Economy's Lower Rungs .'
A photo caption read: 'Occupy protesters, like these in Flint, Mich., have pushed discussions about economic mobility toward center stage.'
Benjamin Franklin did it. Henry Ford did it. And American life is built on the faith that others can do it, too: rise from humble origins to economic heights. 'Movin' on up,' George Jefferson-style, is not only a sitcom song but a civil religion.
But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
After noting that some Republicans, including Rick Santorum, have made the case that mobility is declining, DeParle presented a host of possible causes with a liberal tinge.
One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents' educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.
By emphasizing the influence of family background, the studies not only challenge American identity but speak to the debate about inequality. While liberals often complain that the United States has unusually large income gaps, many conservatives have argued that the system is fair because mobility is especially high, too: everyone can climb the ladder. Now the evidence suggests that America is not only less equal, but also less mobile.
DeParle included some vital caveats and conservative sources, but in lower paragraphs:
Skeptics caution that the studies measure 'relative mobility' - how likely children are to move from their parents' place in the income distribution. That is different from asking whether they have more money. Most Americans have higher incomes than their parents because the country has grown richer.
Some conservatives say this measure, called absolute mobility, is a better gauge of opportunity. A Pew study found that 81 percent of Americans have higher incomes than their parents (after accounting for family size).
There is no comparable data on other countries.
Since they require two generations of data, the studies also omit immigrants, whose upward movement has long been considered an American strength. 'If America is so poor in economic mobility, maybe someone should tell all these people who still want to come to the U.S.,' said Stuart M. Butler, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
The income compression in rival countries may also make them seem more mobile. Reihan Salam, a writer for The Daily and National Review Online, has calculated that a Danish family can move from the 10th percentile to the 90th percentile with $45,000 of additional earnings, while an American family would need an additional $93,000.
The causes of America's mobility problem are a topic of dispute - starting with the debates over poverty. The United States maintains a thinner safety net than other rich countries, leaving more children vulnerable to debilitating hardships.
Later DeParle took up the liberal line, blaming the lack of unions and the 'sheer magnitude of the gaps between the rich and the rest.'
DeParle notoriously feared the passage of Clinton-era welfare reform. In his July 28, 1996 Times Week in Review story "Get a Job - The New Contract With America's Poor," DeParle warned : 'If he signs the measure as it is, President Clinton will appear to have fulfilled his famous pledge about ending welfare. In truth, he will have abandoned the vision that animated the slogan. Having sought office with the aim of a redefined social contract - health care for every American - he will be seeking re-election with a bill that begrudges poor infants their Pampers....No doubt the harsh reality of an empty stomach will cause some people to do better. Some may indeed get jobs and marry, as [Fla. Rep. Clay] Shaw predicts. Others may turn to prostitution or the drug trade. Or cling to abusive boyfriends. Or have more abortions. Or abandon their children. Or camp out on the streets and beg.'
None of DeParle's fears came to fruition.