Shared publicly  - 
Using one-generation measures of social mobility—how much a father’s relative income influences that of his adult son—America does half as well as Nordic countries, and about the same as Britain and Italy, Europe’s least-mobile places. America is particularly exposed to the virtuous-meritocracy paradox because its poor are getting married in ever smaller numbers, leaving more children with single mothers short of time and money
Wei Wang's profile photoGregory McCormack's profile photoTaraoui Soufiane's profile photomehdi naderi's profile photo
Destroy the two-parent family, and this is what you get. 
It's all down to equality. The more equal society, the more social mobility.
Each of these sawed through rungs can be symbolic of the legacy we are leaving for future generations to deal with... there is more going on here than the family unit breakdown, endemic debt, ecological degradation, essentially generations past have been getting a pretty steep discount on almost everything, now these unpaid costs are simply piling up... there will be a point that they can not be further deferred, unfortunately I don't think it's likely that this will happen before the status quo starts becoming more expensive than a drastic change.
+Steve Brown  - I think you mean destroying the social net and upward mobility. Note that we do "half as well as Nordic countries" In Norway, half of all children are born to unwed mothers. Sweden and Denmark have similar numbers. The issue isn't marriage, it's our cultural values. We've devalued education, and honestly, we've never backed up our claims of "family values."

If we truly valued families in this country, we would have parental leave protections for employment like virtually every other country on earth does. We would have universal health care so that families could afford to move or change jobs without jeopardizing the family due to a family member's health condition. We wouldn't be attempting to shred what social safety nets we have, like Unemployment Insurance or Food Stamps, paltry as they are.

Instead, we value the Almighty Dollar over all of these things, and tell people they shouldn't be having children they can't afford, all while making contraception and abortion more and more difficult to get if you're poor (the wealthy have never had problems accessing abortion services, even back when it was illegal. Read up on abortion in the 1950s sometime).
solution lies in two parent family under the control of mother.
Hmmmm, na, I'm just gona go way left on this, we need more poligamy :D, lol, more wealth in the family, children are always looked after, and atless someone will have a car :)
There are dead beat moms out there who are spending child support on dead beat boyfriends! Just saying.
America is a plutocracy. Money dictates just about anything. Want to go to a good university? Better be born lucky, poor people don't get to dabble in cutting edge technology or quantum mechanics. If you're born poor, you'll be lucky to get a level of education that isn't even considered high school in other countries. And what about courts? The more money you have, the easier it is to get someone charged for something. The one with the most money can only be the one who is the most right.
+Nain Tara I'm not sure what you mean by "Control of a family", I'm a parent of a two child, two parent family, responsibilities are split along lines of willingness and aptitude, decisions determined through mutual agreement usually with some compromise.   Also how is a two parent family a solution, I don't think in majority of cases parents have led relatively happy lives and one day decided hmmm, I will give this single parenting thing a shot to see how that works out, there is probably a reason some parents are raising their kids alone which is either completely outside their control, or it was the "less unacceptable" option. 
+Eddie Fox Sure there are.  And there are supervillin-esc rich people too.

But are all poor people shiftless deadbeats?  Are all rich people slimy, profit-from-the-world-burning ne'er-do-wells?

No on both counts.  Just because your or I know one, or have heard of one via media doesn't make them all like that.  

Life is complicated, most people need to grow a pair and quit trying to reduce every-god-damn-thing down to a label, a soundbite, a slogan.
+Matt Fowler I challenge you on your assertion by telling you to do research on psychopathy and sociopathy. "The Psychopath Test" book is a great start. The leaders of the world and companies are vastly more likely to be psychopaths than in anything else.
+Allan S I still feel it is ridiculously bad in the US, but you're right, humanity is a sad species in general, that is something that can't be denied.
+Allan S First of all, the U.S. is worse than a lot of other countries. Second, just because something is common doesn't make it acceptable. Don't confuse humanity's drive to succeed and compete with the complacency and lack of compassion of much of the world's wealthy. Fortunately, there are Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts setting admirable examples.
By definition, sociopathic means they lack a social conscience.  The two men mentioned have demonstrated more of a social conscience than most by any standards; feeding and educating the extreme poor, defending the middle class, rebuilding schools after natural disasters, fighting for human rights.  Your statement then makes no sense unless you meant a different term than sociopathic.
+Dana Fos-Greenaae not according to Dr. Robert Hare who created the clinical definition. There is also a big difference between genuine empathy and fake. Every big check they spend due to their "social conscience" is more notoriety and fame, something sociopaths feed on.
22nd century American nuclear family:  34 year old grandmother/stripper, 18 year old daughter/stripper/mother of two.
+Nain Tara. It's not just the individual families its a measure of the society. Access to high quality education, access to social services and successful social investment which is a hand up not a hand out. 
+Lawrence Sene Yes, because they display and have displayed the following characteristics that define sociopathy: Lack of empathy, manipulative, superficial charm. Bill Gates is a classic sociopath; how he treated coworkers and employees or how he ran his business was cruel and he many times never took responsibility for things he did wrong, there is tons of video and documentary out there to support this.  Warren Buffet disowned a family member via a crass letter because she participated in a movie. Quote and this is as psychopathic as one can get "I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. " He sees people and money as nothing more than toys.
Just taking personal responsibility doesn't always solve society's ills and sometime people just have to think collectively. The Northern Europeans are particularly good at this. They ve chopped corruption down to an absolute minimum, and so with it nepotism and have created short working weeks while maximising productivity per hour spent. They spend the extra time with their families, education figures maternity pay and gender equality figures are world class. We really have to congratulate them. 
+Garrett Graham Well this is a discussion for another day. Meanwhile, I think my point stands. Sociopath or not, I admire what they're doing with their money.
+Lawrence Sene I find it hard to admire people who hoard large sums of money that causes inflation for the rest of us. And then expect you to praise them when they give it away.
If there were no haves the have nots would have nothing to strive for. An organism which gets comfortable rarely achieve further developement. Without excess there can bo no largesse.
Ever since the sociopath next door came out, suddenly everyone is a psychologist. Why don't we leave these diagnoses to the professionals and reflect on how most of these characteristics are human characteristics that are enhanced in most powerful people. 
+Tracy L Campbell most definitely because those characteristics are literally not brain diseases that are detrimental to the rest of society.

I'm sure if everyone was as dismissive as you then the world would be a better place.
mmm... so the solution is education, and the article goes on about poor kids never go to unis.  but if there are already so many unemployment for graduates now, how does it help by creating more (of the same) graduates?
by no means pay the poor to get education... but perhaps it's better to throw in more innovation than money into the system.
There's more poorer and poorest human rights in others , less educated, less gender equality country out there than any E.U or U.S in which they learned /influenced by. 
Hasn't anyone figured out that both sides are right?    A lack of education leads to poverty which leads to a lack of education.    Broken families lead to a lack of education and poverty which leads to broken families.  Worrying about which causes which (i.e. Republicans vs. Democrats) is completely useless because they each cause the other.    It's a chicken vs. egg situation.
So, if you sit there arguing over who is right, nothing gets done.
There's daddy cutting the rungs off the ladder as he takes his social security, the debt, deficit, medicare, and all his unfunded liabilities. Poor kids indeed.
Cam ce face clasa politică şi în România...
This shows how leaders are
Why is Britain doing do badly on this issue. It must be disappointing for the country than invented the NHS.
+Bun Chan it helps by making the poor poorer via student loan, which forward their(economist ) agenda. 
+Sean Montague I am not sure why you would conflate social mobility and the provision of health services. 
Add a comment...