The Problem with Social Mobility

Imagine a bus where individuals are seated in a way that infers their perceived social value.  The closer an individual is seated to the front of the bus, the greater their perceived status, reputation, and moral standing.  Given this, the front rows are the most luxurious, safe, and accommodative positions whereas the back rows are quite the opposite.  The further back one is seated the more deplorable the conditions.

The problem with solutions that promote the ideas of social and economic mobility are two-fold.  One, as the seats and their conditions are fixed, the prospect for upward social mobility by those further back must be meet with the risks of downward social mobility by those in the front.  Therefore, this suggest that humans, especially at the top of the social hierarchy, are willing to suffer a reduction in their living standards in order to allow for the possibility that others lower in the pecking order can improve their situation.  This seems hard to believe as I'm more inclined to think that human beings with immense social status would not support the construction of a social system that threatens their well-being.  If anything this would create the incentive for those seated closest to the top to influence proceeding in a way that perpetuates their social status, even if this meant preventing those below them from challenging the status quo which disenfranchises them.  Thus, it's incredibly unlikely that individuals who have grown accustomed to their prestigious and comfortable seating would risk the loss of their status, reputation, and standards in order to support ideals associated with social mobility.  

The second issue is that such solutions leave the deplorable seating unchanged.  As this is the case given the construction of the bus, it only becomes a matter of who deserves to be seated at the back.  What is left to be decided is who should be stuck sitting in not only the worse and most dangerous conditions, but also the stigma and low self-worth associated with it.

I think there is something to be said to this romanticized notion that the prospects for social mobility will cause valiant individuals lower in the social hierarchy to elevate themselves.  The problem here is that these forces would have to be great enough to overcome the dire initial conditions which if anything may reinforce personal and communal underdevelopment and desperation.  On the other side of the spectrum, it might create the propensity for risk-aversion at the top as they seek to protect and insulate themselves from threats to their social well-being.  

This may be a bit controversial when we think about domestic conditions.  However if we were to take a global perspective, how many of us would risk our or our children's well being to give kids in Bangladesh a better opportunity at living a more humane life?  Ideally perhaps, but in practice this likely wouldn't be a choice one would actually make if confronted with these trade-offs.  

Therefore, the solution isn't necessarily to enhance social mobility, but to construct a better world overall where all the seats are of the highest quality given the resources available.  If improved social mobility facilitates this investment then it is only indirectly a social good as it may provide the incentive for some to work toward this goal.  With that said, the primary objective in that case would still be to improve living standards for as many as possible. 

It's easy to suggest that such vast improvement is simply impossible.  It seems to be popular among too many to assume that our current generation of human beings is only capable of making the world worse. This very well could be the case, but these assumptions don't necessarily accurately describe the world we live in today.  If anything for those that hold such assumptions as truths, it may shed light on their own inner pessimism.  Even if these assumptions were true, it still wouldn't suggest that these trends were destined to continue given that the future course of events are uncertain and yet to be settled.  Regardless, it shouldn't cause individuals and communities to lose sight of the solutions and tools which we possess.    

Education, innovation, and technological advancements are the investments and tools which enable the construction of a better community for all it's inhabitants.  Each help overcome resource and environmental limitations which are the primary real constraints that need to be overcome to achieve such a goal.  However, they alone are certainly not enough unless they are part of a social and political system which more evenly distributes the fruits of enhanced productivity.  

If those that are best positioned to improve the system are more concerned with their relative social standing rather than using their power to improve the system/society/community/bus then this would require abandoning the status quo.  In a world that features the brightest minds in human history equip with the most enhanced technology, it strikes me that this status quo is the overwhelming issue.  This is certainly not to suggest that mindless destruction is necessary given that a little enlightened self-interest by the most powerful can go a long way.  

"Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.  I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be.  This is the interrelated structure of reality."  - MLK 

"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."  - MLK