It really depends on how you define social mobility. Immigrants in the US often jump from the bottom to top income quartiles within a single generation.
For those born in the US, there's less movement and that's exactly what would be expected in a system that has been relatively meritocratic for multiple generations. Regardless of whether of the previous generation excelled due to cultural or hereditary reasons, their children will likely inherit both. Children also inherit money, which is a factor. However, if money were the primary factor, poor immigrant families would tend to remain poor and they don't.
The times when there's a great deal of mobility between generations of native populations is when there's a change in structural obstacles (or benefits). This can be seen especially clearly in Jewish populations in the US when various discriminatory regulations were removed early last century or with (ethnically) Asian Americans later in the century. In both cases, many families made rapid gains in relative income and wealth. In the subsequent generation, children of the winners generally kept winning and metrics of "social mobility" displayed a decline, even though society had become objectively fairer than it had been two generations before.
This isn't to say society is "fair" now, only that simple inter-generational economic mobility comparisons poorly answer the question of where a conscientious person with no money would have the best chance of success.
Legally, no, but culturally yes - mostly because of family influence.
The immigrants children born in the US would be american. not immigrants. However, they are obviously going to get a lot of culture from their parents. They might get a second language when young, different customs, and more than likely different food. This was my grandmother. Most of her brothers were educated and lived decent lives, most definitely better than their parents.
My father - and his brothers and sisters - were split in how well they've done. The older children did just as well as the previous generation. They had less influence from the grandmother, but still carried a lot of traditions forward. The younger children had a rougher life after their father died (the older children were better able to cope).
My generation is likely the last that'll carry some of the traditions forward. We are basically normal folks. We have fond memories of eating Syrian food at Grandma's house, and most of us can cook a bit of it. It isn't often enough for our children to have fond memories of it. My generation really isn't passing that stuff along, even though it is part of our memory, our identities, and we might even talk about it in casual conversation. It just isn't a distinct enough part of our identity to pointedly pass along.
I agree, and believe that there is a strong case that the primary defining characteristic is cultural and skill-based. Which suggests that addressing the self-defeating culture and skills in the US underclass would be more effective in helping them than more direct methods of trying to prop them up.
Unfortunately as a society we are running in the other direction. :-(
> It really depends on how you define social mobility. Immigrants in the US often jump from the bottom to top income quartiles within a single generation.
If you read the FA, you see the same is the case in Canada. In general though the US has very low mobility for a developed nation. Canada is fairly average for a developed nation.
For those born in the US, there's less movement and that's exactly what would be expected in a system that has been relatively meritocratic for multiple generations. Regardless of whether of the previous generation excelled due to cultural or hereditary reasons, their children will likely inherit both. Children also inherit money, which is a factor. However, if money were the primary factor, poor immigrant families would tend to remain poor and they don't.
The times when there's a great deal of mobility between generations of native populations is when there's a change in structural obstacles (or benefits). This can be seen especially clearly in Jewish populations in the US when various discriminatory regulations were removed early last century or with (ethnically) Asian Americans later in the century. In both cases, many families made rapid gains in relative income and wealth. In the subsequent generation, children of the winners generally kept winning and metrics of "social mobility" displayed a decline, even though society had become objectively fairer than it had been two generations before.
This isn't to say society is "fair" now, only that simple inter-generational economic mobility comparisons poorly answer the question of where a conscientious person with no money would have the best chance of success.