The recent media barrage of Royal baby news coupled with recent legislative measures removing funding for food stamps and education inspired me to write this post. In it I examine social mobility in the United States.  Obviously we start off with a quote to make this diatribe seem “smarter”. John Rawls said, “If we ignore the inequalities in people’s prospects in life arising from these contingencies and let those inequalities work themselves out while failing to institute the regulations necessary to preserve background justice, we would not be taking seriously the idea of society as a fair system of co-operation between citizens as free and equal.”  Rawls knew that society would encompass the haves and the have not’s, but he believed that a society that fails to champion the rights of the poor and lower class, would ultimately lead to a failed society. John Rawls further noted that life prospects are deeply influenced by contingencies of birth, including inborn talents, social class and luck. Several studies have been made comparing social mobility between developed countries. One such study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?”) found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. Today in the U.S., according the a recent New York Times report, 42% of men who are born in the poorest 5^th percent stay there, while in the UK, only 30% stay there.  As we fawn over the royal family and an aristocratic society, we fail to realize that we have fallen behind England in social mobility. (Note: The social mobility in England ranks among the worst in Europe) Our current financial models and laws worship big banks and the wealthy, because let’s be honest, the wealthy dictate legislation. Without the green paperbacks, nothing gets done in this city. As I learned in my Securities Regulation course, unless Goldman Sachs is behind your project, it is hard to succeed in this country. (Ok that’s a slight overgeneralization, but those bastards at Goldman have their fingerprints on everything!) The Economist recently published an article entitled “Rich Rewards”.  The author wrote, “The people of Australia and Canada have twice the social mobility of their counterparts in America and Britain despite having Gini coefficients in the same ballpark.” America was once a beacon for hope and the American Dream. It was, and in some aspects, continues to be a place where hard work and determination can lead to prosperity.  Although the foundation of America was built upon this dream, today Congress enacts legislation that directly conflicts with our founding ideals.  Take food stamps for example.  According to the Economist, “It is hard to argue that food-stamp recipients are undeserving. About half of them are children, and another 8% are elderly. Only 14% of food-stamp households have incomes above the poverty line; 41% have incomes of half that level or less, and 18% have no income at all. The average participating family has only $101 in savings or valuables.”  Yet Congressional budget cuts have targeted the Food Stamp program.  Next let us examine education.  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “States are spending $2,353 or 28 percent less per student on higher education, nationwide, in the current 2013 fiscal year than they did in 2008, when the recession hit.”  So whom do you think these cuts affect the most? If you guessed middle to lower income families, then ding ding ding you’re correct! We continue to spend billions on Wall Street bailouts, sucking up to hedge funds managers, unnecessary wars, and tax cuts for the super wealthy.  Further we continue to abandon the middle class and poor.  I wish the Royal baby hoopla would have lead to some greater debate on this issue, but as usual the media only focused on artificial matters.  I’ll end this post with a simple metaphor on how we should possibly think about remedying our current situation. Rawls wanted to find a way for societies to ensure that the financial privileges of one generation didn’t extend automatically into the next. He drew an analogy to the world of sport: “The draft rule in a professional sport such as basketball ranks teams in the opposite order from their standing in the league at the end of the season; championship teams go last in the draft of new players.”