News From Across the Pond...

On my usual lunchtime read of the New York Times, I was confronted with the following front page:

The center headline announces the birth of the first child of the daughter of a party planner and the scion of an obscure German duchy. News of this baby's arrival has been much anticipated even here in the US, although with not quite the level of hysteria typical of the UK media. 

Call me a curmudgeon, but I find it a little disappointing that a country as large as the United States that is founded on republican (small 'r'!) principles takes such an interest in the 'Royal baby' story. They did kick out the baby's ancestor for very good reasons 250 years ago, after all. Celebrity baby stories are always good click-bait, however, so we can assume that the free market is more of a motivator here than any change in American political sentiments. 

What should be of greater interest to all Americans is the story to the left of the 'Royal baby' story on the New York Times front page, 'Location Seen As Barrier in Climbing the Income Ranks'. It details a new study that reveals how important location can be in determining economic outcomes for low-income Americans. In the poorest parts of the United States, such as Atlanta, social mobility is lower and being born into the lowest income percentiles more or less guarantees future poverty too.

The study provides further evidence confirming that the United States is one of the most unequal developed countries in the world. Other developed countries such as Denmark and Canada have better social mobility than the USA. It is interesting to note, however, that within the United States itself there are pockets of 'Danish' or 'Canadian' equality with the Midwest of the country and wealthier metropolitan areas providing more opportunities for upward mobility than poorer parts of the US. 

This makes sense because when jobs are scarce nepotism tends to come into play. Growing up in Ireland with a 25% unemployment rate at times, the only way to get a good job was to know someone. In an increasingly competitive economy, this phenomenon seems to be more widespread than ever. In the same edition of the New York Times, an opinion piece 'Who's Your Daddy?', points out that a more unequal society becomes a vicious circle eventually. As life becomes more and more competitive those who enjoy relative privilege in the top quarter of earners feel unwilling to make way for the less fortunate. It becomes more acceptable to engage in nepotism and shy away from hiring unknowns.

The writer gives the example of Rolling Stone's Jann Wenner appointing his son Gus to be head of Rolling Stone magazine's online presence. At the ripe old age of 22. News of this kind of aristocratic-style appointment based on little more than primogeniture are disappointing. At least we still live in a society where business magnates like Rupert Murdoch and Jann Wenner, who set their sons up to inherit, are still obliged to explain their decision-making to shareholders and the public. Also, there are still examples out there of fantastically talented young people, like Tavi Gevinson, who have achieved success on their own steam. 

Nonetheless, if the economy keeps going in this direction, maybe it won't be long until Americans find themselves reading about endless hype about the birth of a Zuckerberg or Parker baby, with the event hailed as securing the future of an hereditary business empire and the sale of Facebook-Birth memorabilia that gullible subjects citizens can spend their hard-earned dollars to collect.