while researching another thread

[melm00se]

I came across this study:

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp673.aspx

I know that the current economy will have skewed the results but is the economic mobility described here is government propaganda or real?

[MrDiaz]

1. so your

telling me that the middle class in 1995 made less than they did in 2005, and that the richest in 1995 weren't as rich in 2005? The odd thing about this is that the BUSH TAX CUTS were passed in 2001 and 2003. So not only is this article saying that the tax cuts helped the middle class, and actually made the rich lose money, it also says that the middle class was better off under bush rather than clinton. And the Richest were better of under Clinton rather than bush? Did I get that right? I think I am in Bizarro world.

[mmonk]

2. We are at or near the bottom in economic mobility among

nations considered 1st world. Yes, upward mobility and opportunity here has largely become a lie or propaganda.

[mmonk]

3. Here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html

Is America the "land of opportunity"? Not so much.

A new report from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) finds that social mobility between generations is dramatically lower in the U.S. than in many other developed countries.

So if you want your children to climb the socioeconomic ladder higher than you did, move to Canada.

-snip-