This time, The Economist wraps some numbers and some very thoughtful analysis around the two-pronged question of income-inequality and social mobility in the United States. This is something that we rabid left-wingers have been blathering on about for years, so it’s nice to see some in the miserable science make an attempt (1) to quantify it, and (2) to point out that social mobility is a prerequisite for functional capitalism. When the rich get richer because of family connections, regardless of their abilities, and the poor get poorer because the rope is being pulled up out of their reach—and further, when the rich align themselves with those in power, or as is increasingly common, when the rich pass on power to their children behind closed doors so that it never comes out into the open market—we end up with nothing but an unregulated plutocracy masquerading as a democratic republic. Bill Clinton was probably the last poor boy done good we’ll see in high office for a long time. And no, Gonzales doesn’t count, because the real point is not that there exists one anecdotal case of a poor immigrant kid making it to Attorney General, but that most folks who aren’t born into wealth are finding the impediments to affordable education and well-paying jobs increasingly insuperable.

The Economist’s conclusion? “A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.”

The full text of the article is here.