Class, Race, Gender and Moblity

Washington, DC – 11/13/2007 – Two-thirds of American families are earning more today than their parents did a generation ago, yet their likelihood of moving up—or down—the economic ladder still depends in large measure on their parents’ position, according to a new report issued by The Economic Mobility Project, an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Comprised of a Principals’ Group of experts from The American Enterprise Institute, The Brookings Institution, The Heritage Foundation and The Urban Institute, the project seeks to investigate the status of economic mobility in America.

The project issued three reports today, each authored by Julia B. Isaacs, Child and Family Policy Fellow at Brookings, examining economic mobility across generations. The first looks at how families have fared over the last 30 years, while the other reports investigate differences in mobility by race and gender.

American Families’ Ability to Climb the Economic Ladder Still Depends on Parents’ Income, Pew Press Release

This is one of those reports that seem to be fairly positive but once you start looking at it more closely you realize are also pretty depressing. According to Issacs, for example, “two-thirds of Americans saw increases in income, adjusted for inflation. At the same time, Americans live in smaller families, so higher incomes are spread over fewer people.” That sounds good.

Then you read on: “Forty-two percent of children born to parents at the bottom of the income distribution remain at the bottom, while 39 percent born to parents at the top, stay at the top.” That does not sound so good. “So, there is considerable mobility but it’s also the case that a child’s economic position is heavily influenced by that of his or her parents.” Class is always tied to family, but this suggests a certain rigidity in the system.

The Brookings Institute report suggests that the glass may not be half-full at all. “The report found that only 31 percent of black children born to parents in the middle-income group have family income greater than their parents, compared to 68 percent of white children in the same circumstance.” So the rigidity in the system has racial ties, too. Even worse, black middle class families have a harder time harnessing whatever economic advantage they may have earned for their children.

“Further, nearly half (45 percent) of black children in the middle-income group,” the reports goes on to say, “fall to the bottom of the income distribution in one generation, compared to only 16 percent of white children.” The Urban Institute provides the worse news yet, and it’s about gender, although it impacts all of us. “The report on the comparative economic mobility of men and women, highlights the fact that the growth in family incomes is largely due to the fact that far more families now have two earners.”

“The overall trends are generally upward and positive,” writes, Pew’ Managing Director, John E. Morton, “but there are significant numbers of Americans for whom this is not the case, and for whom the American Dream seems to be out of reach.” This seems an understatement, at best. Morton tries to sound positive, but these numbers simply reflect that change is slow to come if it ever comes at all.

nano-Hub

The nanoHUB is a rich, web-based resource for research, education and collaboration in nanotechnology. The nanoHUB hosts over 790 resources which will help you learn about nanotechnology, including Online Presentations, Courses, Learning Modules, Podcasts, Animations, Teaching Materials, and more. Most importantly, the nanoHUB offers simulation tools which you can access from your web browser, so you can not only learn about but also simulate nanotechnology devices. The nanoHUB also provides collaboration environment via Workspaces, Online meetings and User groups.

Resources come from 396 contributors in the nanoscience community, and are used by thousands of users from over 180 countries around the world. Most of our users come from academic institutions and use nanoHUB as part of their research and educational activities. But we also have users from national labs and from industry.

About nano-HUB

I like the idea of the nanoHub and I think if I were teaching courses in nano technology or collaborating with other scientists I might find it useful. To be honest, though, it is a little intimidating simply because it is often so technical. This might suggest a kind of social limit to open science, or at least a need for a kind of ‘plain speaking’ mirror to this site, where we could go to learn more.

Perhaps one day there will be open houses at these sorts of web-labs where we can go to look over scientific knowledge as it is being made. Looking around for more information on open science, I also found The Open Science Project, “dedicated to writing and releasing free and Open Source scientific software.”

What’s interesting about this group, founded by “the open source evangelist,” Dan Gezelter, is that they see their work as, in effect, popularizing the scientific method. “We are a group of scientists, mathematicians and engineers,” they write, “who want to encourage a collaborative environment in which science can be pursued by anyone who is inspired to discover something new about the natural world.”

Here too, though, there are access issues related simply to the technical nature of the work. What, for example, is a “multiphysics finite element code system”? In all fairness, though, Gezelter does have a good sense of the non-technical too. He has a weakness, for example for the cartoon called “Medium Large.”