Social welfare programs are under assault. Whether they are deemed “wasteful” by “fiscally responsible” Tea Party-ers or accessories to sloth by others, the common line of attack is that the American dream is born of hard work and thankless toil. If Americans are to achieve the dream, they purport, they are to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and stop “mooching” off the state. What these misty-eyed patriots ignore, however, is that both in the short- and long-term, social mobility is not as simple as they think.

The attacks come from a variety of sources, but hold the same message: that beneficiaries of social programs are “sponging.” Tea Party Web sites like www.worldnetdaily.com proffer editorials brandishing terms like “nanny state” in reference to the recently passed health insurance reform bill. The term “nanny state” has been pejoratively used to describe the U.S. and U.K. governments with respect to their social programs. The criticism has gotten so heated in fact that the Department of Human Services has published a “myth busting” page about welfare including responses to claims like “welfare recipients are a drain on the system.” Regardless of source or rhetoric, the common rationale is that the government should abstain from social intervention because the American dream of pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps does not require government help and providing such help fosters lower-class sloth. In terms of class, this would mean that an individual of a low social class, one eligible for social welfare programs generally, would not need those programs if they were to simply work hard and prudently capitalize on socially advancing opportunities. From this perspective, state social programs appear wasteful, coddling Americans who instead of benefiting from help should instead learn the lesson that a hard days work and careful financial decisions can obtain domestic fulfillment. In order to challenge this perspective, the playing field of social class must first be laid.

Social class can be defined by four variables: occupation, education, income and wealth. All bounds here are given in a 2005 New York Times study on class in America. Occupation involves the social prestige an individual commands by belonging to a particular profession. For example, lawyers reside in the top fifth of social class while motor vehicle repairmen reside in the lower middle class. Education involves the level of schooling that an individual has obtained; an individual possessing a bachelor’s degree resides in the top fifth while a 10th grade education resides in the bottom fifth. Income involves the annual amount of money that an individual makes; an individual making less than $20,000 resides in the lowest fifth and over $60,000 resides in the top fifth. Finally, wealth denotes the monetary value of all assets held by an individual; an individual holding less than $5,000 resides in the lower middle class and over $500,000 reside in the top fifth.With these definitions in mind, we can now draw a few conclusions from authoritative research.

Now if one is to discredit the need for social programs, one needs to examine his or her need in both the short and long term. Beginning with short-term analysis, one finds that despite lavish language about the American dream, the need for social programs is indeed present. American University professor Tom Hertz work reveals that while households who worked more than 40 hours per week — “bootstrap pullers” if you will — were more upwardly mobile than those working less in 1990-’91 and 1997-’98, this was not true in 2003-’04, “suggesting that people who work long hours on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families.” According to the NY Times study, of those in the bottom fifth in 1988, only 2.5 percent advanced into the top fifth by 1998. Only an additional 7.5 percent made it into the upper middle class and a remarkable 52.5 percent remained in the lower fifth. This was compared to the 52.5 percent who remained in the upper fifth upon starting there and the mere 5 percent of that class that fell to the bottom fifth.Now the long-term perspective includes mobility across generations; the idea that a child can move in social standing regardless of their parents’ standing. However, even in the long-term the picture is just as rocky. Tom Hertz said children from low-income families have a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent, as opposed to a child from a higher class who faces a 22 percent chance.

By his calculation, “education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.” The factor of race cannot be understated when one examines his conclusion that “the difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.” Effectively, this means that no matter how hard one works, no matter how hard one pulls at their bootstraps, ones economic destiny is determined to a greater degree by race and health.Even comparatively these markers are notable. According to both the Times and Hertz studies, the U.S. lags behind France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark in intergenerational social mobility. When one compares these numbers to public perception of social mobility in America, however, it’s easy to understand the anger against social programs. According to the Times study, 80 percent of Americans in 2005 believed it was possible to, “start poor… work hard and become rich”. In addition, 71 percent believed that America possesses the same or greater mobility than European countries. Finally, 75 percent believed that they were of greater or equal social class than when they began. Demonstrably, public perception of social mobility is at stark odds with the reality.

Regardless of how fervently one argues against social programs as a vehicle for social mobility, the facts bear out the truth. In the short-term, class is determined more by starting position than by work ethic. Even work ethic is failing in its capacity to advance an individual socially, crippling the concept that lower-class individuals should simply “work harder.” The long-term picture is no rosier, with research finding that education, race, health and state of residence — not work ethic – are the four primary channels by which class is obtained. Finally, internationally, the United States – the land of opportunity — lags behind no less than seven other modern nations in intergenerational social mobility, meaning that even the grandchild of a lower-class citizen starts the class race at a disadvantage.Social programs like welfare, unemployment and food stamps provide a necessary edge that the less-than-fortunate require to have a fair running in the social race. Throwing rhetoric at the problem does nothing but alienate those poor whom Lady Liberty beckons.

Ian Barker is a senior in chemical engineering from Des Moines.