On Equality of Opportunity

      I read an article today by Melissa Winkler with the Society of St. Vincent De Paul concerning the percentage of income that the least well off spend on necessities as compared to those in higher income brackets. The information seemed very obvious; people with low incomes by definition have less money. Since prices of staples are not income dependent (e.g. gas, food, clothes), it follows that these people are spending larger percentages of their income on them. It is possible for those to with greater incomes to be buying more of these things or to buy items of higher quality and therefore higher price, so the information is not simply a tautology. Still, it doesn't surprise me in the least.

      I was on the verge of chiding myself for wasting my time reading something that I basically already knew, but then I found the value in the article. The author did a great job following the facts with their ramifications. When someone spends 40-50% of their income on housing and another 10% on electricity, not to mention any other utilities, the bills quickly pile up such that it can be very difficult to have anything left over for things like schooling or job training programs.

      That idea made me think about the resources available to people to improve their circumstances and employability. The main tool people utilize in education, business, and even their personal lives is the loan. But loans are not free money. Banks and other financial institutions need to be convinced the money they are lending is likely to return to them. They also want collateral so that should one default on the loan they can salvage some of the lost funds through the sale of whatever was put up against the loan. In the most common cases, the item placed against the loan is the item(s) bought with the loaned money, for instance houses, cars, or business equipment and property.

      Education and skill training is different. The borrowed money isn't buying an object, but knowledge. The money is often used not only to pay for the classes and certification exams but also the basic necessities as those classes don't often leave enough time for one to earn a wage great enough to pay for such. Thus many of the loan programs for education and training are through government programs rather than private banks. There simply isn't an obvious profit incentive for private firms to loan money for education. The drop-out and incompletion rates are too high and having a degree or certification does not guarantee a job that pays enough to cover one's bills and the loan itself.

      So it appears our society recognizes that there are market short comings in providing the means for improvement and has programs in place to compensate for these shortcomings. But are the programs enough? Are people from the bottom quintile in income or those below the poverty line able to utilize these programs to move out of poverty? What would be a good metric for determining if these programs are doing enough to say economic mobility is not only possible but actively taking place in the United States? Does it have to be seen through a single generation or would parents laying the ground work for their children to lead more economically stable lives be enough? Who is using government loan and grant programs? Is it the least capable of paying or are more people from the middle utilizing such programs to compensate for the continuously growing cost of higher education?

      I'm not sure the answers to any of these questions are out there, but I'd like to try and find them. If the United States is going to be labeled as a land of opportunity, it should be proven to be so and not just for a select few who's evidence is anecdotal but for any and all willing to take the necessary steps and risks to make their lives better and in the process this country as well.