High levels of inequality lead to low levels of social mobility

This page contains a selection of third-party reports that provide evidence to support the argument above. It is not intended to be comprehensive. The sections of text below summarise relevant arguments from the reports cited. Click on the relevant report card to read the original report.

Inequality is more important than education in determining mobility

In most countries, education has done little to improve social mobility, which is low in the UK for both high and low earners. The home environment that children grow up in and their work situation are at least as important in determining future prospects. The likelihood of climbing the ladder in terms of income or class is heavily influenced by family background. Home ownership rates are increasingly immobile across generations. The pandemic has also reduced social mobility because children from disadvantaged backgrounds lost more learning hours when schools were closed.

Income inequality reduces social mobility

Opportunities have got worse rather than better for recent generations. One in three sons born in poverty in 1970 were still among the lowest earners as adults. Young people today are facing larger income divides, wider gaps in terms of home ownership, lower relative wages and fewer opportunities for advancement. The ‘Great Gatsby curve’ shows a strong inverse link between income inequality and social mobility; wider gaps between rich and poor lead to more rigid societies. Countries like the UK and US suffer from both high inequality and low social mobility.

Ethnic minorities face disadvantage in the labour market

Although second-generation ethnic minority groups in the UK are generally doing well at school and university (despite the fact that they are more likely than white children to have been disadvantaged as children), they still have lower employment rates than their white majority peers. This gap persists even when disadvantaged family origins are taken into account, suggesting that some disadvantages in the labour market are reduced but not completely eliminated by educational success.

Browse other substance pages

Benefits are falling in real terms

Children with special needs are not well enough supported

Disadvantage undermines people’s capabilities and opportunities

Genetic differences only play a small part in determining educational outcomes

Income inequality is high by historical and European standards

Levels of wellbeing are declining

Many high earners are paid unreasonably large amounts of money

Millions are unable to afford decent housing

Parenting support only makes a small difference

People from poorer backgrounds are less likely to get to and do well at university

People from poorer backgrounds do less well at school

People from poorer backgrounds earn less money

Poor quality work undermines people’s physical and mental health

Poorer people don’t have a buffer against economic shocks

Public services are often worse in deprived areas

Socio-economic inequality leads to environmental inequality

Socio-economic inequality leads to health inequalities

Socio-economic inequality leads to more crime and less effective criminal justice

Socio-economic inequality leads to political inequality

The best way to become wealthy is to be wealthy already

The education system can never totally compensate for disadvantage

The nature of poverty is changing

The rising costs of living hit poorer households harder

The structure of our economy leads to huge regional inequalities

The tax system could be designed to be more progressive

There are still high levels of tax evasion and avoidance

There is little relationship between merit and reward

Too many people are on low incomes and in insecure work

Wealth inequality is much larger than income inequality

Wealth is taxed at much lower rates than income

Fairness Index home

Subscribe

Download PDF

Contact us