top of page

The Stifling of Social Mobility Through Government Intervention


Social mobility—the capacity to ascend the socio-economic ladder—is a critical barometer of a society’s health and fairness. It reflects the opportunities available to individuals, regardless of their starting point in life. However, well-intentioned government interventions can often construct barriers that hinder this upward climb, resulting in a stratified society where the rungs of the ladder grow further apart.

The dynamism of a society's social mobility is predicated on the availability of opportunities and the absence of insurmountable barriers to advancement. However, some of the brightest minds in economics and psychology acknowledge that government interventions, particularly those that control entry into professions and markets, impede this fluidity.

Barriers erected by the government—licensing requirements, zoning laws, and educational mandates—protect incumbents at the expense of new entrants. In Australia, the regulation of certain trades and professions often requires extensive certification that can be both time-consuming and costly, effectively limiting entry to those with the resources to navigate these requirements. Worse, many in Australia experience lifelong debt due to educational mandates on qualifications, which do not correlate to competence. Imagine spending almost half a decade and getting almost two average years of net income in debt, only to discover you are in the lower skill percentile of an industry.

Overregulation stifles entrepreneurship, which is frequently the driving force behind social mobility. For example, small business owners in Australia have consistently voiced concerns over the layers of bureaucracy that inhibit their growth and ability to compete with larger, established firms. This dampens the spirit of innovation that often propels individuals from modest means to greater economic heights.

Education is heralded as a great equalizer, but government intervention in education exacerbates inequality. In the Australian context, while public education provides a base, the quality and outcomes of schooling vary significantly, often reflecting socio-economic status rather than merit or effort. This can entrench disadvantages rather than alleviate them.

Welfare programs are designed to be safety nets, yet when they become too comfortable, they can create a disincentive for self-improvement. As we see in Australia, there is a case to be made that the welfare system makes people less likely to look for work or higher wages because they will lose their benefits if they do. This keeps people in a cycle of dependency, and evidence suggests it is generational.

From a psychological perspective, the barriers to social mobility have profound effects on individuals' agency and self-perception. A society that overly regulates and controls fosters a sense of helplessness among its citizens, undermining their belief in the possibility of change through personal effort.

In Australia, the housing market offers a clear illustration of how government policies restrict social mobility. Stringent building regulations and land-use restrictions have contributed to high housing costs, making home ownership—an important step in social advancement—increasingly unattainable for many Australians, particularly the young and those in lower income brackets.

The debate then centers on the role of government: should it be the facilitator of social mobility or the gatekeeper? While regulation is necessary to ensure fairness and safety, it must be balanced with the need to preserve the fluidity of social movement. Policies must be carefully crafted to encourage, not hinder, the upward mobility of citizens.

The interplay between government intervention and social mobility is delicate. While some regulation is necessary to safeguard the public and ensure a level playing field, excessive intervention has created barriers that limit opportunities for upward mobility. The Australian experience underscores the need for a nuanced approach that balances the protection of citizens with the promotion of a dynamic, open society where every individual has the chance to rise based on merit and effort. It is within this balance that the true spirit of a free and fair society is nurtured. From the author.


The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with almost 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.

1 view0 comments

Comments


bottom of page