Very little.
Judith Nancy Byers has written: 'Ethnic stratification and mobility in Canada' -- subject(s): Minorities, Social mobility, Social classes
Derek Gordon has written: 'Ethnicity and occupational attainment in Georgetown, Guyana' 'Class, status, and social mobility in Jamaica' -- subject(s): Social classes, Social mobility, Social status
Luis Campoy has written: 'Criollos y no-criollos' -- subject(s): Emigration and immigration, Immigrants, Social aspects, Social classes, Social conditions, Social mobility
Alfred Lubrano has written: 'Limbo' -- subject(s): Blue collar workers, Social classes, Social mobility, Social values, White collar workers
intergenerational mobility...structural mobility...intragenerational mobility...exchange mobility
Geographical mobility refers to the ability or willingness to move from one location to another, while social mobility pertains to the movement of individuals or groups within a social hierarchy or class system. Geographical mobility is about physical relocation, whereas social mobility is about improvement or decline in social status relative to others.
Spatial mobility is the rate of moves or migrations made by a given population within a given time frame. Spatial mobility can be a barrier to social mobility because spatial mobility segregates and divides races of humans into segments causing division. Division among people in our social society causes segregation, therefore, spatial mobility is a barrier to social mobility.
Spatial mobility is the rate of moves or migrations made by a given population within a given time frame. Spatial mobility can be a barrier to social mobility because spatial mobility segregates and divides races of humans into segments causing division. Division among people in our social society causes segregation, therefore, spatial mobility is a barrier to social mobility.
Roman society was arranged in social classes. The patricians and plebeians were at the top of the heap, followed by the equites and then the proletariat who were followed by the freedmen and lastly the slaves. There was upward mobility in the lower classes. A person's status many times depended upon his wealth.Roman society was arranged in social classes. The patricians and plebeians were at the top of the heap, followed by the equites and then the proletariat who were followed by the freedmen and lastly the slaves. There was upward mobility in the lower classes. A person's status many times depended upon his wealth.Roman society was arranged in social classes. The patricians and plebeians were at the top of the heap, followed by the equites and then the proletariat who were followed by the freedmen and lastly the slaves. There was upward mobility in the lower classes. A person's status many times depended upon his wealth.Roman society was arranged in social classes. The patricians and plebeians were at the top of the heap, followed by the equites and then the proletariat who were followed by the freedmen and lastly the slaves. There was upward mobility in the lower classes. A person's status many times depended upon his wealth.Roman society was arranged in social classes. The patricians and plebeians were at the top of the heap, followed by the equites and then the proletariat who were followed by the freedmen and lastly the slaves. There was upward mobility in the lower classes. A person's status many times depended upon his wealth.Roman society was arranged in social classes. The patricians and plebeians were at the top of the heap, followed by the equites and then the proletariat who were followed by the freedmen and lastly the slaves. There was upward mobility in the lower classes. A person's status many times depended upon his wealth.Roman society was arranged in social classes. The patricians and plebeians were at the top of the heap, followed by the equites and then the proletariat who were followed by the freedmen and lastly the slaves. There was upward mobility in the lower classes. A person's status many times depended upon his wealth.Roman society was arranged in social classes. The patricians and plebeians were at the top of the heap, followed by the equites and then the proletariat who were followed by the freedmen and lastly the slaves. There was upward mobility in the lower classes. A person's status many times depended upon his wealth.Roman society was arranged in social classes. The patricians and plebeians were at the top of the heap, followed by the equites and then the proletariat who were followed by the freedmen and lastly the slaves. There was upward mobility in the lower classes. A person's status many times depended upon his wealth.
Like most countries, the UK has a population comprised of all social classes.
There are many examples of social mobility. A good example is President Obama who moved from a middle-class child to being a president. This is a form of vertical social mobility.
Social mobility refers to the ability of individuals to move up or down in social class or status. It can be limited for many people due to factors such as unequal access to education, economic resources, and opportunities for advancement. Structural barriers like discrimination, lack of social capital, and generational poverty can also hinder social mobility for certain segments of society, making it unrealistic for them to improve their social standing.