The argument so far:

Part of a government's core mission is to create conditions conducive to the Pursuit of Happiness – that is, living with a sense of meaning and the promise of deep satisfaction.

These would be conditions that foster the individual's sense of control and purpose, especially in the quest for social connection and status.

Status aspirations require a reference point: higher status in comparison to what? The answer: in comparison to our earlier selves and other people – mainly people we know or who are like us.

In the absence of favorable social comparisons, we at least want to feel movement from where we used to be to where we want to be - that is, we want to feel a sense of progress.

Conditions of high social mobility hold the promise of progress towards higher status. A high level of social mobility within a society fosters the pursuit of happiness within the populace.

An ideal government should therefore do what it can to promote social mobility.

Indicators of high inequality and low social mobility tend to co-vary in developed countries, at least in recent times. The reasons for this relationship are unclear.

Americans are still a fairly socially mobile people, but part of the population is stuck. What can the US government do to help these folk? Some ideas:

  1. Since skills and education are crucial to moving up the socioeconomic ladder, provide adult students (18-70) with a basic income for up to six years total, similar to what Denmark does. There would be provider standards, as well as participation and performance requirements. Covered education and training would include: English/Adult Basic Education, vocational training, modular and web-based coursework, and college classes.
  2. Since the geography of opportunity keeps changing, provide a relocation stipend for people receiving unemployment compensation in areas with a high unemployment rate and who want to move to areas with low unemployment, with the stipend contingent upon verification of move.
  3. Good health is essential to learning and living well. Healthcare should be a universal right. We need a fiscally-responsible healthcare system with serious cost-controls and reliable revenue. Something that reduces the role of medical specialists by requiring GP gatekeepers, realigns incentives to discourage unnecessary diagnostic tests and treatments, and replaces the current malpractice system with something like Denmark’s national compensation program (which is more like a non-adversarial workers comp system).

Yeah, implementing the above suggestions would cost money and taxes would have to be raised. Ideally, most of the needed revenue would come from eliminating existing programs. For instance, costs for the adult student basic income would be paid in part by eliminating federal post-secondary education grant and loan programs. The relocation allowance could be paid in part by funds freed up from lower government unemployment costs, as the adult student basic income would be an alternative to getting unemployment and some of the unemployed would choose the BI instead of getting unemployment benefits.

And if we were really serious about reducing healthcare costs to levels comparable to other developed countries (both per capita and as a portion of GDP), universal healthcare would not bust the budget.

Et Voilà! A much more socially (and geographically) mobile society, busily pursuing happiness.