When the importance of freedom and autonomy is embedded in the U.S Constitution, the plain assumption is that choice lends to greater well-being. But is choice distributed equally among all people, or should it be considered a privilege? Is choice always a good thing? While the syllogism at the beginning of Markus and Schwartz’s “Does Choice Mean Freedom and Well-Being?” implies that having choice shows signs of freedom, this preconceived notion is not always true. How much choice one has is significantly contingent on culture and socioeconomic class. Although having the ability to choose is a positive thing, the inequality and the lack of opportunity that make mobility more difficult in North America leads to the asymmetric levels of choice available for each socioeconomic class. 

‍

When talking about choice, individuals in North America seem to associate choice with signs of freedom. However, this association should only be made when everyone can make choices at a similar expense. This fails to be the case, especially with the increase in income inequality in North American countries like the United States. Because the U.S. is one of the few countries where intergenerational mobility is greatly associated with college earning premiums, this correlation translates to inequality in labor markets. The cost of attending a collegiate institution is exponentially higher in the U.S. compared to other countries like Norway or Denmark, creating a vast difference in employment opportunities that funnel down to the choices these different socioeconomic groups will be able to make (Figure 4, Corak 87). 

‍

‍

Whereas, looking back at Figure 4, I would conclude that choices made by Norway and Denmark are freedoms rather than choices of privilege because the graphs depict that these countries are the least affected by the general earnings elasticity—presenting a more level playing field for upward mobility compared to counties with higher levels of inequality. 

‍

Regarding the choices made by Americans of different socioeconomic classes, the working class simply has fewer options than its upper-middle-class counterparts. Namely, in terms of employment, working-class individuals who have not obtained a college degree have fewer and lower-paying employment options than the middle class. This manifests the idea that those with fewer options may not even have an opportunity remotely considered “good,” leading to individuals picking between two inferior options. Furthermore, the working class tends to associate choice with negative phrases such as “doubt” and “fear,” while the middle-class associates choice with “freedom” and “independence.” This substantiates the idea that choice has different effects on various socioeconomic statuses due to how much more consequential one’s choice is when there is less monetary cushion to rely on. 

‍

With the continuous growth of inequality, upward mobility has been proven more difficult for working-class members of the United States—leading to “family income background playing a bigger role in determining adult outcomes of young people.” When children's future income becomes increasingly correlated with their guardians' incomes, it perpetuates a vicious cycle of intergenerational immobility. With this, we must ask ourselves to what extent does this become too much inequality? While inequality does provide incentives for people to work hard toward mobility, we should define instances as “too much inequality” when such options for mobility are slim to none. Then, how do we properly address these levels of inequality? Inequality cannot simply be solved with just government intervention. For instance, much of the disagreements surrounding government assistance, like welfare benefits for those on or below the poverty line, are due to how it increases unemployment in the economy in the long run. Perhaps providing welfare is a way to alleviate the current constraints one may have in obtaining their basic needs in the short run. Instead, due to how elastic the college earnings premiums are with mobility in the U.S., proper investment in education accessibility can help decrease inequality in the long run. Investing in education will translate to individuals having the opportunity to obtain knowledge and skills that can apply to employment opportunities with higher earning potential.

‍

Ultimately, choice is generally a good thing as it provides people the opportunity to live the life they want. Nevertheless, inequality that has been deeply ingrained in our society does not allow for everyone’s choices to be equal, thus being unable to provide individuals—specifically the working class—with the full scope of opportunities toward upward mobility and the life they desire.