27 / 150
INEQUALITY IN EUROPE IN THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY
27
low wage earners by the rest of society came
about because there were sufficient numbers of
workers on hand to exploit: in other words, un-
employed people with no alternatives. Until this
reservoir completely dries up, this form of seg-
mentation will always find a way of rearing its
head. How exactly to go about draining the res-
ervoir remains to be discussed.
The education system as part
of the polarisation syndrome
The segmented labour market (in reality of
course not only divided but complex and with
differing structures from country to country)
combines with other societal mechanisms when
life opportunities are allocated. Who ends up in
which segment of the labour market depends,
wherever you are, on the qualifications obtained
in the formal education system. But access to
education opportunities is segmented in itself
and is by no means dictated by children’s ge-
netic makeup only – perhaps not even primarily.
In general (to a lesser extent in Denmark, to a
greater extent in the UK), children from lower
social classes have much lower chances of qual-
ifying for the protected segment of the labour
market than their richer counterparts. Factors
enter into play such as the affinity for education
which is often lower in households from lower
social classes, including many immigrant house-
holds, and which has an impact on children’s
early intellectual challenges and is also seen in
the parents’ determination to succeed where
the school career of their offspring is concerned.
But everyday issues such as having the money to
pay for a good education also have a role to
play. All of this means that belonging to the
lower segments of the labour market where
wages are low and working conditions are poor
tends to be handed down from generation to
generation. Positions on the sunnier side of
working life are largely reserved for the sons
and daughters of better-off families, without
categorically ruling out both upwards and
downwards social mobility.
During times of rapid growth in demand for
well-qualified employees the door to upwards
social mobility was naturally flung wide open.
Even then, however, the education system
served to maintain the status of the “upper”
classes whereas ascent to these classes was
mainly based on meritocratic criteria. Most chil-
dren of “ordinary people” remained “ordinary
people”. The difference compared to develop-
ment in the previous 20-30 years was that pros-
perity for all (an election slogan of the German
Christian Democrats in the 1950s) was standard
for the richer European countries and offered
prospects in the poorer countries that the lower
wage groups were not disconnected from the
average standard of living or were at least draw-
ing closer to it.
The education system allocates labour market
chances and, hence, claims to an “acceptable”
or higher standard of living. But when it results in
more people aspiring to well-paid and semi well-
paid jobs than the labour market can absorb,
other selection mechanisms are used, for in-
stance, the quality or reputation of educational
establishments or social networks. The excess
supply of aspirants to well-paying jobs can lead
to low-skilled jobs in the unprotected sector be-
ing performed in large numbers by overqualified
employees. It can also lead to large-scale unem-
ployment among the “overqualified” if they do
not want to jeopardise their aspirations with
stop-gap jobs in call centres, building sites, ware-
houses and the like which may disqualify them
for other jobs and if they have other survival
strategies on hand (living with parents, etc.).