The economic mobility myth is a myth.
In fact, it’s a false one.
The concept has been around since the 1990s, when the authors of the book The Great Stagnation: Why Growth Isn’t Working (public library) put it in their first book on the subject.
The basic idea is that the more people move, the more the economy is in equilibrium.
But the notion has also been applied to other things, such as how many people work in the same city or where you live, and the size of the city.
This is the idea that the economy expands in response to the needs of the people it serves.
The problem with this is that it doesn’t work.
First of all, it depends on how the economy works.
Second of all the economy depends on people.
If the economy grows slowly, for example, it means that there are fewer people working in it.
The economy is also much more dynamic, which means that it expands at a much faster pace.
The fact that the economic mobility concept doesn’t apply to all economic activities suggests that it’s based on faulty assumptions.
There are some exceptions.
The New York Times reported that “there are some instances when the economic activities of a city or region can lead to a higher concentration of wealth, a more stable economy, a stronger middle class, and more opportunity for children.”
This is true.
There is a certain economic dynamic that makes it possible for people to live and work together in the city, even if they have different skills and abilities.
For example, the city might be able to attract and retain more people if it has a large concentration of talented and educated professionals, which is one of the key reasons that Chicago has an unusually high rate of job creation.
But when it comes to the real economy, however, there are many examples of cities that have managed to expand, or even recover from the Great Recession, thanks in large part to the economic dynamism of the middle class and the ability of cities to attract skilled workers.
As an example, in the US, there were a lot of people working outside the traditional professions in the 1980s and 1990s.
But then the economy slowed down, and so jobs moved from the traditional jobs to the new professions.
And since then, the economy has grown much more slowly.
The US economy was not able to grow fast enough to absorb all the new jobs.
But if we compare this slow growth to the rapid growth of the economies of Europe and China, the US economy is much better able to absorb new jobs than Europe and the Chinese economies.
There’s an example of a very rapid recovery in the economy.
In Germany, for instance, the country experienced a huge economic expansion during the last few years, but then there was a massive recession in 2014-15.
In contrast, the economies in both Europe and North America had the same growth rate during the crisis.
As the crisis continued, Germany’s economy began to recover, but the country was unable to maintain that growth.
In the US and Europe, we see similar slow recoveries, but they’re much more sustained.
If we look at the US as an example: If you look at our economy, the last year was the worst in nearly two decades.
We had the lowest employment rate in almost five years, and unemployment has been above 5 percent for almost a year.
The country was still struggling with the economic impact of the Great Depression.
This was the perfect time for a big boost to the economy, but it didn’t happen.
In Europe, in contrast, we had a period of rapid growth.
But in 2015, unemployment was still above 5.6 percent.
And the recession has ended.
But our economies have grown much faster than those of the US.
The chart below shows the number of people in the top 1 percent of the income distribution.
For the last five years the number has been shrinking.
In other words, the average American has moved up in the last 15 years, while the average European has moved down.
And that’s because of the economic forces that have driven the growth of both countries.
The question is: Why?
What explains this dramatic growth?
Economists and policy-makers have tried to answer this question.
Some of the explanations have been put forward, such that it was because of a globalization of capital that allowed for much faster economic growth.
Others have argued that the Great Stagflation was caused by government intervention in the financial markets.
But these explanations haven’t been very convincing, and they haven’t answered the real question.
There was a period in the 1990’s when many economists and policymakers argued that we need to have an economic recovery to stabilize the economy and restore confidence.
But there’s been no recovery.
It’s been too slow and too incomplete.
The economic problems facing the US today are much worse than in 1990.
We’re living through a massive global recession, and we’re also facing an