I think William Gibson say something like, "The future is here it's just unevenly distributed."
We have made great strides, but in the U.S. social mobility is lower now, life expectancy is down, so if you have to be born to a poor family, being born earlier might be better.
If you had the power to choose when to be born, you might also have the power to choose where to be born. In which case you might want to choose someplace other than the U.S.
There are few better places for social mobility than the US. If you are poor, but smart and ambitious, being in the US is the best thing that could happen to you.
The metric used here is an incorrect metric of social mobility. It compares father-son income correlation (which depends mostly on inheritance taxation and many other factors), while a better idea would be to compare the percentage of high achievers who started from humble beginnings.
Indeed, US education system is somewhat strange, to say the least. However, all these metrics are almost designed to present the US in bad light.
How about "the percentage of millionaires who were born in a poor family"? I bet this is where US shines. Rich people in most other countries are mostly from old money.
I used to live in Denmark. Ease of doing business -- well, there are good things (streamlined and transparent bureacracy) and there are bad things (taxes make you uncompetitive, especially if you plan to hire people). Access to capital -- can't even compare.
Regarding social mobility -- well, you can live a good life in Denmark, but living great life is different. Janteloven is still very much a thing.
We have made great strides, but in the U.S. social mobility is lower now, life expectancy is down, so if you have to be born to a poor family, being born earlier might be better.