Only 14% of the men born to fathers on the bottom 10% of the wage ladder made it to the top 30%. Only 17% of the men born to fathers on the top 10% fell to the bottom 30%.

If there was perfect mobility you would expect rises and fall of 30%, so 14% and 17% do not seem so bad seeing as how they are the numbers for the biggest (and hence most difficult) rise/fall.

In any case such numbers are a distraction. The rich-poor gap is far more critical that the background of the people that make up any given 10% bracket. There will always be a poorest 10% no matter what way the cake is cut. I would be happy with less class mobility as long as the gap was narrowing (hell, at this stage I would take it if the gap simply stopped expanding).