Mobility is a fancy way of describing how less well-off people in society are systematically empowered to move up the chain to make more money and become “successful”. That strategy sounds as silly as changing the game of soccer in a way everybody can score.
Upward mobility sounds like a nobel concept, except when you realize it leans on the false presumption that money equals merit and success is defined by how much money you manage to acquire. Indeed, when the merit of money is subjugated to a narrow-minded and monolithic humanitarian game detached from evolutionary plurality, the discretionary merit of money becomes as deflated as a game of soccer in which everyone can score.
My point is that mobility is not a cause but a consequence. Meaning, mobility will be a consequence of marketplace constructs that align the full scope of human merit with the scope of human needs (not wants). At that point, not only upward mobility will be maximized but downwards mobility, from no longer serving human needs, will reestablish and renew the assignment of evolutionary merit to serve humanity.
Conversely, a society with no downward mobility refutes a meritocracy causing fear of displacement and resistance to upward mobility.