Is the American dream just... a dream?

The WSJ is writing a series of articles on the challenges to the American dream. The first article [May 17 - Moving Up: Challenges to the American Dream: U.S. Mobility Stalls as Disparity Widens --- Those in Bottom Economic Rung Enjoy Better Odds in Europe; How Parents Confer an Edge] gives statistics from various studies that apparently hurt this notion of a land of exceptional opportunities. While some examples such as Benjamin Franklin who rose from printer apprentice to politics after accumulating an incredible wealth are catching the eye, the reality is murkier and data suggest that if you are born poor, odds are that you will remain poor and if you are born rich, you are not likely to fall into poverty.

Despite the widespread belief that the U.S. remains a more mobile society than Europe, economists and sociologists say that in recent decades, the typical child starting out in poverty in continental Europe (or in Canada) has had a better chance at prosperity. Miles Corak, an economist for Canada's national
statistical agency who edited a recent Cambridge University press book on mobility in Europe and North America, tweaked dozens of studies of the U.S., Canada and European countries to make them comparable. "The U.S. and Britain appear to stand out as the least-mobile societies among the rich countries studied," he finds. France and Germany are somewhat more mobile than the U.S.; Canada and the Nordic countries are much more so.

This belief in the American dream can explain why "Americans, much more than Europeans, have tolerated the widening inequality in recent years. It is OK to have ever-greater differences between rich and poor, they seem to believe, as long as their children have a good chance of grasping the brass ring." Based on these studies, can we infer that wealth redistribution policies (ie: European model) are a good way to create a more egalitarian society and decrease the gap between riches and poors?