myth of upward mobility

[Gareth Gaston]

> Zimmerman found that long-term average income status was mostly 
> determined by parental earnings. Of children born into the bottom 
> quartile, 40 per cent stayed there; 29 per cent moved up just one 
> level. At the top, the picture was similar. Among children born into 
> the highest quartile, 41 per cent remained in that segment; 17 per 
> cent moved down just one level. Because these numbers measured 
> earnings alone, rather than inherited wealth, they probably 
> understate the stability of socio-economic class. 

What strikes me about these statistics is the degree to which they
confirm income mobility (in both directions).  I don't think anyone 
believes that there is no correlation between parental income and 
the income of the next generation.  The claim is that in America 
it is not as high as it is elsewhere.  This study shows that 31 percent 
(100-40-29) of people born into the bottom quartile end up in the 
top half.  And conversely that 42 percent of people born into the 
top quartile end up in the bottom half.  That seems like an awful 
lot of mobility to me. If it were completely random the numbers should 
be 50 percent. 31 and 42 percent are a lot closer to 50 than they are 
to 0 which is what it would be if there we no income mobility.

It seems odd that the article doesn't mention the equivalent
figures in Europe or the UK considering it was published in the F.T.
I would be that they are a lot lower. 

Gareth

 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text