3 ms·

> Environment is by far the determinant. That's not my impression of the literature. It seems like income is highly heritable and shared environment explains v

by evanpw 11y ago

> Environment is by far the determinant. That's not my impression of the literature. It seems like income is highly heritable and shared environment explains very little. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592970/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592970/ or https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER.... If you know of some papers that support your view, I'd be interested to see them.

tomp 11y ago
Did you read these papers? I only skimmed them, but it seems that the first of them basically concludes that there's not enough data, and the second one only contrasts non-identical twins (so their conclusion is that shared environment doesn't influence lifetime income), where a better option would be comparing twins that were separated and grew up in poor/rich families. As I said, I only skimmed the studies, have I missed anything essential?
- evanpw 11y ago
  I'm not aware of any studies on this topic that look at separated identical twins, but the sample sizes would have to be terribly small wouldn't they? Parents who adopt children are also not randomly selected, and almost never live in poverty, so I'm not sure whether you could trust the results even with a decent sample. I don't quite understand your point about shared environment not being meaningful. The thesis of the original article is that the environment that a poor kid grows up in can cause physical changes in the brain, which cause them to be poor as an adult. One alternate explanation for the correlation between parent and child poverty is that some people are poor for genetic reasons, and those genetics are passed on to their children, who also end up poor. Distinguishing between the effect of shared environment and genetics on adult income is exactly what you need to decide between those two explanations.
  - tomp 11y ago
    Well, that's what I'm trying to say, proving this is really difficult, which is why I'm not inclined to believe it. It might be easier to do a study with kids of poor (genetic) parents that were adopted (immediately after birth) by rich parents. > I don't quite understand your point about shared environment not being meaningful. I'll have to think about this one more, I'm not sure it really matters.
    - evanpw 11y ago
      This seems to be what you're looking for: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21409 http://www.nber.org/papers/w21409. But I can't find an ungated version.
      - tomp 11y ago
        Thanks! Well, according to the abstract, the findings of this paper suggest that environment is more important than genetics. > Our findings suggest that wealth transmission is not primarily because children from wealthier families are inherently more talented or more able but that, even in relatively egalitarian Sweden, wealth begets wealth.
MaysonL 11y ago
Try this: Is Financial Success a Product of Inherited Genes? [0] [0] http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/blog/is-financial-success-a-product-of-our-genes http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/blog/is-financial-succ...

by evanpw 11y ago

tomp 11y ago

Did you read these papers? I only skimmed them, but it seems that the first of them basically concludes that there's not enough data, and the second one only contrasts non-identical twins (so their conclusion is that shared environment doesn't influence lifetime income), where a better option would be comparing twins that were separated and grew up in poor/rich families. As I said, I only skimmed the studies, have I missed anything essential?

evanpw 11y ago
I'm not aware of any studies on this topic that look at separated identical twins, but the sample sizes would have to be terribly small wouldn't they? Parents who adopt children are also not randomly selected, and almost never live in poverty, so I'm not sure whether you could trust the results even with a decent sample. I don't quite understand your point about shared environment not being meaningful. The thesis of the original article is that the environment that a poor kid grows up in can cause physical changes in the brain, which cause them to be poor as an adult. One alternate explanation for the correlation between parent and child poverty is that some people are poor for genetic reasons, and those genetics are passed on to their children, who also end up poor. Distinguishing between the effect of shared environment and genetics on adult income is exactly what you need to decide between those two explanations.
- tomp 11y ago
  Well, that's what I'm trying to say, proving this is really difficult, which is why I'm not inclined to believe it. It might be easier to do a study with kids of poor (genetic) parents that were adopted (immediately after birth) by rich parents. > I don't quite understand your point about shared environment not being meaningful. I'll have to think about this one more, I'm not sure it really matters.
  - evanpw 11y ago
    This seems to be what you're looking for: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21409 http://www.nber.org/papers/w21409. But I can't find an ungated version.
    - tomp 11y ago
      Thanks! Well, according to the abstract, the findings of this paper suggest that environment is more important than genetics. > Our findings suggest that wealth transmission is not primarily because children from wealthier families are inherently more talented or more able but that, even in relatively egalitarian Sweden, wealth begets wealth.

MaysonL 11y ago

Try this: Is Financial Success a Product of Inherited Genes? [0] [0] http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/blog/is-financial-success-a-product-of-our-genes http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/blog/is-financial-succ...