4 ms·

High earning parents are able to pay for prep schools, tutoring, materials. Those children get into elite schools. Those graduates of elites schools go on to el

High earning parents are able to pay for prep schools, tutoring, materials. Those children get into elite schools. Those graduates of elites schools go on to elite, well-paid jobs. "On graduation, many members of America’s future elite will head for the law firms, banks and consultancies where starting salaries are highest." Here are some more explicit articles on the phenomenon: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/rich-people-raise-kids-family-wealth/399809/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/rich-peo... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11763836/Wealthy-parents-create-glass-floor-to-ensure-children-succeed-regardless-of-talent.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11763836/Wealthy-pare... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/upshot/rich-children-and-poor-ones-are-raised-very-differently.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/upshot/rich-children-and-p... If you'd like to read a study on it ("Poor Little Rich Kids? The Determinants of the Intergenerational Transmission of Wealth"), you can do so here: http://ftp.iza.org/dp9227.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp9227.pdf Here's another from Pew: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-report_artfinal.pdf?la=en http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-repo... If you want more information, google "social mobility united states", "intergenerational mobility united states", and read "Twilight of the Elites" and "The Son also Rises."

paulddraper 11y ago
The problem with that bit from the Economist is that it no data were presented to back it up. When it comes to these topics, there's pretty sloppy journalism all around, including the original NY Times article. The Atlantic article just quotes the IZA article, which is about wealth transfer in Sweden, not income. Wealth is heavily affected by spending habits; income less so. And t Telegraph and NY Times articles don't offer anything concrete on the subject. The Pew source does address the subject. The key part is: > Approximately half of parental income advantages are passed on to children. The IGE [intergenerational elasticity], when averaged across all levels of parental income, is estimated at 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women. (That means that if someone earns $40k above average, their children can be expected to earn $20k above average.) In comparison, IGE in UK is 0.5, France is 0.41, and Denmark is 0.15. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Intergen... IGE studies are somewhat scarce, but that's no excuse for the original NY Times making a bunch of unsubstantiated implications.

paulddraper 11y ago

The problem with that bit from the Economist is that it no data were presented to back it up. When it comes to these topics, there's pretty sloppy journalism all around, including the original NY Times article. The Atlantic article just quotes the IZA article, which is about wealth transfer in Sweden, not income. Wealth is heavily affected by spending habits; income less so. And t Telegraph and NY Times articles don't offer anything concrete on the subject. The Pew source does address the subject. The key part is: > Approximately half of parental income advantages are passed on to children. The IGE [intergenerational elasticity], when averaged across all levels of parental income, is estimated at 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women. (That means that if someone earns $40k above average, their children can be expected to earn $20k above average.) In comparison, IGE in UK is 0.5, France is 0.41, and Denmark is 0.15. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Intergen... IGE studies are somewhat scarce, but that's no excuse for the original NY Times making a bunch of unsubstantiated implications.