6 ms·

Fascinating: income mobility in one generation (PARENT -> CHILD) cannot be extrapolated to multiple generations (PARENT -> CHILD -> CHILD ...), because socioeco

by cs702 10y ago

Fascinating: income mobility in one generation (PARENT -> CHILD) cannot be extrapolated to multiple generations (PARENT -> CHILD -> CHILD ...), because socioeconomic status persists across generations even if income fluctuates from one generation to the next. The example given in the OP is telling: "It's not unusual for the child of an economically successful professional to attend an elite educational institution and then move into an artistic or academic or nonprofit career or political career that might still involve traveling in elite circles but at a much lower salary level than his father's. If the professional's grandson then also attended an elite college and moved into a high-paying career in business and law, statistics would show a great deal of economic mobility while common sense would indicate three generations' worth of a high-status family." And it's not just Florence. The article mentions another study in Sweden that reached similar conclusions. I wonder how the US compares to European cities/countries.

huherto 10y ago
> because socioeconomic status persists across generations even if income fluctuates from one generation to the next. Or it could be regression to the mean?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Only if you define "mean" as "this family is upper class on average, and that family is lower class on average" - which I think is a pretty funny definition of a mean to regress to.
  - aab0 10y ago
    Nothing funny about it. Genetic differences drive a lot of inter-personal differences; combine that with assortative mating, and that'll explain some of this intergenerational stickiness in a way that landholdings cannot.
    - tlarkworthy 10y ago
      Well, if you distilled that into a quantitative experiment then you would be famous. I don't think that chain of reasoning has any scientific basis (yet?).
      - aab0 10y ago
        There is plenty of scientific basis. Twin & family studies have long examined the topic of heritability as well as the genetic overlap for traits key to SES. However, even though they are correct, I know they won't impress anyone, so how about these recent genomics studies which take a more direct brute-force approach to establishing what has long been known: "Molecular genetic contributions to socioeconomic status and intelligence" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4051988/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4051988/ "Education, socioeconomic status, and intelligence are commonly used as predictors of health outcomes, social environment, and mortality. Education and socioeconomic status are typically viewed as environmental variables although both correlate with intelligence, which has a substantial genetic basis. Using data from 6815 unrelated subjects from the Generation Scotland study, we examined the genetic contributions to these variables and their genetic correlations. Subjects underwent genome-wide testing for common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). DNA-derived heritability estimates and genetic correlations were calculated using the ‘Genome-wide Complex Trait Analyses’ (GCTA) procedures. 21% of the variation in education, 18% of the variation in socioeconomic status, and 29% of the variation in general cognitive ability was explained by variation in common SNPs (SEs ~ 5%). The SNP-based genetic correlations of education and socioeconomic status with general intelligence were 0.95 (SE 0.13) and 0.26 (0.16), respectively. There are genetic contributions to intelligence and education with near-complete overlap between common additive SNP effects on these traits (genetic correlation ~ 1). Genetic influences on socioeconomic status are also associated with the genetic foundations of intelligence. The results are also compatible with substantial environmental contributions to socioeconomic status." "Molecular genetic contributions to social deprivation and household income in UK Biobank (n = 112,151)" http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/03/09/043000 http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/03/09/043000 "Individuals with lower socio-economic status (SES) are at increased risk of physical and mental illnesses and tend to die at an earlier age [1-3]. Explanations for the association between SES and health typically focus on factors that are environmental in origin [4]. However, common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been found collectively to explain around 18% (SE = 5%) of the phenotypic variance of an area-based social deprivation measure of SES [5]. Molecular genetic studies have also shown that physical and psychiatric diseases are at least partly heritable [6]. It is possible, therefore, that phenotypic associations between SES and health arise partly due to a shared genetic etiology. We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on social deprivation and on household income using the 112,151 participants of UK Biobank. We find that common SNPs explain 21% (SE = 0.5%) of the variation in social deprivation and 11% (SE = 0.7%) in household income. Two independent SNPs attained genome-wide significance for household income, rs187848990 on chromosome 2, and rs8100891 on chromosome 19. Genes in the regions of these SNPs have been associated with intellectual disabilities, schizophrenia, and synaptic plasticity. Extensive genetic correlations were found between both measures of socioeconomic status and illnesses, anthropometric variables, psychiatric disorders, and cognitive ability. These findings show that some SNPs associated with SES are involved in the brain and central nervous system. The genetic associations with SES are probably mediated via other partly-heritable variables, including cognitive ability, education, personality, and health." Genes don't stop at the neck, nor the pocketbook. The question is not, is any of the persistence documented across so many times and places genetic? Because the answer is yes. The question is, how much is non-genetic?
dionidium 10y ago
Yglesias has written about this before. Class is about a lot more than your income in any given year. http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8592689/income-class http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8592689/income-class
- antisthenes 10y ago
  Probably the most succinct illustration of the difference between human capital, capital (traditionally known as wealth), and income that the vast majority of the American public confuse all the time and like to use interchangeably.
rsync 10y ago
"Fascinating: income mobility in one generation (PARENT -> CHILD) cannot be extrapolated to multiple generations (PARENT -> CHILD -> CHILD ...), because socioeconomic status persists across generations even if income fluctuates from one generation to the next." Right - which means that no matter how much you earn you can't ever "phase transition" unless you migrate from earnings to holdings. No matter how much the child/grandchild/GGchild makes, if they don't parlay that into assets, eventually the bloodline reverts to the mean. That's not to say that the holders of assets have a cake walk - any cursory study of history shows that these fortunes also dwindle and disappear[1] - but you're getting nowhere at all if you rely on earnings from labor. [1] They're not renting that big house out to Downton Abby because they like period TV pieces...
- Houshalter 10y ago
  The parent comment's theory is not that they hold onto assets, but that they hold onto social ties. A person born into the upper class will have better connections, get a better education, and act dress and speak like a member of his class, and marry into other upper class families.

by cs702 10y ago

huherto 10y ago

> because socioeconomic status persists across generations even if income fluctuates from one generation to the next. Or it could be regression to the mean?

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Only if you define "mean" as "this family is upper class on average, and that family is lower class on average" - which I think is a pretty funny definition of a mean to regress to.
- aab0 10y ago
  Nothing funny about it. Genetic differences drive a lot of inter-personal differences; combine that with assortative mating, and that'll explain some of this intergenerational stickiness in a way that landholdings cannot.
  - tlarkworthy 10y ago
    Well, if you distilled that into a quantitative experiment then you would be famous. I don't think that chain of reasoning has any scientific basis (yet?).
    - aab0 10y ago
      There is plenty of scientific basis. Twin & family studies have long examined the topic of heritability as well as the genetic overlap for traits key to SES. However, even though they are correct, I know they won't impress anyone, so how about these recent genomics studies which take a more direct brute-force approach to establishing what has long been known: "Molecular genetic contributions to socioeconomic status and intelligence" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4051988/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4051988/ "Education, socioeconomic status, and intelligence are commonly used as predictors of health outcomes, social environment, and mortality. Education and socioeconomic status are typically viewed as environmental variables although both correlate with intelligence, which has a substantial genetic basis. Using data from 6815 unrelated subjects from the Generation Scotland study, we examined the genetic contributions to these variables and their genetic correlations. Subjects underwent genome-wide testing for common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). DNA-derived heritability estimates and genetic correlations were calculated using the ‘Genome-wide Complex Trait Analyses’ (GCTA) procedures. 21% of the variation in education, 18% of the variation in socioeconomic status, and 29% of the variation in general cognitive ability was explained by variation in common SNPs (SEs ~ 5%). The SNP-based genetic correlations of education and socioeconomic status with general intelligence were 0.95 (SE 0.13) and 0.26 (0.16), respectively. There are genetic contributions to intelligence and education with near-complete overlap between common additive SNP effects on these traits (genetic correlation ~ 1). Genetic influences on socioeconomic status are also associated with the genetic foundations of intelligence. The results are also compatible with substantial environmental contributions to socioeconomic status." "Molecular genetic contributions to social deprivation and household income in UK Biobank (n = 112,151)" http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/03/09/043000 http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/03/09/043000 "Individuals with lower socio-economic status (SES) are at increased risk of physical and mental illnesses and tend to die at an earlier age [1-3]. Explanations for the association between SES and health typically focus on factors that are environmental in origin [4]. However, common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been found collectively to explain around 18% (SE = 5%) of the phenotypic variance of an area-based social deprivation measure of SES [5]. Molecular genetic studies have also shown that physical and psychiatric diseases are at least partly heritable [6]. It is possible, therefore, that phenotypic associations between SES and health arise partly due to a shared genetic etiology. We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on social deprivation and on household income using the 112,151 participants of UK Biobank. We find that common SNPs explain 21% (SE = 0.5%) of the variation in social deprivation and 11% (SE = 0.7%) in household income. Two independent SNPs attained genome-wide significance for household income, rs187848990 on chromosome 2, and rs8100891 on chromosome 19. Genes in the regions of these SNPs have been associated with intellectual disabilities, schizophrenia, and synaptic plasticity. Extensive genetic correlations were found between both measures of socioeconomic status and illnesses, anthropometric variables, psychiatric disorders, and cognitive ability. These findings show that some SNPs associated with SES are involved in the brain and central nervous system. The genetic associations with SES are probably mediated via other partly-heritable variables, including cognitive ability, education, personality, and health." Genes don't stop at the neck, nor the pocketbook. The question is not, is any of the persistence documented across so many times and places genetic? Because the answer is yes. The question is, how much is non-genetic?

dionidium 10y ago

Yglesias has written about this before. Class is about a lot more than your income in any given year. http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8592689/income-class http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8592689/income-class

antisthenes 10y ago
Probably the most succinct illustration of the difference between human capital, capital (traditionally known as wealth), and income that the vast majority of the American public confuse all the time and like to use interchangeably.

rsync 10y ago

"Fascinating: income mobility in one generation (PARENT -> CHILD) cannot be extrapolated to multiple generations (PARENT -> CHILD -> CHILD ...), because socioeconomic status persists across generations even if income fluctuates from one generation to the next." Right - which means that no matter how much you earn you can't ever "phase transition" unless you migrate from earnings to holdings. No matter how much the child/grandchild/GGchild makes, if they don't parlay that into assets, eventually the bloodline reverts to the mean. That's not to say that the holders of assets have a cake walk - any cursory study of history shows that these fortunes also dwindle and disappear[1] - but you're getting nowhere at all if you rely on earnings from labor. [1] They're not renting that big house out to Downton Abby because they like period TV pieces...

Houshalter 10y ago
The parent comment's theory is not that they hold onto assets, but that they hold onto social ties. A person born into the upper class will have better connections, get a better education, and act dress and speak like a member of his class, and marry into other upper class families.