2 ms·

From the original source: "Stated differently, being the descendants of the Bernardi family (at the 90th percentile of earnings distribution in 1427) instead of

From the original source: "Stated differently, being the descendants of the Bernardi family (at the 90th percentile of earnings distribution in 1427) instead of the Grasso family (10th percentile of the same distribution) would entail a 5% increase in earnings among current taxpayers (after adjusting for age and gender)." http://voxeu.org/article/what-s-your-surname-intergenerational-mobility-over-six-centuries http://voxeu.org/article/what-s-your-surname-intergeneration... So 5% extra as the result of being related to a wealthier family 600 years ago. While definitely remarkable when considering how much happened during that time that should have destroyed wealth, it's far from apocalyptic. There seems to be no implication that the descendants do not have to work either, just that they earn slightly more.

MagnumOpus 10y ago
On the contrary, it is staggering that a result is still present after 30 generations of splitting the family wealth. Even on the assumption that the rich only have 2-3 children, a billion-dollar inheritance should be diluted to nearly nothing after 15 generations. And with the 4-8 children that were usual back in the day, in less than 10 generations. Having such a massive difference that it can be traced by very low-powered population statistics after 600 years means that the effect on having a head start in terms of wealth is enormous on your potential to stay wealthy.
- rconti 10y ago
  But it's earnings, not wealth. 5% isn't that much. 5% might be name recognition leading to more favorable outcomes when searching for employment. Hell, it might be genetic -- 5% might be from merely being TALLER.
- Mvandenbergh 10y ago
  >Even on the assumption that the rich only have 2-3 children, a billion-dollar inheritance should be diluted to nearly nothing after 15 generations Not if your children exclusively marry other wealthy people. Then the rate of dilution depends primarily on the growth in the overall population of the wealthy in each generation. The Italian population overall has quintupled since the 1400s, even if we make an allowance for the wealthy having more living children who reproduced, the wealth will not have diluted away completely.

MagnumOpus 10y ago

On the contrary, it is staggering that a result is still present after 30 generations of splitting the family wealth. Even on the assumption that the rich only have 2-3 children, a billion-dollar inheritance should be diluted to nearly nothing after 15 generations. And with the 4-8 children that were usual back in the day, in less than 10 generations. Having such a massive difference that it can be traced by very low-powered population statistics after 600 years means that the effect on having a head start in terms of wealth is enormous on your potential to stay wealthy.

rconti 10y ago
But it's earnings, not wealth. 5% isn't that much. 5% might be name recognition leading to more favorable outcomes when searching for employment. Hell, it might be genetic -- 5% might be from merely being TALLER.
Mvandenbergh 10y ago
>Even on the assumption that the rich only have 2-3 children, a billion-dollar inheritance should be diluted to nearly nothing after 15 generations Not if your children exclusively marry other wealthy people. Then the rate of dilution depends primarily on the growth in the overall population of the wealthy in each generation. The Italian population overall has quintupled since the 1400s, even if we make an allowance for the wealthy having more living children who reproduced, the wealth will not have diluted away completely.