4 ms·

I've only dug into the briefly, so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but it looks like his research was mostly just tracking surnames? How would you

I've only dug into the briefly, so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but it looks like his research was mostly just tracking surnames? How would you differentiate between family lines that actually lose and regain wealth over generations, and those that happen to maintain it over that span? Like say the Smith family was traditionally privileged and wealthy, but my great-great-grandfather lost his fortune. Am I actually any more likely to rise in fortune than the Jones' family next door that have been generationally poor for hundreds of years? Or does it only seem like that because I have many distant cousin's whose families maintained their advantages?

xyzzyz 6y ago
It tracks rare surnames, so there aren’t many distant cousins to skew the results. The point of focusing on rare surnames is so that you can be more certain that people carrying them today are actually direct descendants of people in the old records. Second thing is that the fortune is typically not tracked here, because it’s really hard to get any historical data about fortune of any individuals, much less those not so famous. What Clark et al do is track status, and average out: for example, you can look at the people who graduated Oxford hundreds of years ago. As it turns out, their descendants today are overrepresented among UK’s doctors and lawyers. On the other hand, people carrying common job-related last names, like Smith or Taylor, are underrepresented as lawyers and doctors. In fact, in today’s UK, people carrying last names of Norman conquerors are still overrepresented among high status occupations in UK, although not by much, given a millennium of a regression towards the mean. I recommend reading the book, it’s great.
- Talanes 6y ago
  Maybe I was unclear because I picked a generically common surname for my example, but I was also assuming both people were descended from a common successful ancestor.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    The core of Clark’s argument is that the advantage is not due to accumulated fortune, but rather is genetic in nature.

xyzzyz 6y ago

It tracks rare surnames, so there aren’t many distant cousins to skew the results. The point of focusing on rare surnames is so that you can be more certain that people carrying them today are actually direct descendants of people in the old records. Second thing is that the fortune is typically not tracked here, because it’s really hard to get any historical data about fortune of any individuals, much less those not so famous. What Clark et al do is track status, and average out: for example, you can look at the people who graduated Oxford hundreds of years ago. As it turns out, their descendants today are overrepresented among UK’s doctors and lawyers. On the other hand, people carrying common job-related last names, like Smith or Taylor, are underrepresented as lawyers and doctors. In fact, in today’s UK, people carrying last names of Norman conquerors are still overrepresented among high status occupations in UK, although not by much, given a millennium of a regression towards the mean. I recommend reading the book, it’s great.

Talanes 6y ago
Maybe I was unclear because I picked a generically common surname for my example, but I was also assuming both people were descended from a common successful ancestor.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  The core of Clark’s argument is that the advantage is not due to accumulated fortune, but rather is genetic in nature.