3 ms·

I read the abstract and skipped around some but I couldn't find it referencing a change in mobility over time. I did notice it says some areas have high mobili

I read the abstract and skipped around some but I couldn't find it referencing a change in mobility over time. I did notice it says some areas have high mobility still: > The U.S. is better described as a collection of societies, some of which are “lands of opportunity” with high rates of mobility across generations, and others in which few children escape poverty. I see in some charts online that social mobility has allegedly declined steadily since the boomer generation, but of course they're a special case directly following the great depression into an unprecedented economic expansion. Social mobility can't go upwards in real terms forever - if your grandparents were poor, your parents were middle class factory workers, and now you're an office worker - does your child really need to be a doctor or a ceo? So I think the better question might be, is our current level of social mobility acceptable, and did it go down because people are ok just staying in a relatively decent spot (not becoming a lawyer and just being an office worker like your dad) or because opportunity has actually gone down.

rdedev 5y ago
You are right. That paper does not show any difference wrt time. My bad. Actually another paper from the same author shows that social mobility has not changed. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19844/w19844.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19844/w198... This website summarizes a couple of key points from other papers from that author: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/01/11/raj-chetty-in-14-charts-big-findings-on-opportunity-and-mobility-we-should-know/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/01... > 3. Rates of relative intergenerational mobility in the U.S. appear to have been flat for decades > 4. It is a different story, however, for absolute mobility – which indicates how well a person does compared to their parents in absolute terms, rather than relative ones. On this measure of mobility, the last few decades have seen a sharp decline. So I guess a better way to put it would be to say that because of rising costs in healthcare and housing etc, the social ladder has become more slippery; an accident or a medical emergency has a much bigger chance to push you down the social ladder that from earlier years.

rdedev 5y ago

You are right. That paper does not show any difference wrt time. My bad. Actually another paper from the same author shows that social mobility has not changed. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19844/w19844.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19844/w198... This website summarizes a couple of key points from other papers from that author: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/01/11/raj-chetty-in-14-charts-big-findings-on-opportunity-and-mobility-we-should-know/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/01... > 3. Rates of relative intergenerational mobility in the U.S. appear to have been flat for decades > 4. It is a different story, however, for absolute mobility – which indicates how well a person does compared to their parents in absolute terms, rather than relative ones. On this measure of mobility, the last few decades have seen a sharp decline. So I guess a better way to put it would be to say that because of rising costs in healthcare and housing etc, the social ladder has become more slippery; an accident or a medical emergency has a much bigger chance to push you down the social ladder that from earlier years.