More accurate estimates of social mobility.

[David_42]

Growing income inequality, stagnant wages, rising education costs, expensive healthcare, rent costs.. No surprise.
"Inequality and the lack of social mobility are of growing concern to the American public and politicians, with many worried that the ‘American dream’ is becoming increasingly unobtainable for themselves or their children. In new research, Bhashkar Mazumderargues that by using a relatively short window of time to estimate people’s socioeconomic status, researchers have overstated the degree of social mobility in society. He writes that more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility place the U.S. among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world."

In a December 2013 speech, President Barack Obama referred to growing inequality and lack of upward mobility as “the defining challenge of our time.” The President’s words serve to highlight the growing concern among the public about the American dream- that with hard work anyone can be successful regardless of their circumstances at birth. As a result there is increasing attention being placed on studies of intergenerational mobility. These studies typically try to determine the degree to which a child’s eventual success in life is related to their parents’ economic status. A very strong association, for example, implies a low degree of intergenerational mobility as it suggests that children largely occupy their parents’ position in society. There is growing consensus that this association is higher in the U.S. and the U.K. than in most advanced countries. In calculating this relationship, however, I argue that studies need to use long windows of time to measure socioeconomic status. Otherwise, researchers will understate the intergenerational association and overstate the degree of social mobility in society.

But how exactly do researchers measure socioeconomic status? Sociologists who first pioneered these studies like to use measures of “occupational prestige” based on surveys ranking the social prestige of different jobs. Economists, who naturally tend to focus on the importance of economic buying power, prefer to use income. To illustrate the importance of the exact window of time that is used to measure socioeconomic status, consider the following example shown in Figure 1. This graph shows the occupational prestige (right hand side) and income (left hand side) of a man born in 1945 over the course of his working years. This man begins his career in 1968 as a construction worker, then proceeds in 1970 to take a job as a secondary school teacher. From 1970 on, he works either as a teacher, school administrator, or school counselor. These various jobs, however, are associated with different income levels and different degrees of prestige. Therefore, the association of this man’s status with that of his offspring may well depend on when in his lifecycle we take the measurement. Suppose the son of this man spends most of his career as a teacher. Then the intergenerational association in occupational prestige would presumably be quite high if one used the father’s occupation in say 1971, when he was also a school teacher, relative to if one used the father’s occupation in 1968 when dad was a construction worker.

Figure 1 – Example of how Socioeconomic Status Changes Over a Person’s Career

Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, person number 117
Many previous studies have shown that using only a single year of data to measure the income of parents will lead researchers to under-estimate the strength of intergenerational income associations and therefore overstate income mobility. The solution is to take long time averages of parent income to overcome this problem. In recent research, we also show that one can average occupational prestige over many years to better measure social mobility. This issue is likely to become increasingly important as people move across occupations over their career much more now than they did in the past.

Using data from the University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), we construct a dataset of male heads of households and their sons who eventually become heads of households. The dataset combines thousands of career trajectories like the one shown in Figure 1. We then proceed to estimate intergenerational associations in both income and occupational prestige. For this exercise we start by measuring the income and prestige of both fathers and sons at around the age of 42. We then continue to measure the sons’ status at this age but gradually expand the window of time that we measure the fathers’ income and occupational prestige. We use as many as ten years to average the socioeconomic status of fathers.

The results are shown in Figure 2. Here, we have standardized the intergenerational association to be exactly 1 when we use just 1 year to measure the fathers’ income or occupational prestige. The longer time averages for the fathers generally tends to raise the association regardless of whether we use income or prestige. When ten years of data are used, the estimates of the intergenerational association in income is 16.1 percent higher than it was when using one year of fathers’ income. Similarly, the association in occupational prestige is 17.4 percent higher using 10 years of data rather than just 1 year. Put another way, intergenerational mobility is significantly overstated when using just a few years of data to measure socioeconomic status. These more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility squarely place the US among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world.

Figure 2 – The Effect of Using Longer Time Spans to Measure Intergenerational Associations

Source: Author’s calculations. Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
These results have potentially important implications. Relying on studies that use smaller time windows to measure the social status of parents could lead to an overly optimistic picture of social mobility in the United States. Correctly measuring social mobility is an important first step to verifying whether or not the “American dream” is truly alive and well.

More accurate estimates of social mobility suggest that the American dream is not so easily attainable. USAPP

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, get your sorry ass out there and work for a living like I did all my life, and stop complaining! You lazy bastards want everything handed to you, guess what? It`s not going to happen! This is America, you make what you want to be, so stay your ass in school, get an education like I did, and use that damn brain GOD gave you fools!!! I`m not rich, but I do live across the street from the Gulf of Mexico! Yes, I`m using my brain, now use yours!!!

"GTP"

 

[David_42]

Yo, get your sorry ass out there and work for a living like I did all my life, and stop complaining! You lazy bastards want everything handed to you, guess what? It`s not going to happen! This is America, you make what you want to be, so stay your ass in school, get an education like I did, and use that damn brain GOD gave you fools!!! I`m not rich, but I do live across the street from the Gulf of Mexico! Yes, I`m using my brain, now use yours!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 47164

Albert Einstein was a socialist, not going to bother talking to your racist ass anyway.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Growing income inequality, stagnant wages, rising education costs, expensive healthcare, rent costs.. No surprise.
"Inequality and the lack of social mobility are of growing concern to the American public and politicians, with many worried that the ‘American dream’ is becoming increasingly unobtainable for themselves or their children. In new research, Bhashkar Mazumderargues that by using a relatively short window of time to estimate people’s socioeconomic status, researchers have overstated the degree of social mobility in society. He writes that more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility place the U.S. among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world."

In a December 2013 speech, President Barack Obama referred to growing inequality and lack of upward mobility as “the defining challenge of our time.” The President’s words serve to highlight the growing concern among the public about the American dream- that with hard work anyone can be successful regardless of their circumstances at birth. As a result there is increasing attention being placed on studies of intergenerational mobility. These studies typically try to determine the degree to which a child’s eventual success in life is related to their parents’ economic status. A very strong association, for example, implies a low degree of intergenerational mobility as it suggests that children largely occupy their parents’ position in society. There is growing consensus that this association is higher in the U.S. and the U.K. than in most advanced countries. In calculating this relationship, however, I argue that studies need to use long windows of time to measure socioeconomic status. Otherwise, researchers will understate the intergenerational association and overstate the degree of social mobility in society.

But how exactly do researchers measure socioeconomic status? Sociologists who first pioneered these studies like to use measures of “occupational prestige” based on surveys ranking the social prestige of different jobs. Economists, who naturally tend to focus on the importance of economic buying power, prefer to use income. To illustrate the importance of the exact window of time that is used to measure socioeconomic status, consider the following example shown in Figure 1. This graph shows the occupational prestige (right hand side) and income (left hand side) of a man born in 1945 over the course of his working years. This man begins his career in 1968 as a construction worker, then proceeds in 1970 to take a job as a secondary school teacher. From 1970 on, he works either as a teacher, school administrator, or school counselor. These various jobs, however, are associated with different income levels and different degrees of prestige. Therefore, the association of this man’s status with that of his offspring may well depend on when in his lifecycle we take the measurement. Suppose the son of this man spends most of his career as a teacher. Then the intergenerational association in occupational prestige would presumably be quite high if one used the father’s occupation in say 1971, when he was also a school teacher, relative to if one used the father’s occupation in 1968 when dad was a construction worker.

Figure 1 – Example of how Socioeconomic Status Changes Over a Person’s Career

Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, person number 117
Many previous studies have shown that using only a single year of data to measure the income of parents will lead researchers to under-estimate the strength of intergenerational income associations and therefore overstate income mobility. The solution is to take long time averages of parent income to overcome this problem. In recent research, we also show that one can average occupational prestige over many years to better measure social mobility. This issue is likely to become increasingly important as people move across occupations over their career much more now than they did in the past.

Using data from the University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), we construct a dataset of male heads of households and their sons who eventually become heads of households. The dataset combines thousands of career trajectories like the one shown in Figure 1. We then proceed to estimate intergenerational associations in both income and occupational prestige. For this exercise we start by measuring the income and prestige of both fathers and sons at around the age of 42. We then continue to measure the sons’ status at this age but gradually expand the window of time that we measure the fathers’ income and occupational prestige. We use as many as ten years to average the socioeconomic status of fathers.

The results are shown in Figure 2. Here, we have standardized the intergenerational association to be exactly 1 when we use just 1 year to measure the fathers’ income or occupational prestige. The longer time averages for the fathers generally tends to raise the association regardless of whether we use income or prestige. When ten years of data are used, the estimates of the intergenerational association in income is 16.1 percent higher than it was when using one year of fathers’ income. Similarly, the association in occupational prestige is 17.4 percent higher using 10 years of data rather than just 1 year. Put another way, intergenerational mobility is significantly overstated when using just a few years of data to measure socioeconomic status. These more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility squarely place the US among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world.

Figure 2 – The Effect of Using Longer Time Spans to Measure Intergenerational Associations

Source: Author’s calculations. Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
These results have potentially important implications. Relying on studies that use smaller time windows to measure the social status of parents could lead to an overly optimistic picture of social mobility in the United States. Correctly measuring social mobility is an important first step to verifying whether or not the “American dream” is truly alive and well.

More accurate estimates of social mobility suggest that the American dream is not so easily attainable. USAPP

Just because people don't move up does not mean they can't.

The problem as I see it is that people don't want to sacrifice for success anymore they want to have it handed to them

 

[David_42]

Growing income inequality, stagnant wages, rising education costs, expensive healthcare, rent costs.. No surprise.
"Inequality and the lack of social mobility are of growing concern to the American public and politicians, with many worried that the ‘American dream’ is becoming increasingly unobtainable for themselves or their children. In new research, Bhashkar Mazumderargues that by using a relatively short window of time to estimate people’s socioeconomic status, researchers have overstated the degree of social mobility in society. He writes that more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility place the U.S. among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world."

In a December 2013 speech, President Barack Obama referred to growing inequality and lack of upward mobility as “the defining challenge of our time.” The President’s words serve to highlight the growing concern among the public about the American dream- that with hard work anyone can be successful regardless of their circumstances at birth. As a result there is increasing attention being placed on studies of intergenerational mobility. These studies typically try to determine the degree to which a child’s eventual success in life is related to their parents’ economic status. A very strong association, for example, implies a low degree of intergenerational mobility as it suggests that children largely occupy their parents’ position in society. There is growing consensus that this association is higher in the U.S. and the U.K. than in most advanced countries. In calculating this relationship, however, I argue that studies need to use long windows of time to measure socioeconomic status. Otherwise, researchers will understate the intergenerational association and overstate the degree of social mobility in society.

But how exactly do researchers measure socioeconomic status? Sociologists who first pioneered these studies like to use measures of “occupational prestige” based on surveys ranking the social prestige of different jobs. Economists, who naturally tend to focus on the importance of economic buying power, prefer to use income. To illustrate the importance of the exact window of time that is used to measure socioeconomic status, consider the following example shown in Figure 1. This graph shows the occupational prestige (right hand side) and income (left hand side) of a man born in 1945 over the course of his working years. This man begins his career in 1968 as a construction worker, then proceeds in 1970 to take a job as a secondary school teacher. From 1970 on, he works either as a teacher, school administrator, or school counselor. These various jobs, however, are associated with different income levels and different degrees of prestige. Therefore, the association of this man’s status with that of his offspring may well depend on when in his lifecycle we take the measurement. Suppose the son of this man spends most of his career as a teacher. Then the intergenerational association in occupational prestige would presumably be quite high if one used the father’s occupation in say 1971, when he was also a school teacher, relative to if one used the father’s occupation in 1968 when dad was a construction worker.

Figure 1 – Example of how Socioeconomic Status Changes Over a Person’s Career

Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, person number 117
Many previous studies have shown that using only a single year of data to measure the income of parents will lead researchers to under-estimate the strength of intergenerational income associations and therefore overstate income mobility. The solution is to take long time averages of parent income to overcome this problem. In recent research, we also show that one can average occupational prestige over many years to better measure social mobility. This issue is likely to become increasingly important as people move across occupations over their career much more now than they did in the past.

Using data from the University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), we construct a dataset of male heads of households and their sons who eventually become heads of households. The dataset combines thousands of career trajectories like the one shown in Figure 1. We then proceed to estimate intergenerational associations in both income and occupational prestige. For this exercise we start by measuring the income and prestige of both fathers and sons at around the age of 42. We then continue to measure the sons’ status at this age but gradually expand the window of time that we measure the fathers’ income and occupational prestige. We use as many as ten years to average the socioeconomic status of fathers.

The results are shown in Figure 2. Here, we have standardized the intergenerational association to be exactly 1 when we use just 1 year to measure the fathers’ income or occupational prestige. The longer time averages for the fathers generally tends to raise the association regardless of whether we use income or prestige. When ten years of data are used, the estimates of the intergenerational association in income is 16.1 percent higher than it was when using one year of fathers’ income. Similarly, the association in occupational prestige is 17.4 percent higher using 10 years of data rather than just 1 year. Put another way, intergenerational mobility is significantly overstated when using just a few years of data to measure socioeconomic status. These more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility squarely place the US among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world.

Figure 2 – The Effect of Using Longer Time Spans to Measure Intergenerational Associations

Source: Author’s calculations. Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
These results have potentially important implications. Relying on studies that use smaller time windows to measure the social status of parents could lead to an overly optimistic picture of social mobility in the United States. Correctly measuring social mobility is an important first step to verifying whether or not the “American dream” is truly alive and well.

More accurate estimates of social mobility suggest that the American dream is not so easily attainable. USAPP

Just because people don't move up does not mean they can't.

The problem as I see it is that people don't want to sacrifice for success anymore they want to have it handed to them

Of course people can still move up, it just is harder and continues to get harder, even worse for those born into the bottom. Millions of people work hard and never move up, simplistic white washing is idiocy Oh, Albert Einstein was a socialist.. Good to know you love him.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Growing income inequality, stagnant wages, rising education costs, expensive healthcare, rent costs.. No surprise.
"Inequality and the lack of social mobility are of growing concern to the American public and politicians, with many worried that the ‘American dream’ is becoming increasingly unobtainable for themselves or their children. In new research, Bhashkar Mazumderargues that by using a relatively short window of time to estimate people’s socioeconomic status, researchers have overstated the degree of social mobility in society. He writes that more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility place the U.S. among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world."

In a December 2013 speech, President Barack Obama referred to growing inequality and lack of upward mobility as “the defining challenge of our time.” The President’s words serve to highlight the growing concern among the public about the American dream- that with hard work anyone can be successful regardless of their circumstances at birth. As a result there is increasing attention being placed on studies of intergenerational mobility. These studies typically try to determine the degree to which a child’s eventual success in life is related to their parents’ economic status. A very strong association, for example, implies a low degree of intergenerational mobility as it suggests that children largely occupy their parents’ position in society. There is growing consensus that this association is higher in the U.S. and the U.K. than in most advanced countries. In calculating this relationship, however, I argue that studies need to use long windows of time to measure socioeconomic status. Otherwise, researchers will understate the intergenerational association and overstate the degree of social mobility in society.

But how exactly do researchers measure socioeconomic status? Sociologists who first pioneered these studies like to use measures of “occupational prestige” based on surveys ranking the social prestige of different jobs. Economists, who naturally tend to focus on the importance of economic buying power, prefer to use income. To illustrate the importance of the exact window of time that is used to measure socioeconomic status, consider the following example shown in Figure 1. This graph shows the occupational prestige (right hand side) and income (left hand side) of a man born in 1945 over the course of his working years. This man begins his career in 1968 as a construction worker, then proceeds in 1970 to take a job as a secondary school teacher. From 1970 on, he works either as a teacher, school administrator, or school counselor. These various jobs, however, are associated with different income levels and different degrees of prestige. Therefore, the association of this man’s status with that of his offspring may well depend on when in his lifecycle we take the measurement. Suppose the son of this man spends most of his career as a teacher. Then the intergenerational association in occupational prestige would presumably be quite high if one used the father’s occupation in say 1971, when he was also a school teacher, relative to if one used the father’s occupation in 1968 when dad was a construction worker.

Figure 1 – Example of how Socioeconomic Status Changes Over a Person’s Career

Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, person number 117
Many previous studies have shown that using only a single year of data to measure the income of parents will lead researchers to under-estimate the strength of intergenerational income associations and therefore overstate income mobility. The solution is to take long time averages of parent income to overcome this problem. In recent research, we also show that one can average occupational prestige over many years to better measure social mobility. This issue is likely to become increasingly important as people move across occupations over their career much more now than they did in the past.

Using data from the University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), we construct a dataset of male heads of households and their sons who eventually become heads of households. The dataset combines thousands of career trajectories like the one shown in Figure 1. We then proceed to estimate intergenerational associations in both income and occupational prestige. For this exercise we start by measuring the income and prestige of both fathers and sons at around the age of 42. We then continue to measure the sons’ status at this age but gradually expand the window of time that we measure the fathers’ income and occupational prestige. We use as many as ten years to average the socioeconomic status of fathers.

The results are shown in Figure 2. Here, we have standardized the intergenerational association to be exactly 1 when we use just 1 year to measure the fathers’ income or occupational prestige. The longer time averages for the fathers generally tends to raise the association regardless of whether we use income or prestige. When ten years of data are used, the estimates of the intergenerational association in income is 16.1 percent higher than it was when using one year of fathers’ income. Similarly, the association in occupational prestige is 17.4 percent higher using 10 years of data rather than just 1 year. Put another way, intergenerational mobility is significantly overstated when using just a few years of data to measure socioeconomic status. These more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility squarely place the US among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world.

Figure 2 – The Effect of Using Longer Time Spans to Measure Intergenerational Associations

Source: Author’s calculations. Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
These results have potentially important implications. Relying on studies that use smaller time windows to measure the social status of parents could lead to an overly optimistic picture of social mobility in the United States. Correctly measuring social mobility is an important first step to verifying whether or not the “American dream” is truly alive and well.

More accurate estimates of social mobility suggest that the American dream is not so easily attainable. USAPP

Just because people don't move up does not mean they can't.

The problem as I see it is that people don't want to sacrifice for success anymore they want to have it handed to them

Of course people can still move up, it just is harder and continues to get harder, even worse for those born into the bottom. Millions of people work hard and never move up, simplistic white washing is idiocy Oh, Albert Einstein was a socialist.. Good to know you love him.

It's no harder than it ever was.

 

[David_42]

Growing income inequality, stagnant wages, rising education costs, expensive healthcare, rent costs.. No surprise.
"Inequality and the lack of social mobility are of growing concern to the American public and politicians, with many worried that the ‘American dream’ is becoming increasingly unobtainable for themselves or their children. In new research, Bhashkar Mazumderargues that by using a relatively short window of time to estimate people’s socioeconomic status, researchers have overstated the degree of social mobility in society. He writes that more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility place the U.S. among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world."

In a December 2013 speech, President Barack Obama referred to growing inequality and lack of upward mobility as “the defining challenge of our time.” The President’s words serve to highlight the growing concern among the public about the American dream- that with hard work anyone can be successful regardless of their circumstances at birth. As a result there is increasing attention being placed on studies of intergenerational mobility. These studies typically try to determine the degree to which a child’s eventual success in life is related to their parents’ economic status. A very strong association, for example, implies a low degree of intergenerational mobility as it suggests that children largely occupy their parents’ position in society. There is growing consensus that this association is higher in the U.S. and the U.K. than in most advanced countries. In calculating this relationship, however, I argue that studies need to use long windows of time to measure socioeconomic status. Otherwise, researchers will understate the intergenerational association and overstate the degree of social mobility in society.

But how exactly do researchers measure socioeconomic status? Sociologists who first pioneered these studies like to use measures of “occupational prestige” based on surveys ranking the social prestige of different jobs. Economists, who naturally tend to focus on the importance of economic buying power, prefer to use income. To illustrate the importance of the exact window of time that is used to measure socioeconomic status, consider the following example shown in Figure 1. This graph shows the occupational prestige (right hand side) and income (left hand side) of a man born in 1945 over the course of his working years. This man begins his career in 1968 as a construction worker, then proceeds in 1970 to take a job as a secondary school teacher. From 1970 on, he works either as a teacher, school administrator, or school counselor. These various jobs, however, are associated with different income levels and different degrees of prestige. Therefore, the association of this man’s status with that of his offspring may well depend on when in his lifecycle we take the measurement. Suppose the son of this man spends most of his career as a teacher. Then the intergenerational association in occupational prestige would presumably be quite high if one used the father’s occupation in say 1971, when he was also a school teacher, relative to if one used the father’s occupation in 1968 when dad was a construction worker.

Figure 1 – Example of how Socioeconomic Status Changes Over a Person’s Career

Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, person number 117
Many previous studies have shown that using only a single year of data to measure the income of parents will lead researchers to under-estimate the strength of intergenerational income associations and therefore overstate income mobility. The solution is to take long time averages of parent income to overcome this problem. In recent research, we also show that one can average occupational prestige over many years to better measure social mobility. This issue is likely to become increasingly important as people move across occupations over their career much more now than they did in the past.

Using data from the University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), we construct a dataset of male heads of households and their sons who eventually become heads of households. The dataset combines thousands of career trajectories like the one shown in Figure 1. We then proceed to estimate intergenerational associations in both income and occupational prestige. For this exercise we start by measuring the income and prestige of both fathers and sons at around the age of 42. We then continue to measure the sons’ status at this age but gradually expand the window of time that we measure the fathers’ income and occupational prestige. We use as many as ten years to average the socioeconomic status of fathers.

The results are shown in Figure 2. Here, we have standardized the intergenerational association to be exactly 1 when we use just 1 year to measure the fathers’ income or occupational prestige. The longer time averages for the fathers generally tends to raise the association regardless of whether we use income or prestige. When ten years of data are used, the estimates of the intergenerational association in income is 16.1 percent higher than it was when using one year of fathers’ income. Similarly, the association in occupational prestige is 17.4 percent higher using 10 years of data rather than just 1 year. Put another way, intergenerational mobility is significantly overstated when using just a few years of data to measure socioeconomic status. These more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility squarely place the US among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world.

Figure 2 – The Effect of Using Longer Time Spans to Measure Intergenerational Associations

Source: Author’s calculations. Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
These results have potentially important implications. Relying on studies that use smaller time windows to measure the social status of parents could lead to an overly optimistic picture of social mobility in the United States. Correctly measuring social mobility is an important first step to verifying whether or not the “American dream” is truly alive and well.

More accurate estimates of social mobility suggest that the American dream is not so easily attainable. USAPP

Just because people don't move up does not mean they can't.

The problem as I see it is that people don't want to sacrifice for success anymore they want to have it handed to them

Of course people can still move up, it just is harder and continues to get harder, even worse for those born into the bottom. Millions of people work hard and never move up, simplistic white washing is idiocy Oh, Albert Einstein was a socialist.. Good to know you love him.

It's no harder than it ever was.

Literal bullshit, income inequality, stagnant wages, less full time jobs, college costs, the cost of rent.. Grow up, idiot. Also, why are you quoting a socialist In your signature?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Growing income inequality, stagnant wages, rising education costs, expensive healthcare, rent costs.. No surprise.
"Inequality and the lack of social mobility are of growing concern to the American public and politicians, with many worried that the ‘American dream’ is becoming increasingly unobtainable for themselves or their children. In new research, Bhashkar Mazumderargues that by using a relatively short window of time to estimate people’s socioeconomic status, researchers have overstated the degree of social mobility in society. He writes that more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility place the U.S. among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world."

In a December 2013 speech, President Barack Obama referred to growing inequality and lack of upward mobility as “the defining challenge of our time.” The President’s words serve to highlight the growing concern among the public about the American dream- that with hard work anyone can be successful regardless of their circumstances at birth. As a result there is increasing attention being placed on studies of intergenerational mobility. These studies typically try to determine the degree to which a child’s eventual success in life is related to their parents’ economic status. A very strong association, for example, implies a low degree of intergenerational mobility as it suggests that children largely occupy their parents’ position in society. There is growing consensus that this association is higher in the U.S. and the U.K. than in most advanced countries. In calculating this relationship, however, I argue that studies need to use long windows of time to measure socioeconomic status. Otherwise, researchers will understate the intergenerational association and overstate the degree of social mobility in society.

But how exactly do researchers measure socioeconomic status? Sociologists who first pioneered these studies like to use measures of “occupational prestige” based on surveys ranking the social prestige of different jobs. Economists, who naturally tend to focus on the importance of economic buying power, prefer to use income. To illustrate the importance of the exact window of time that is used to measure socioeconomic status, consider the following example shown in Figure 1. This graph shows the occupational prestige (right hand side) and income (left hand side) of a man born in 1945 over the course of his working years. This man begins his career in 1968 as a construction worker, then proceeds in 1970 to take a job as a secondary school teacher. From 1970 on, he works either as a teacher, school administrator, or school counselor. These various jobs, however, are associated with different income levels and different degrees of prestige. Therefore, the association of this man’s status with that of his offspring may well depend on when in his lifecycle we take the measurement. Suppose the son of this man spends most of his career as a teacher. Then the intergenerational association in occupational prestige would presumably be quite high if one used the father’s occupation in say 1971, when he was also a school teacher, relative to if one used the father’s occupation in 1968 when dad was a construction worker.

Figure 1 – Example of how Socioeconomic Status Changes Over a Person’s Career

Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, person number 117
Many previous studies have shown that using only a single year of data to measure the income of parents will lead researchers to under-estimate the strength of intergenerational income associations and therefore overstate income mobility. The solution is to take long time averages of parent income to overcome this problem. In recent research, we also show that one can average occupational prestige over many years to better measure social mobility. This issue is likely to become increasingly important as people move across occupations over their career much more now than they did in the past.

Using data from the University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), we construct a dataset of male heads of households and their sons who eventually become heads of households. The dataset combines thousands of career trajectories like the one shown in Figure 1. We then proceed to estimate intergenerational associations in both income and occupational prestige. For this exercise we start by measuring the income and prestige of both fathers and sons at around the age of 42. We then continue to measure the sons’ status at this age but gradually expand the window of time that we measure the fathers’ income and occupational prestige. We use as many as ten years to average the socioeconomic status of fathers.

The results are shown in Figure 2. Here, we have standardized the intergenerational association to be exactly 1 when we use just 1 year to measure the fathers’ income or occupational prestige. The longer time averages for the fathers generally tends to raise the association regardless of whether we use income or prestige. When ten years of data are used, the estimates of the intergenerational association in income is 16.1 percent higher than it was when using one year of fathers’ income. Similarly, the association in occupational prestige is 17.4 percent higher using 10 years of data rather than just 1 year. Put another way, intergenerational mobility is significantly overstated when using just a few years of data to measure socioeconomic status. These more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility squarely place the US among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world.

Figure 2 – The Effect of Using Longer Time Spans to Measure Intergenerational Associations

Source: Author’s calculations. Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
These results have potentially important implications. Relying on studies that use smaller time windows to measure the social status of parents could lead to an overly optimistic picture of social mobility in the United States. Correctly measuring social mobility is an important first step to verifying whether or not the “American dream” is truly alive and well.

More accurate estimates of social mobility suggest that the American dream is not so easily attainable. USAPP

Just because people don't move up does not mean they can't.

The problem as I see it is that people don't want to sacrifice for success anymore they want to have it handed to them

Of course people can still move up, it just is harder and continues to get harder, even worse for those born into the bottom. Millions of people work hard and never move up, simplistic white washing is idiocy Oh, Albert Einstein was a socialist.. Good to know you love him.

It's no harder than it ever was.

Literal bullshit, income inequality, stagnant wages, less full time jobs, college costs, the cost of rent.. Grow up, idiot. Also, why are you quoting a socialist In your signature?

IDGAF about political leanings.

That quote has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with human stupidity.

Maybe if you could think for yourself you'd be able to figure that out

You're just repeating verbatim the mantra of the mediocre that has become the norm today.

If you want to succeed you can no one is stopping you

 

[David_42]

Growing income inequality, stagnant wages, rising education costs, expensive healthcare, rent costs.. No surprise.
"Inequality and the lack of social mobility are of growing concern to the American public and politicians, with many worried that the ‘American dream’ is becoming increasingly unobtainable for themselves or their children. In new research, Bhashkar Mazumderargues that by using a relatively short window of time to estimate people’s socioeconomic status, researchers have overstated the degree of social mobility in society. He writes that more accurate estimates of intergenerational mobility place the U.S. among the least socially mobile countries in the developed world."
More accurate estimates of social mobility suggest that the American dream is not so easily attainable. USAPP

Just because people don't move up does not mean they can't.

The problem as I see it is that people don't want to sacrifice for success anymore they want to have it handed to them

Of course people can still move up, it just is harder and continues to get harder, even worse for those born into the bottom. Millions of people work hard and never move up, simplistic white washing is idiocy Oh, Albert Einstein was a socialist.. Good to know you love him.

It's no harder than it ever was.

Literal bullshit, income inequality, stagnant wages, less full time jobs, college costs, the cost of rent.. Grow up, idiot. Also, why are you quoting a socialist In your signature?

IDGAF about political leanings.

That quote has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with human stupidity.

Maybe if you could think for yourself you'd be able to figure that out

You're just repeating verbatim the mantra of the mediocre that has become the norm today.

If you want to succeed you can no one is stopping you

Of course, millions are trying and only a minority of them will move up, it's nothing like the 70s or 80s anymore bud.

 

[initforme]

Education and only education is the key. Otherwise expect to stay at the bottom no matter how hard you are willing to work.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just because people don't move up does not mean they can't.

The problem as I see it is that people don't want to sacrifice for success anymore they want to have it handed to them

Of course people can still move up, it just is harder and continues to get harder, even worse for those born into the bottom. Millions of people work hard and never move up, simplistic white washing is idiocy Oh, Albert Einstein was a socialist.. Good to know you love him.

It's no harder than it ever was.

Literal bullshit, income inequality, stagnant wages, less full time jobs, college costs, the cost of rent.. Grow up, idiot. Also, why are you quoting a socialist In your signature?

IDGAF about political leanings.

That quote has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with human stupidity.

Maybe if you could think for yourself you'd be able to figure that out

You're just repeating verbatim the mantra of the mediocre that has become the norm today.

If you want to succeed you can no one is stopping you

Of course, millions are trying and only a minority of them will move up, it's nothing like the 70s or 80s anymore bud.

Because we have more whiners like you around

We are reaping the results of the grade on a curve everyone gets a trophy society in which we have lived for the past couple decades.

 

[initforme]

We dont need any more blue collar workers. What is missing are white collar workers.

 

[DGS49]

Two observations:

The BEST way of improving one's economic status in the U.S. is through entrepreneurship. It has been proven, generation after generation, and it is most obvious among those in the first two generations in this country. The [LEGAL] immigrants work their asses off in some god-forsaken business that no 'Americans' want to do, and within a short generation they are middle class or better. And NONE of our educational institutions focuses on entrepreneurship. They all peddle the extremely dubious concept that the way out of poverty is to get a good job with a solid company. Well, "middle-class" jobs are reducing in number every generation, so it doesn't look good in the long run.

Second, the test of whether social mobility works is whether there are examples from every stratum who are able to overcome poverty and other obstacles, which remains true.

But with the Victimization Industry running full throttle ("We can't hope to succeed because everybody hates us!"), certain ethnic groups are unable to perceive opportunity where it exists.

Pity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Education and only education is the key. Otherwise expect to stay at the bottom no matter how hard you are willing to work.

It depends on what you mean by education.

If you mean college only you are mistaken

 

[Skull Pilot]

We dont need any more blue collar workers. What is missing are white collar workers.

Excuse me but we need skilled tradesmen more than office drones

 

[Deleted member 53821]

I always thought that a powerful weapon against income inequality was the equal opportunity that we have in this country. We talk about good jobs but a small business generates more revenue than any good job and good jobs can't exist until businesses expand.

 

[OKTexas]

Education and only education is the key. Otherwise expect to stay at the bottom no matter how hard you are willing to work.

Tell that to all the drop out billionaires.

 

[David_42]

Education and only education is the key. Otherwise expect to stay at the bottom no matter how hard you are willing to work.

Tell that to all the drop out billionaires.

Oh, how many is that?
One in four self-made American billionaires dropped out of college
". Ten of America's 43 self-made billionaires dropped out. One, Harold Hamm, never even attended college."
LOL. The average man obviously just needs to work harder. Idiot.

 

[OKTexas]

Education and only education is the key. Otherwise expect to stay at the bottom no matter how hard you are willing to work.

Tell that to all the drop out billionaires.

Oh, how many is that?
One in four self-made American billionaires dropped out of college
". Ten of America's 43 self-made billionaires dropped out. One, Harold Hamm, never even attended college."
LOL. The average man obviously just needs to work harder. Idiot.

Yep they should.

Top 100 Entrepreneurs Who Made Millions Without A College Degree - Business Insider

Some of these losers didn't even finish high school.