Social Mobility

Social Mobility in the United States

Social Mobility in the International Business Landscape

Definition of Social Mobility in the context of U.S. public social policy: Ability of individuals to move from on stratum of society to another. And also, the extent to which individuals can move out of the social strata into which they are born.

Generational Mobility

The degree of mobility over time measures how the income and education of children of parents with relatively low education and income compares to the income and education of children from more successful families. President Obama along with many others, has claimed that the degree of mobility in the US declined over time. Yet the limited available evidence does not support these claims about declining mobility during past 20-30 years (see the study by Chetty, et al, “Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity?” January, 2014).

Some of the claims about declining mobility appear to depend on the large increase in income inequality since 1980. Not only have the incomes of the top 1% increased much faster than other incomes, but also incomes of college graduates have grown substantially relative to the incomes of persons who did not graduate from college. Nevertheless, an increase in the spread of incomes at a moment in time does not necessarily imply a change in the degree of mobility of their children. For example, income inequality in the parents’ generation could increase, and that higher inequality could be maintained into the children’s generation, and yet the upward mobility of children from poorer families (or the downward mobility of richer children) could be increasing over time.

Although there is no necessary connection between inequality and mobility, one should expect some causation from lower mobility to greater inequality in succeeding generations. For lower mobility means that children from poorer families tend not to do as well as they formerly did, and children from richer families do better than formerly. Over time, this stretches out the income distribution and produces greater inequality. In this case, the causation runs from mobility to inequality, not from inequality to mobility.

A few economists have produced evidence that countries with greater inequality tend to have lower mobility (see Corak, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2013). For example, Scandinavian countries tend to have both relatively low inequality and high mobility. The causation in their analysis usually runs from greater inequality to lower mobility. Nevertheless, a close examination of the empirical basis for this claim suggests that the relation between inequality and mobility across countries may actually be quite weak (see the preliminary work by the Chicago graduate student Bradley Setzler).

Just as many forces determine the degree of income inequality, so too does the degree of mobility in income and education between parents and children have many determinants. The most important ones are:

  • the investment of time and money by parents with different levels of education and income in improving the human capital of their children,
  • the degree of transmission of various types of abilities from parents to children,
  • the magnitude of government spending on the human capital formation of children, and
  • whether this government spending is relatively greater or smaller for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The nature of these influences on the degree of mobility implies that greater mobility is not necessarily “better”, at least as judged by the degree of efficiency of the human capital investment process and the market for earnings. For example, if the parent-children transmission of abilities is high or parental education is highly productive in raising the human capital of their children, one would expect an efficient investment process to have a low degree of parent-child mobility in education or earnings. On the other hand, low mobility may be a sign of inefficiency if say able children of poorer parents are unable to obtain the education consistent with their abilities.

These reflections are relevant in trying to evaluate the degree of mobility in the US compared to other countries. The intergeneration elasticity (IGE) measures the effect of an increase or decrease in the income of parents relative to the mean income of their generation on the incomes of their children. An IGE of say 0.4- about the IGE for the US- means that a 10% increase in parental income raises their children’s income on average by 4% relative to the mean income of the children’s generation.

The IGE for the US is higher than those for Japan and many Western European countries, and is below those for many Latin American countries. Even though mobility in the US may not have fallen over time, does the relatively high IGE for the US compared to other developed countries indicate that American mobility is too low?

A major reason why the answer to this question may be in the affirmative is the high and relatively stable American dropout rate from high school of poorer African Americans and Hispanic Americans. I believe much of the blame rests with the fact that many children from minority families are raised with a single and not very educated parent, and that the quality of the schools attended by minority children is deficient. The interaction of these two forces produces a deadly mixture holding back the progress of minority children. The degree of mobility would increase significantly if ways could be found to efficiently lower the high school dropout rate.

Author: Becker, defunct


Posted

in

,

by

Comments

11 responses to “Social Mobility”

  1. International Avatar
    International

    Jack

    “I believe much of the blame rests with the fact that many children from minority families are raised with a single and not very educated parent, and that the quality of the schools attended by minority children is deficient. The interaction of these two forces produces a deadly mixture holding back the progress of minority children. The degree of mobility would increase significantly if ways could be found to efficiently lower the high school dropout rate.”

    Which may suggest, more, not less spending on education which might include counselors and mentors for both “kids at risk” ………… and their parents who didn’t get an owner’s manual when they may have become parents at a young or poorly educated age.

    We do a lot of hand wringing over “wishing” all parents were good parents, but if we have any hopes in the realm of cycle breaking, it’s hard to think of anything other than our schools doing a bit more.

  2. International Avatar
    International

    Wm Johnson

    Legal or illegal immigration from Mexico or most Hispanic countries makes no sense. What we get from Mexico et. al. are non-educated, expensive additions to our social service networks. According to PEW research over 49% of illegal immigrants have not graduated from their admittedly poor equivalent of high schools and will continue to receive far more in benefits than they will ever pay in taxes. The estimates made by the National Research Council in their study published in “The New Americans, Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” are that each Hispanic family costs the U.S. (state, local and federal) over $5,000/year more than they will ever pay in taxes. Other estimates are that this has risen to about $20,000/year. It will cost state and local government over $10,000/year to try to educate–over $150,000 total/student cost in our public schools.

    It would cost on average about $30,000/year to incarcerate the additional immigrant felons–their crime rate are about three times the average U.S. rate of criminality.

    The recent CBO estimates of how the latest Senate passed immigration “reform” will boost the U.S. economy will boost the U.S. economy does NOT include the state and local costs–see last page of their report. The conservative Heritage Foundation has estimated the latest U.S. Senate immigration bill would lead to the government paying $9.4 trillion in benefits and services to the newly-legalized immigrants, but receiving only $3.1 trillion in taxes from them in taxes-resulting in a $6.3 trillion loss to the U.S. over 50 years.

    True reform would cut the number of immigrants granted citizenship from over 1,000,000/year we have now, to less than 500,000; require all new immigrants to have at least a BS degree or pass the SAT and ACT test at an average rate or better etc.. Requiring citizenship of all workers would help dry up the attraction of jobs in the U.S. Another key reform would be to bar anyone who has crossed the border illegally or overstayed a visa from any prospects of future eligibility for U.S. citizenship.

    A better class of immigrants are what is needed to help the U.S. economy not cost it significantly more like it does now. Now that would be true reform not amnesty disguised as “immigration reform”.

  3. International Avatar
    International

    Jim kirby

    It’s hard to accept all this “social mobility” talk at face value. However the bell-curve of social position looks, it seems that for every increase in position of a person or persons, there is a corresponding decrease in position of others. In income, in wealth and in social position.

    I imagine that what needs to be encouraged is meritocracy, which implies that those more meritorious will advance while those less meritorious will decline. This would amount to an increase in the upward position of the meritorious and a decline in the position of the slouches, by whatever measure.

    What is then so great about social mobility? What makes it different from meritocracy? And there’s the greater question: why the hell do we fight and sacrifice to maintain public mis-education, which mainly succeeds in hammering down the nail that sticks out?

  4. International Avatar
    International

    Terry Bennett

    John D. Rockefeller started dirt poor and amassed the largest fortune in American history. The single reason this feat is unlikely to ever be repeated is that he did it back when there was very little in the way of government meddling to prevent his success.

    Bill Gates climbed perhaps from the bottom of the top 20% to the absolute top – still impressive, but not nearly as unthinkable.

    There are people in this country who have decided to exercise their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by trying to make a lot of money. Some of them, it turns out, also have a lot of talent in that arena. Somebody who is good at something and dedicates his or her life to working at it is likely to have outsize success in whatever he or she happens to be pursuing. The result is, we have some very very rich people. As the collective wealth of the country has been increasing in recent decades, most of the increase has fallen into the hands of these people. Stated another way, if you add up everything that individual Americans produce and the rewards they receive therefor, the bottom 99% produce about as much today as they did 30 years ago. (Maybe they produce more goods, but they produce about the same VALUE.) The top 1% are the ones who have increased their reward because they are the ones who give a crap about having even more money and have made it their mission to acquire same, by producing more value and servicing demand in new and better ways.

    The lazy communists would suggest that nobody should be able to buy a ride to the space shuttle unless everybody can. Constraining our best performers does nothing to help the poor – it just makes the non-performers, such as those who make whole careers out of complaining about it, feel better to vilify those who have roundly outperformed them. The top 1% didn’t win by cheating; rather they followed the rules scrupulously: doing the necessary work to gain entry to top schools, earning degrees in the right fields, taking jobs in the right industries at the right firms, performing well, moving up, maybe starting new companies to enact their visionary ideas, etc. Their story is irrelevant to the question at hand. Too many discussions of the failures of the poor are nothing more than thinly disguised sour grapes upon the successes of the rich.

    No matter at what level you start, achieving (or maintaining) tier 1 success requires consistently doing things right, over a whole career. If you’re a pothead or a womanizer or you can’t spell or add two-digit numbers in your head, you probably do not have what it takes to succeed at that level. They aren’t shoveling coal, but these are extremely focused and hard-working people. Consider New Jersey’s Governor, who did a lot of things right to rise as he has, and now suddenly will be undone by one mistake – regardless of whether it turns out that mistake was ordering a political payback, or having the poor character-judging skills to hire someone who would order a political payback.

    The way to improve the lot of poor people is to put a floor under us and not a ceiling over us. Perhaps there is some social value in fostering mobility from the 0-20 bracket to the 20-40 and maybe even to the 40-60 bracket, but once people are average they can decide for themselves if they want to do the work to rise even higher on their own, so they too can be despised by those who once claimed to want to help them.

  5. International Avatar
    International

    Jack

    It’s too easy and rhetorically common in these discussions to think of “producers” and the opposite. Here I’m remember my fairly brief time in the military. While some of us shot Expert and some were smarter or could run faster, on the much more common patrol or forced march the company was only going to travel at the speed of the the least.

    In teaching us various skills, say tearing down a rifle for cleaning, they taught until the slowest learner could do the job. We seem to have forgotten that much of our society and economy works the same way. If our front runners succeed and become employers, or a 2nd LT looking for a team and our team players aren’t there or able, the front runners are going to be walking and hoping.

    Posner mentions “options” being so miserable that some, often clever and with lots of drive and energy are drawn to crime. What a waste to society when that happens. First the negative “economics” of the criminal endeavor, then often costly court expenses, and more than many could earn being spent on lock up and perhaps a family left to welfare or other poverty.

    Upward mobility: Sometimes this sounds like the dog eat dog world of one guy moving past the other which is surely part of it, but the crucial thing is that when, as is the case today, there is a growing pie that all see some benefit.

    JFK said it about right with his hopes of “a rising tide lifting all of the boats”. Yep, the guy in the skiff doesn’t mind that the yacht is being lifted as long as he gets some bit of lift too. Both for the actuality of making a bit of progress but even more so for not feeling left out.

  6. International Avatar
    International

    Jack

    I used to chuckle about pre-Thatcher era England being a place where the lords and bankers didn’t work because their position was assured by their rigid class system, meanwhile at the lower level the kids starting in the factory KNEW they were going to top out at foreman, if that, late in their careers so they may as well stay out all night at the disco and pretend to work the next day. I don’t know what the upward mobility in the UK was in those days, or today, but I’d bet it had a leading decimal point.

    How does is a meritocracy different from upward mobility? The U-M should be the result of the meritocracy. I guess the best example with be the coming Winter Olympics. Soon we’re going to know the name of just about the best Bi-athalon guy in the world. His gold medal will be just about 99% pure meritocracy.

    At the other extreme I guess you have a lot of “People Magazine” celebs, say Paris Hilton? who has surely done something other than inherit a huge family fortune and join the glitterati set, but w/o the fortune it’s not likely her name would be a household word on merit.

  7. International Avatar
    International

    Thomas Rekdal

    I don’t think we have the slightest idea how to stir the ambitions and develop the talents of people in the bottom fifth of the income distribution. But taxing the rich to increase the dependency of the poor seems to me to be least plausible suggestion yet.

    Better, perhaps, to decrease the amount of social blather encouraging the false belief that wealthy people are responsible for keeping everyone else “down.” But then the First Amendment stands in the way of that.

    It may be worth reflecting, instead, on the fact that people living on $34,000 a year are already in the 1%, if the relevant population is the entire world, not just the U.S.

  8. International Avatar
    International

    Jim kirby

    This focus on “social mobility” is pure nonsense. What we want to promote is a meritocracy–a society in which the cream can rise unimpeded, unfettered by rules regarding nobility, wealth of parents, college degree, occupational licensing, color, race, sex and so on.

    In distant times, Amerikans like Franklin, Washington, Ford, Carnegie, Wright Bros, Edison, Firestone and numerous others did not have to have college degrees or be licensed to practice a profession. Nowadays, you can’t cut somebody’s hair without a license.

    Social mobility would serve meritocracy nowadays in allowing the cream to rise and the milk to sink. It would be a positive thing. Social mobility is of no use, and would indeed be negative, if we did have a meritocracy.

    I would be useful to list those things that nowadays do work to impede the social mobility we need in pursuing a meritocracy: public education, backward parenting, religion, licensing, restriction on immigration, and censoring of speech.

  9. International Avatar
    International

    Jack

    In a static model with only merit being rewarded the only way to “do better” (upward mobility) than the parents would be that of garnering more merit. For example say a Bill Clinton having done quite a bit better than his car salesman stepfather. More seriously under a static model with no population growth or techno change it would be tough for the sons to outdo their parents, kinda the reason small farmers were prone to be small farmers for generations.

    Bu! instead of a static model we have one of lots of techno change and with productivity doubling in not much longer than one of today’s generations. So….. with that kind of tailwind surely MOST should outdo their parents if measured by either productivity or income.

    Yet! our Profs are not sipping champagne over great stats indicating high mobility, but are trying to cling to “mobility being maybe the same as a prior age” if tweaked here and there. For the individuals of a society that’s NOT very good.

    And especially not if we zoomed out and looked at the nation as a whole. Yep! The first year student would cry, “Look at that US go! They’ve worked hard and wisely to double their productivity in less than 30 years and have done the same with doubling GDP! Everyone must be ecstatic about so outpacing their parents!”

    But the novice was only seeing the average, as we see in these two graphs (and more if you like) such is not the case and all too many are scrambling hard just to maintain parity with the parents despite the strong tailwind of soaring productivity and increased GDP.

  10. International Avatar
    International

    Thomas Rekdal

    It seems to me that the market is doing the job well enough. I do not understand why “merit” consists in providing ever more convenient ways for inane people to communicate their inane thoughts with other inane people, but there is no doubt that those who are good at this are getting very, very rich. Upward and Onward.

    Neilehat puzzles me with his observation that our modern stars of philanthropy (such as Buffet and Gates) cannot begin to compare with such Gilded Age saints as Andrew Carnegie (and maybe Milton Hershey?), who gave us the seeds of so many public libraries, most of which are now mausoleums of a dead technology. Sic transit Gloria mundi. The consequences of the Gates and Buffet gifts are yet to be determined, but at least they will save a lot on estate taxes.

  11. International Avatar
    International

    Bruce

    Recently many people have latched on to the idea that raising the minimum wage will help to lessen inequality. The President has made a lot of noise with this “populist issue” declaring it only fair. Unfortunately raising the minimum wage will make America less competitive and it will reduce opportunities by giving employers less incentive to hire. It will cause small businesses to cut hours and reduce the number of employees working at any one time. Shorter hours and a drop in service will add to the reasons that small businesses often fail to compete and are forced to close their doors. I content the link between minimum wage and inequality is very weak in the post below and it is a distraction to take our eyes off more important issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *