Typically, studies of mobility showed that intergenerational correlations parent-offspring, typically father-son in wealth are on the order of 0. In addition, some of the mispronunciation such as of Govan and Edinburgh was bothersome. I took beta and b vales from a number of the examples presented in the book. Clark's strong genetic conclusions seem rely on unassailable modelling I tried but some shakier genetic conclusions. I don't look at my genealogy chart and see a story of poor people moving ever so slowly toward the mean with some dips back into poverty, nor do I see a story of wealthy people moving ever so slowly toward the mean with some blips into extreme wealth. To try and sum up Clarke's conclusion: societal policies don't matter a damn.
Looking at not only income but also education, wealth, health, longevity, you actually find that these things are changing much more slowly. What about the Cultural Revolution under Mao? Nor will his college professors. To me this makes sense. But does it really feel full - or are you stretched too thin? This knowledge is equally valuable for the father who hates his job and hopes his son does not follow in his footsteps. He repeatedly seeks confirmation that the data are representative of entire populations.
My sister-in-law worked in an elderly home for many years and she made a similar conclusion: when you are 90 you will not care at all about whatever career you had, you will only care about your grandkids. Inequality declines when carnage and disaster strike and increases when peace and stability return. Clark claims that he can predict with startling accuracy your position in society based on these four ancestors. Don't most people have a poor relative and a rich one or is it really just me? Perhaps if the big data had been examined with greater attention to detail, a more satisfying book would have been written which could have more clearly identified the power of potential new data sources. Eventually, the author explains most of his math, statistics, and assumptions, and he also addresses how the results would be different if some of his assumptions were different. The book kind of starts with the conclusion and explains the process of the analysis, which is fascinating.
Using highly original methods and ranging widely across world history, Clark argues that the activities of governments impact mobility much less than most of us think--and that the only sure path to success is to be born to the right parents. And at one point he waxes poetically about how if there were any such process, it would be countered by giving resources like money to disadvantaged, not once considering that the transfer may be of some nonmonetary sort. Interestingly enough Clark begins his book by absolving the graduate students and paid research assistant who helped him in his research. He tracks the persistence of rare surnames at different points on the socio-economic scale. This conclusion is not welcome to modern people certainly not me. It doesn't matter what line you follow, my genealogy is more like: poor immigrant begets middle class man begets extremely wealthy man begets total financial failure begets middle class man.
He tries to sugarcoat these interpretations with bland liberal prescriptions and platitudes, but they still rankle. But the evidence changed his mind: social scientists have been measuring mobility the wrong way, and in fact the popular intuition is on target. The persistence of various ethnic groups at upper and lower levels of status in the United States has been taken as demonstrating the pervasive effects of racism in the United States, and the pervasive advantages of group cultures or connections. Например, в шведском «соцраю» равных возможностей, госзащиты и эмансипации за столетие социальная мобильность почти не изменилась и мало отличается от американской. Clark's numbers suggest that a person's status at birth can predict a lot about their life chances. Originally to increase it, now to reduce it.
Same story, the family names of those on top with the Nationalists stayed on top with the communists. And this is mostly impervious to even the most massive social upheavals the industrial revolution, the cultural revolution, the welfare state, etc. I am not convinced nurture is irrelevant though. Some folks are familiar with Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks, the novels that follow a family from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations. I would distill Clark's argument down to a number of positive and normative claims. If you mentioned Johnny, the smith's kid, everyone would know exactly whom you meant.
While it has been argued that rigid class structures have eroded in favor of greater social equality, The Son Also Rises proves that movement on the social ladder has changed little over eight centuries. The data is actually pretty stunning and worldview altering. So, the good news is, at least, there's some regress to the mean, it is not that fixed. Sorry, not room for the rest of this post, will put on my blog Social mobility Vietnamese: Sự chuyển dịch xã hội. Clark has clearly found an innovative way of tracking the status of families over time, and has applied this method of analysis to a wide variety of illuminating cases. He thus argues that endogamy amongst the Jewish population, combined with high population growth, explains why their relative high status persists and does not regress to the mean.
What I like: quantitative econ history; framework for social mobility; thorough analysis on relative prevalence of last names over time. That is the essential threat that is behind most social welfare spending: the threat of violence from those who cannot or will not perform. How much does it influence our children? He looks at mobility not across one or two generations, but across many. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands. She had multiple university degrees and he was a wealthy man when he married her.
Those relationships will be satisfying or unsatisfying depending upon how respectfully we relate to one another. But here is where we begin to need to exercise caution. You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this. The implications the modern reader is left to draw are unsettling. He really quickly ties outcomes to genetics, which is fine in concept. He demonstrates how fate is determined by ancestry and that almost all societies have similarly low social mobility rates.