Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 33
  • Primary focus 13
Showing 13 database articles primarily about Mobility/Assortative Mating
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Mobility/Assortative Mating
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,192 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Mobility/Assortative Mating):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

Upward Mobility Is Alive and Well in America

Phil Gramm and John Early Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
January 9, 2023
Is Database:
Database

Phil Gramm and John Early report on @MichaelRStrain analysis that found robust absolute mobility in America. Only 28% of children raised in the bottom quintile had adult incomes that were in the same quintile and 26% reached the top quintile. @AEIecon

Phil Gramm and John Early report on @MichaelRStrain analysis that found robust absolute mobility in America. Only 28% of...
When the income of the children is compared with the inflation-adjusted income of their parents using the real income quintiles of their childhood in 1982-86 rather than the income quintiles of 2013-17, measured mobility is dramatically greater. Only 28% of children reared in the bottom quintile had adult incomes that would put them in the bottom childhood quintile, and 26% rose all the way to the childhood top quintile, which required a minimum income of only $111,416 (in 2016 dollars) for a family of four in 1982-86. A family of four with that income in 2013-17 would have been in the middle quintile based on 2013-17 income distribution.

Phil Gramm and John Early report on a Michael Strain analysis that found robust absolute mobility in America. Only 28% of children raised in the bottom quintile had adult incomes that were in the same quintile and 26% reached the top quintile. “When the income of the children is compared with the inflation-adjusted income of their parents using the real income quintiles of their childhood in 1982-86 rather than the income quintiles of 2013-17, measured mobility is dramatically greater. Only 28% of children reared in the bottom quintile had adult incomes that would put them in the bottom childhood quintile, and 26% rose all the way to the childhood top quintile, which required a minimum income of only $111,416 (in 2016 dollars) for a family of four in 1982-86. A family of four with that income in 2013-17 would have been in the middle quintile based on 2013-17 income distribution.”

Phil Gramm and John Early, “Upward Mobility Is Alive and Well in America,” Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/upward-mobility-income-quintiles-growth-chetty-strain-parents-work-income-inequality-equity-equitable-11673014583

Upward Mobility Is Alive and Well in America

Is the American Dream in peril? Collectivists say yes and point to rising inequality of income. But they don’t understand the question. A commitment to equality of outcomes in life is totally alien to the American ethos. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, America is committed to “an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence.” Recognizing that, in the words of Will Durant, “freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies and when one prevails the other dies,” America has always chosen freedom.

The American Dream is of individual upward mobility, not social progress toward uniformity. Analysts for the Pew Charitable Trusts in 2012 quantified the economic advancement of American families. They compared the inflation-adjusted income of parents with that of their children some 30 years later. (The parents in the study were 41 years old on average and the children 45 when their incomes were measured.)

Measured by inflation-adjusted household income, 93% of children who grew up the bottom income quintile were better off than their parents. Of children in the middle three-fifths, 86% grew up to live in families with higher incomes than their parents. Even among those in the top income quintile, 70% were better off.

This upward mobility across all income classifications was possible because of the growth of the American economy. Over the 35 years of the study, real median family income rose by 89%. This American cornucopia was spread across the entire income distribution—with the exception of the prime work-age adults in the bottom quintile who dropped out of the workforce as government transfer payments exploded beginning in the mid-1960s. They benefited from the growth in transfer payments, but their ability to rise further was stunted by the incentive not to work.

Without accounting for this overall income growth, three independent research efforts have measured relative mobility—the extent to which children reared in families in one income quintile stayed in the same income quintile, rose to a higher quintile, or fell to a lower quintile. The first, an extension of the Pew Charitable Trusts study cited above, looked at parental income from 1967-71, when the children were younger than 18, and 2000-08 when the children were 32 to 58.

The second study, by Raj Chetty of Harvard, looked at parental income from 1996-2000, when children were 15 to 20, and adult children’s income in 2011-12, when the children were in their early 30s. The final study, by Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, compared the income of children who were in their 40s in 2013-17 with that of their parents in their 40s.

Since the findings of these three studies covering the past half-century were extraordinarily similar, we have averaged them in the nearby chart. For each parental income quintile, the chart shows the percentage of adult children from those families who grew up to live in each income quintile.

You might expect that children would tend to end up in the same income quintile as their parents. Parents impart their genes and values to their children. Those with high incomes are generally highly educated and give their children every advantage, such as private schools, tutors and counselors. Poor families often lack the knowledge and resources to provide those advantages.

Yet the share of adult children who grow up to live in a household in the same income quintile as their parents is surprisingly small. The chart shows that for the middle three quintiles, only 22.6% to 24.4% of children remain in their parents’ quintile—barely more than the 20% that would result if income quintiles were assigned at random. On average, 39% of those children as adults rose to a higher quintile and 37% fell to a lower one. The harshest critics of mobility in America can find little to fault in the income mobility of the three central quintiles.

They focus instead on the top and bottom quintiles—but miss substantial mobility there too. Of children reared in the top quintile, 62% fell to one of the lower quintiles, including more than 9% to the bottom quintile. A significant number of the children reared in the top quintile who stayed in the top quintile as adults had incomes far greater than their parents, but statistically they could not rise out of the top quintile.

With few advantages and often trapped in failing public schools, 63% of children who grew up in bottom quintile families rose to a higher quintile, 6.1% rising all the way to the top quintile. A significant number of those who failed to rise would have been the adult children who didn’t work as public assistance soared. The share of the bottom quintile who worked fell from 68% in the parents’ generation to 36% in the children’s generation.

But even these impressive numbers understate real income mobility in America. These studies measure relative mobility by comparing the children’s income quintile then and now. Relative mobility is a zero-sum game—by definition, 20% of households are in the lowest quintile and only 20% in the highest—but income growth isn’t. The vast majority of adult children had higher real incomes than their parents. To rise out of the bottom quintile, children’s inflation-adjusted income had to increase by more than the growth of the income ceiling for the bottom quintile during the years between generations—35% in Mr. Strain’s study. Children reared in any other quintile had to see their real income as adults rise on average by roughly 50% above their parents’ income simply to avoid falling into a lower quintile than their parents. The climb to a higher quintile is steeper still.

Fortunately, data from the Strain study can be used to measure mobility in a way that takes into account the extraordinary income growth in America between the parents’ generation and the adult children’s generation. When the income of the children is compared with the inflation-adjusted income of their parents using the real income quintiles of their childhood in 1982-86 rather than the income quintiles of 2013-17, measured mobility is dramatically greater. Only 28% of children reared in the bottom quintile had adult incomes that would put them in the bottom childhood quintile, and 26% rose all the way to the childhood top quintile, which required a minimum income of only $111,416 (in 2016 dollars) for a family of four in 1982-86. A family of four with that income in 2013-17 would have been in the middle quintile based on 2013-17 income distribution.

During the 35 years of the study, adult children who worked rode up the American economic escalator as average incomes rose dramatically. Those who climbed as the escalator rose moved up faster. Those who stood still or stumbled down rose more slowly, and those who stayed off the escalator by not working missed the ride. The mobility studies shown in the chart capture the effect of climbing, stumbling and choosing not to ride, but they miss the escalator effect, which came from the growth of the American economy. Many of today’s middle-income adults have a real standard of living that would have put them in the top quintile in their parents’ era.

This incredible income mobility is measured only over one generation. Parents struggle and sacrifice to provide their children with education and opportunities they themselves lacked. Millions of parents have lived out their dreams through the achievements of their children, generation after generation. As a result, America’s real mobility is most visible over multiple generations. Many historians believe George Washington’s grandmother came to America as an indentured worker. Washington became one of the richest men in colonial America and, in the words of King George III, “the greatest man in the world.”

It is better to be born rich, brilliant and beautiful, but poor, ordinary and homely people succeed in America every day. The American dream is alive and well.

  • Mobility/Assortative Mating
Previous articleJanuary 9, 2023Is The U.S. Job Market Disinflationary Now?.@M_C_Klein reports that the latest revisions show that annualized average hourly pay growth was less than 4% in December, down from the 7.5% average from March-Sept. 2022. Klein argues that the high quit rate makes further near-term reductions unlikely.Next articleJanuary 9, 2023Signs of ProgressThe United States has been a net exporter of energy since 2019, a trend that is poised to accelerate with increasing LNG exports. @GregorMacdonald
Showing 12 database articles primarily about Mobility/Assortative Mating

Anatomy of US Inequality

Oded Galor and Daniel Wainstock National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
December 26, 2025
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Inequality within 186 distinct US ethnic groups accounts for 96% of total income variation, while between-group inequality contributes only 4%, largely constant across time and regions. For 6 broad ethnic categories, within variation is 97% of the total.

This paper examines inequality within the U.S. population, exploring variations between and within ethnic groups. Leveraging the ancestral origins of a representative sample of the U.S. population, consisting of millions of U.S.-born, working-age individuals, the study decomposes income inequality into within-group and between-group components, distinguishing disparities among those sharing a common ancestry from inequality between groups. As indicated in Figure 1, inequality within the 186 distinct ancestral groups accounts for 96% of the variation in overall income inequality in the U.S., while between-group inequality accounts for only 4%. Similarly, inequality within six broad ethnic categories (Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Pacific Islander, and White) accounts for 97% of the variation, while between-group inequality accounts for just 3%. When restricting the sample to individuals with the same educational attainment and demographic characteristics, within-ethnic-group inequality still accounts for the principal share of income dispersion. Spatial decomposition reveals that the predominance of within-group inequality holds across local micro-areas throughout the U.S. The South exhibits a modestly smaller share of within-group inequality—a pattern consistent with the region’s greater ethnic fragmentation and enduring legacy of discrimination.

Related Articles:

  • Changing Opportunity: Sociological Mechanisms Underlying Growing Class Gaps and Shrinking Race Gaps in Economic Mobility — Raj Chetty @OppInsights finds that a white child born into the bottom household income quintile in 1992 had a 29.7% chance of remaining there, up from 24.9% in…
  • How Immigration is Changing the Black-White Earnings Gap — Over 2019–2024, 2nd-generation immigrant black female workers had earnings as high, or higher, than (non-hispanic) white women; 2nd-generation black male…
  • Income Mobility of the Top One Percent — One third of top 1% US income earners as indicated by tax returns fall out a year later and ⅔ are absent a decade later. Over two decades, income variability…
  • Mobility/Assortative Mating
  • Workforce
    • Inequality
    • Wages/Income

Getting Beneath the Veil of Intergenerational Mobility: Evidence from Three Cities

Oren Danieli, Tanaya Devi and Roland Fryer Tel Aviv University
Date Posted:
November 20, 2025
Is Database:
Database

A data-driven method to select cost-effective policy interventions, applied to survey responses of ~1,000 people reared in poverty in 3 US cities, confirms the primacy of education, but finds an ~= role for childhood determinants of noncognitive skills.

We develop a new descriptive statistical method to assist the design of future experiments, whose goal is to improve some outcome variable. Most descriptive methods ignore the potential difficulty of changing the covariates in an intervention. Our method uses information from the joint distribution of the covariates, and instead of recommending experiments that would extrapolate into cases rarely seen in the data, it focuses on the way in which the outcome variable (in our case, escaping poverty) is higher in real life. Panel A in Figure 3 shows, using non-parametric estimation methods, that the most important correlate of income mobility is education. A close second– and statistically indistinguishable– is resilience: the ability to bounce back from stressful situations,measured by responses to questions such as “It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event.” Half of the significant correlates of intergenerational income mobility are psychological skills: resilience, Big 5 [personality traits from psychological test], self-esteem, self control, locus of control and grit. Mental health problems are also significant in this specification, [as are] whether the respondent was ever in trouble with the police in their youth, had adverse childhood experiences, and the existence of adult relationships they trusted.

Related Articles:

  • The American Dream Is Not a Coin Flip, and Wages Have Not Stagnated — .@swinshi argues that 72% of 40-year-olds exceed their parents’ family income excluding government benefits, using his preferred inflation measure and…
  • The Misguided War On The SAT — Noting that test scores are predictive of academic and professional outcomes @DLeonhardt argues that standardized tests are the most meritocratic talent…
  • Changing Opportunity: Sociological Mechanisms Underlying Growing Class Gaps and Shrinking Race Gaps in Economic Mobility — Raj Chetty @OppInsights finds that a white child born into the bottom household income quintile in 1992 had a 29.7% chance of remaining there, up from 24.9% in…
  • Mobility/Assortative Mating
  • Workforce
    • Inequality
    • Poverty/Crime

A Chip Off the Old Block? Genetics and the Intergenerational Transmission of Socioeconomic Status

Sjoerd van Alten, Silvia Barcellos, Leandro Carvalho, Titus Galama, et al. National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
September 19, 2025
Is Database:
Database

A 10-percentile increase in a person’s polygenic index (PGI) raises that person’s income by 0.9 percentiles and that of their child by 0.7 percentiles; ~1/2 is direct genetic transmission, and ~ 1/2 the effect of parent’s genes on nurturing capacity.

We examine how the genetics of one generation influences the SES [Socioeconomic Status] of the next by linking genetic data from the Dutch Lifelines Cohort to tax records for 2006-2022. Figure 5 plots the next-generation genetic effect against the same-generation genetic effect for each SES measure. The 22.5-degree line represents a benchmark where the next-generation genetic effects are half as large as the same-generation genetic effects. The figure indicates a high degree of persistence in the effects of the reference’s genetics across generations: e.g. moving a reference 10 percentiles higher in the PGI distribution increases that reference’s own income by 0.9 percentiles, and their offspring’s income by 0.7 percentiles. For most outcomes, the markers lie closer to the 45-degree line than to the 22.5-degree line, suggesting that genetic transmission is not the sole mechanism through which one generation’s genetics affects the next. Genetic transmission explains about 50% of the total effect, while genotypic assortative mating contributes little. This implies that the remaining 50% must be attributed to genetic nurture—the influence of the reference’s genetics operating through environmental pathways, even when these genetic markers are not transmitted to the offspring.

Related Articles:

  • The Inheritance Of Social Status: England, 1600 to 2022 — Gregory Clark @PNASNews finds that social status in England was strongly correlated across generations between 1600 and 2022, consistent with a theory of…
  • For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls: A Lineage of 400,000 English Individuals 1750-2020 Shows Genetics Determines Most Social Outcomes — Research by @GregoryClark indicates that social outcomes in the UK are largely predetermined by birth, driven by highly assortative mating around status…
  • Like Great-Grandparent, Like Great-Grandchild? Multigenerational Mobility in American History — A 4-generation dataset linking 2.5+ mm adults to their ancestors finds that btw 1850 and 1940, a white American’s socioeconomic status was largely independent…
  • Mobility/Assortative Mating
  • Workforce
    • Inequality

The Effects of Parental Income and Family Structure on Intergenerational Mobility: A Trajectories-Based Approach

Yoosoon Chang, Steven Durlauf, Bo Hu, and Joon Park National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
September 17, 2025
Is Database:
Database

Chang et al find that in the PSID, higher parental income and living in an intact family during middle childhood and adolescence are more predictive of favorable child outcomes than income and family structure during early childhood.

[The two panels] capture the age-specific effects of parental income and family structure, respectively, on a child’s latent permanent income in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics [PSID]. Parental income during middle childhood and adolescence exerts a significantly stronger influence on a child’s future income than parental income during early childhood, a finding [that] contrasts with the early childhood development literature. The sensitivity of adult outcomes to adolescent incomes suggests that the uses of this income have distinct effects from early childhood investment. One reason why this finding is credible is that incomes in later childhood and adolescence influence the schools and neighborhoods, determinants that are not operational for younger years. Children raised in two-parent households tend to achieve higher adult income status than those raised in single-parent households. While this advantage is relatively modest during early childhood, it becomes pronounced in middle childhood and adolescence, peaking during the late high school years at around age 17. [Editor’s note: This may reflect the likelihood that a family that is still intact when the child is 17 was more functional throughout].

Related Articles:

  • Changing Opportunity: Sociological Mechanisms Underlying Growing Class Gaps and Shrinking Race Gaps in Economic Mobility — Raj Chetty @OppInsights finds that a white child born into the bottom household income quintile in 1992 had a 29.7% chance of remaining there, up from 24.9% in…
  • Intergenerational Mobility in American History: Accounting for Race and Measurement Error — Intergenerational income mobility in US is greater than in the 19th and early 20th century, as previous estimates overestimated historical mobility due to bad…
  • The Inheritance Of Social Status: England, 1600 to 2022 — Gregory Clark @PNASNews finds that social status in England was strongly correlated across generations between 1600 and 2022, consistent with a theory of…
  • Mobility/Assortative Mating
  • Workforce
    • Family/Marriage
    • Inequality

ZIP Code Is Destiny? Turns Out That’s Bunk

James Heckman and Sadegh Eshaghnia Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
September 5, 2025
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Heckman argues that contrary to Chetty’s research, local geography has little causal effect on children’s adult outcomes in the US. Studies that find otherwise reflect parental self-selection.

Heckman argues that contrary to Chetty’s research, local geography has little causal effect on children’s adult outcomes in...
Advocates of [relocating struggling families to residential areas with better conditions] ignore serious flaws in the research. The methods used in this literature falsely link the disparity of outcomes across locations to the causal effect of neighborhoods. In reality, the difference is due to the parents who self-sort into neighborhoods. Those who move to better neighborhoods early on tend to be more affluent, more educated and more likely to have intact families. They move to better neighborhoods with people similar to themselves, just as later movers, who are less affluent and less educated, move to less affluent neighborhoods. Focusing on the family rather than the neighborhood changes the conversation around intergenerational mobility. In our 2022 study on lessons for America from Denmark, we analyzed data collected by Denmark’s government statistics agencies for the entire population, similar to census data in the U.S. As with Americans, more-affluent and better-educated Danish are more likely to move to good neighborhoods before children are born. Less-educated and less-affluent families that relocate later in their children’s lives tend to be less stable than early movers, who are less likely to experience divorce or a change in household composition.

Related Articles:

  • Changing Opportunity: Sociological Mechanisms Underlying Growing Class Gaps and Shrinking Race Gaps in Economic Mobility* — Children who grew up in counties with higher employment rates had more economic mobility than peers raised in counties with lower rates, even if their parents…
  • Lessons from Denmark about Inequality and Social Mobility — Danish and American intergenerational educational mobility ~ mirror each other despite Denmark’s social spending.
  • Transmission of Family Influence — Estimating evolving expectations of lifetime resources over 40 years of Danish data, @r_landersoe finds that although 80% of male children have higher…
  • Mobility/Assortative Mating
  • Workforce
    • Family/Marriage

Inter-State Labor Mobility and the U.S. Economy

Andrea Foschi, Christopher House, Christian Proebsting, and Linda Tesar Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
Date Posted:
August 26, 2025
Is Database:
Database

U.S. gross migration rates have fallen modestly over the past 50 years, but net migration has hardly budged. “On average, only 10–12 out of 100 moves reflect a net flow from one location to another.”

The decline in gross inter-state migration over the last 50 years is relatively modest and has been essentially stable since the early 2000’s. The net migration rate, which is one of the main equilibrating mechanisms between locations, exhibits no trend. There is little evidence that demographic changes explain the decline in aggregate gross migration. Figure 2 plots gross migration and its decomposition into the contributions of absolute net migration and offsetting migration– since 1975 using the IRS data. We see again the slight decline in the gross migration rate, matched by a similar trend in the Offsetting Migration Rate. We also see that the majority of gross migration is given by flows that offset each other, and only a small fraction of flows actually induce a change in a given state’s population. On average, only 10-12 out of 100 moves reflect a net flow from one location to another. Net flows are a small fraction of overall labor migration and have remained fairly constant.

Related Articles:

  • Where is Standard of Living the Highest? Local Prices and the Geography of Consumption — For non-college Americans, high local prices mean lower living standards. “A high school drop-out household moving from the least expensive commuting zone to…
  • Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation — US growth slowed by 36% from 1964-2009 due to housing supply constraints in high TFP cities like New York & San Francisco.
  • Why Is Geographic Mobility Declining? — Btw 1996 and 2024, geographic mobility as measured by interstate migration declined for all age groups, particularly the 25–34 cohort. A FRBR note argues the…
  • Mobility/Assortative Mating
  • Workforce
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms