Week 4 – Economic and Educational Mobility – A Global Perspective

Hi all! This week we’re discussing the following reading:

  1. Narayan, Ambar, Roy Van der Weide, et al. 2018. “Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations around the World.” Washington, DC: World Bank (Overview: pages 1 – 43)

Carefully go over my PowerPoint presentation with voiceover where I explain important ideas and concepts covered in the readings. (To listen to the voiceover you need to go to presentation mode)

Watch the video below where Professor Raj Chetty explores current trends in social mobility:

Finally, watch the crash course video below that summarizes various important issues discussed in the PowerPoint presentation (but with much better graphics!)

Here are a few links that I mentioned in the PowerPoint presentation that you might find interesting to explore further:

  • The interactive chart for Global Income can be found at the end of this page (you can select specific countries of interest and see how they compare to other countries): https://income-inequality.info
  • In this site you can find more of Raj Chetty’s research and reports on socioeconomic opportunities: https://opportunityinsights.org/
  • Miles Corak’s website is also a great source of information on social mobility research. Specifically HERE you can read more on the Canadian vs American dream
  • HERE is the interactive chart and complete analysis from the New York Times on race and social mobility.

Lecture Posts Questions:

On the comments section below, address the following questions (answers should be at least 100 words in length and posted by Sunday – This is how participation points are assessed (worth 30% of your final grade!) Please save your comments in a safe document before attempting to post it.

  1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts or comments you would like to share?
  2. From the Fair Progress reading are all concepts, measurements and ideas clear?
  3. Summarize the main conclusions from the Raj Chetty video. Do you have any questions?
  4. Summarize the main takeaways from the crash course video. Are all concepts clear?

22 thoughts on “Week 4 – Economic and Educational Mobility – A Global Perspective

  1. Azizah Al-Antri

    The powerpoint presentation was clear in explaining intergenerational mobility and the relationship between absolute and relative mobility in the U.S. and different countries. The charts and graphs really provided a visual perspective that made the concepts clearer and interesting to look at. For example, in slide 19 the graph showed how inequality in certain countries such as China, Brazil, and Peru is much higher than countries in Europe such as Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. What’s also interesting is how those countries with low inequality also have high levels of education. We also see how the U.S. is right in the middle of the graph, which shows that levels of inequality are somewhat high despite it being a high-income developed country. Also, when you discussed how parental education and income can impact a child’s education and income, it reminded me of a concept called the status attainment model in another class. It is like a cycle where origin affects education and education affects destination. That means that a child’s origin which is their family’s education, income, socioeconomic status, characteristics, etc. can affect their investment in a child’s education, which can also influence their occupation and income in the future and where they end up in life.

    The Fair Progress reading was interesting and discussed absolute mobility and relative mobility and compares high income and developing countries and their intergenerational mobility. They discussed how both types of mobility are important and complement each other for economic progress. The authors also emphasize how high educational mobility and relative mobility is associated with economic growth, income mobility, and a reduction in poverty and inequality. Also, developing countries have lower rates of mobility and high levels of inequality than high income countries. The countries with high levels of unequal opportunities have very low relative intergenerational mobility. High-income countries have the ability to spend on education and public resources to equalize opportunities which can increase relative mobility. The chapter further discusses the many various policies and regulations that can enhance and improve intergenerational mobility and equalize opportunities for everyone.

    Raj Chetty in the video discusses the current trends in social mobility in the U.S. In the U.S., social mobility is much lower than other developed countries such as Canada or Denmark, so children in those countries who started from the bottom have a higher chance of climbing up the social ladder to the top. Within the U.S. itself, there is a lot of variation of social mobility. The predictors that may be responsible for the variations of mobility within the U.S. are segregation, income inequality, quality of public schools, strength of social networks, and family structure. Urban regions have lower rates of social mobility than rural regions because people from rural areas such as Utah are moving to the urban areas for better paying jobs, which can increase their social mobility. People from the Southeast U.S. have very low levels of social mobility and have low chances of escaping poverty than states in the Midwest, but I was wondering why it’s so much lower than the rest of the U.S. even though there are other urban areas in the U.S. such as NYC, but their levels of social mobility are not as low as in the Southeast.

    The crash course video discusses absolute and relative mobility, and the mobility trends in the U.S. The long-term trends in absolute mobility over the years is upwards, most likely because of industrialization. Recent trends however show that people at the top of the income distribution have seen economic growth, whereas the rest of the population’s incomes have been stagnant. Also, absolute mobility has decreased recently and social mobility has stayed flat. It is difficult to climb up the social ladder in the U.S. but those who are already at the top usually stay at the top. Many people end up staying in the same social class as their parents so they don’t experience upward social mobility. Poverty and low SES makes it difficult to get a college degree and experience upward social mobility. Upward social mobility also depends on race, gender, education, and where you started on the income distribution. For example, Black Americans experience more downward mobility and those born at the bottom of the income distribution stay at the bottom, unlike White Americans. Furthermore, the income gap between men and women has decreased over the years. However, women still face more opportunity gaps and downward mobility than men and are more likely to stay at the bottom of the social class ladder if they start there. Although most Americans are doing better now than the past generations, it is not all social groups that experience economic growth and opportunities. High living expenses, growing income inequality, and low-paying jobs for less educated workers are making it even more difficult to climb the social mobility ladder today.

  2. Anthonio Roye

    Anthonio Roye

    1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts or comments you would like to share?

    The powerpoint clearly differentiated between absolute and relative mobility and providing examples explaining each. It also explains that both relative and absolute mobility can improve economic growth. We can measure mobility using occupational class schemes as well as education and income of the people. It was evident that people in the bottom quintile (especially if they are African Americans) tend to stay there. This is directly attributed to parental income, education, status, credit constraints and even maternal nutrition which all affect their offspring’s education and income. To combat this, the government can equalize opportunities and education on public investments at each stage of the life cycle, to help these people to even satisfy their aspirations in life. It also discusses the US as having low mobility due to high inequalities among the people and that some colleges are known to get people from bottom to top quintile (educational qualifications), but these were more in the whites than black students. It concluded that the poorest people in the US are 50% richer than others in the world based on purchasing power of the currency and compared the mobility of some countries in the world.

    2. From the Fair Progress reading are all concepts, measurements and ideas clear?

    The reading discusses that improving absolute and relative social mobility can create better lives for future generations when compared to that of their parents and the past persons at their age. Economic growth is at the center, and so investing, integration with the global markets boost these mobility and in turn, improve one’s human capital and distribution of resources. Inequality decreases the chance of social mobility and so the government should implement policies to improve the life of these at-risk groups (especially African Americans); that is, provide higher paying jobs, health care insurance, completing tertiary education etc. To mitigate barriers of these contributing to social mobility, some policies to raise the intergenerational mobility can be put into place and includes: promoting equity (equal opportunities for groups based on their situations across the country) which will in turn decrease socioeconomic segregation, promote good education on investments and decreasing income equality (mobility-enhancing fiscal policy) and reducing power asymmetries by including the poor in making decisions on policy developments. I believe that the above will increase economic growth, reduce income inequalities and in turn improve mobility for generations to come.

    3. Summarize the main conclusions from the Raj Chetty video. Do you have any questions?

    The video basically sums up the five (5) predictors to transition from bottom to middle to high class in society, namely (segregation, income inequality, quality of public schools, strength of social networking and family structure). It states that statistics has shown that social mobility has been quite stable/stagnant over the many years in the US, when compared to that of our parents. In countries like Denmark, the people have two times the chance to go from bottom to top class when compared to the US. People born in the bottom quintile are at very low odds of escaping poverty and tend to continue along that path for generations. It also gave graphical evidence that people in urban areas have lower social mobility than those in rural areas as these children tend to do better in school; however, they tend to migrate from these areas when they get successful. If the stimuli that boost the children of lower socioeconomic status to do well are determined, it could be applied throughout the country to make it better for different groups.

    4. Summarize the main takeaways from the crash course video. Are all concepts clear?

    The crash course video highlights the definition and types of social mobility, as well as the impact some factors such as race, gender, education, marriage or income distribution has on the social mobility of a group of people in a country. Social mobility is the movement from social positions throughout our lives and it may be intragenerational (up/down social ladder during lifetime) or intergenerational (social position across generations), absolute (better/worse than before) or relative (compared to rest of society). It also elaborated on using economic mobility (compare parents income at the same age) or occupational status to measure social mobility.

  3. Yassine

    This week’s presentation was honestly clear to me, I did not seem to be confused with any of the topics discussed. The charts comparing different demographics show relationships between income, education, and mobility. I was able to clearly understand the difference between Relative and absolute mobility from the examples in the presentation extracted from the book. I also thought the slide showing how parental income, parental income, parental credit constraint, status, and inputs towards their child were opportunities certain groups of people got over others.
    I found the Fair Progress reading to be very informative discussing the different types of mobility in education around the world. When the reading touched upon educational mobility, I was able to make connections with my prior knowledge on the effectiveness of having a good education. Knowing that education is one of the most reliable and known milestones in order to achieve financial stability, it made sense when points in the reading discussed how education was the key element of economic mobility across generations. The IGM (intergenerational mobility) was also broken down into multiple charts and maps to show the contrast between different demographics.
    The main points discussed in the current trends in social mobility video touched upon, quantifying the American dream from different statues in society. Some other main points talked about the child vs parent income varied from 1970 to today. Social mobility in the United States alone has more variation than other countries compared to them. The main question that is repeated throughout the video is whether a child born from the bottom five percent of the economy has a chance to become the top five percent. And according to the results showed a regional correlation. The factors of social mobility were introduced into 5 reasons. (segregation, income inequality, quality of public schools, the strength of social networks, and the fraction of single parents.
    The main idea of the crash course attacks the idea of someone from the lowest barriers of the economy can accomplish the American dream. Intergenerational mobility is also discussed on how better of a child did in the economy compared to their parents. Absolute mobility in the video is demonstrated whether you do better off than before. Relative mobility is measured on how you personally move in terms of status in society. The long-term trend of absolute mobility is moving upward. Social mobility according to data is stagnant. Only ten percent make it to the top quintile. Race and social mobility show a clear variation. Social mobility can also vary by gender as well. As shown in the presentation the gap between income between men and women definitely narrowed.

  4. Katelyn Asciutto (she/her)

    1. I thought the presentation was very interesting and I appreciated seeing how relative and absolute mobility varies across different countries because that was something that wasn’t really discussed in the readings or videos. The only thing I was a little bit confused about was the scenario of someone who was rich in their country of origin moving to a different nation and being the poorest in that country, yet still richer than they were before. I understand that moving to a wealthier country will make the relative value of their wealth decrease, but based on the graph, it made it seem like the person’s wealth still skyrocketed simply by moving.
    Something I kept thinking about while watching the presentation was size. The United States isn’t doing well in terms of equality and intergenerational mobility in comparison to other large economies, but the United States is also a lot bigger (in terms of size and population) than many of these economies. Being such a geographically large country means that the needs of people vary depending on where they are (i.e. someone in Alaska doesn’t have the same needs/lifestyle as someone in Florida). Because of this, I would imagine it’s harder to create policies that help people all over the nation. In smaller countries, for example I believe Denmark was named as being one of the more equal nations, the needs of the people are probably more homogenous and therefore easier to manage. The United States also just has a large number of citizens. At one point in the presentation, the US was compared to Canada, with Canada being the more equal of the two. Even though they are comparable in size, the US has way more citizens than Canada, and so it must be harder to figure out how to equalize opportunities and increase economic mobility. I was just curious if factors like these are taken into consideration when comparisons are made between countries, because although I agree that there is a lot of work to be done in the US when it comes to mobility and equality, the country does seem to have a lot of other factors to consider that could hinder policymaking.

    2. The Fair Progress reading was a little confusing. I think there was just a lot of information so it was a lot to take it. That being said, I think I got the jist of it and hope to get more clarity after watching the PowerPoint presentation and discussing it in class on Wednesday.
    I understood the idea that there is a cycle of inequality that continues throughout generations. If a set of parents are economically disadvantaged and did not receive an education, they will not have the funds to invest in their child’s education nor will they have the same opportunities as those that come from wealthier families. This lack of funding and opportunities prevents them from climbing up the economic ladder, decreasing IGM in poorer families. Meanwhile, the children from richer and more educated parents have the luxury of investments in their education and increased opportunities to propel them up the economic ladder and maintain a high IGM.

    3. Raj Chetty’s video was informative and clear. It also helped me review and make sense of some of the concepts mentioned in Fair Progress.
    Chetty explained that there are a number of factors that affect IGM, such as the type of neighborhood one lives in. IGM tends to be higher in more rural areas and lower in more urban areas, especially if there is a smaller middle class. In addition to this income inequality, IGM is also affected by economic segregation, quality of education, strength on social networks (to create a sense of community and connectedness) and the number of single-parent households vs. two-parent households.

    4. The crash course video was very helpful and I understood the concepts explained. I liked how they provided simple definitions for multiple terms, including intra- and intergenerational mobility, the former being a concept that was not introduced in Fair Progress or Chetty’s video. I found the definitions of absolute and relative mobility provided to be clearer than in the reading as well. Every definition was straightforward and helped me better understand the reading. I also appreciated the exploration into race and IGM, which I don’t feel was addressed yet. Having this brief preview into the inequality in social mobility between races was eye-opening and provides even more of a reason to continue researching this topic and coming up with potential public policies to combat it so that we can create a more just society where all adults and children have the opportunity to succeed and climb the social and economic ladder.

  5. Justin Qu

    In this week’s PowerPoint, we discuss the diverse ways of measuring mobility throughout the world. Two of which are Absolute and Relative mobility. In the slides, the example given gave me a clearer perspective on what these two different mobilities are. Absolute measures the parents’ income compared to the children’s income. However, relative mobility is measuring independent of the child and parent; only measuring the children’s income. On the last few slides, I like the graphs representing the different distributed incomes in various parts of the world. It gave me perspective on where the U.S is in mobility I realized it is among the lowest countries that promote social mobility.

    In the Fair Progress chapter, I felt like most concepts were clear. They gave good examples of different events across the world. What fascinated me is that women in education are surpassing men in both low and high-income countries. Absolute relativity is also increasing for women in both rich and poor countries. The graphs expose a gradual development across the world where women are available to receive an education and can pass their parents’ education status. The graphs were somewhat clear. Some of the wording gets difficult to understand but they explain it pretty well in the text. I also like how they provide solutions to improve IGM. Providing policies in education and lowering inequality is only the beginning of an improvement to social mobility.

    Some of the main conclusions from Raj Chetty are the current social mobility trends in the United States. He begins to explain how modern social sciences can gain large data sets. It helps with gathering information on the past and comparing the data to today. Chetty says that children today have the same chances of moving up the social ladder as it was in the 1970s. Even though this is a good trend, he explains that the U.S is in a decline in social mobility. He also compares the U.S to other countries like Canada and Denmark where they have a much higher chance of going from the bottom to the top of the social class. He then talks about how the U.S measures social mobility to gather accurate data. It is quite split and he talks about the inequalities some children face. He talks about migration as well where people in rural areas tend to move to urban areas to find a higher paying job. He concludes that areas with a smaller middle class tend to have lower rates of social mobility. Chetty then explains how the quality of education can help with predicting differences in social mobility. Thus, he concludes with a question that may help American society in supporting the disadvantaged.

    In the crash course video, they explore the idea if America is really the land of opportunity and if an individual can move up the social ladder. They explain the definitions of intragenerational and intergenerational mobility. Then explaining what absolute and relative mobility. They discuss that in America it is common to have a child remain in horizontal social mobility, which is when the child stays in the same social class as their parents. Also, when looking in a wider view absolute mobility in the long-term trend is going upwards. The quality of life increased and people are living better lives than 50 years ago. What is interesting is when they compare the mobility in higher incomes compared to the lower incomes. The higher income is rising in social mobility while lower-income families are remaining the same. Statistically, it is shown that African Americans are more likely to face downward mobility than White Americans. They even compare unequal outcomes from children. Another statistic they give is that half of the women born in poverty remain in the same social class compared to one-third of men. Another interesting topic is marriage, marriage is seen as a good thing couples tend to have more social mobility than single people. This is from gaining two incomes, which is typically more than one. In the end, they answer the question if America is the land of opportunity. They say it depends because it depends on where you were born and what race you are. Thus, the video concludes that It seems like America is getting harder to move up the social ladder.

  6. Yesenia Bonilla (She/Her/)

    1. The PowerPoint presentation was extremely helpful in further understanding all the information that the reading for this week addressed. For example, while I did have an overall understanding on the difference between absolute and relative mobility, I was still a bit confused about relative mobility. Absolute mobility just seemed more straightforward compared to relative mobility. However, the breakdown of the example provided in slide 6 helped me further understand how relative mobility is measured/ observed and how though absolute mobility may visibly increase, this doesn’t mean the same for relative mobility. Furthermore, the discussion of the world income distribution data/ graph was interesting. To be able to see the comparison between one’s position in their home country to that of another if they were to move was intriguing. We are then reminded why data like this is extremely important when dealing with social mobility.

    2. This week’s reading was definitely informative as it was packed with a range of ideas and terms. This including the discussion of the trends when it comes to intergenerational mobility to that of all the policies that could promote intergenerational mobility. Furthermore, I believe that this overview did a good job in not only introducing this type of mobility but also explaining how and why it’s important to learn of intergenerational mobility. In the reading, there is discussion of transfer programs and how they can be used to benefit children when it comes to education. Specifically (pg. 36), the Earned Income Tax Credit is mentioned and how its exposure to students during their teenage years brings benefits such as better test scores and a higher chance of completing high school. However, I’m a bit confused as to why? Furthermore, what can be done to further emphasize awareness of these transfer programs since it could be extremely beneficial for those from low income households?

    3. The Raj Chetty video goes over how “big data” is being used in hopes to improve public policy decisions. Through this, access to data that studies and measure social mobility in the U.S has been gained. Some of the findings discovered include the correlation of children income and parent income for 1971-1982 and how children who enter the labor market now have the same chance of moving up in the income distribution of those who were born in the 1970’s. This is important as it shows that social mobility is stable, but this is not a good thing because it reveals that U.S mobility is lower both today and in the past compared to other developing countries. Furthermore, it was discovered that there are differences in social mobility within the U.S, this then leads to certain steps having to be taken to study this variation. For example, the U.S is divided in 740 areas called commuting zones and questions such as “how does social mobility look like in these zones?” are asked. Lastly, it is revealed that factors that are correlated to the differences in social mobility across areas have been studied. This being: level of segregation, income inequality, quality of public schools, strength of social networks, and fraction of single parents.

    4. The crash course video discusses the different types of social mobility and what these types mean including: intragenerational mobility, intergenerational mobility, absolute mobility, and relative mobility, and horizontal social mobility. The video further mentions how although there may be improvement in factors such as skills and education, that benefit the income of individuals, they may still remain in the same position within the social ladder throughout time. The video further discusses some of the differences when it comes to race, gender, and social mobility. For example, through a study conducted by Karl Alexander and Doris Entwisle, it was reported that 89% of white high school dropouts were working by age 22 whereas only 40% of black high school dropouts students were working. The gaps between opportunity for women and men still exist, women who are born in the bottom go through downward mobility more compared to men who are also born in the bottom.

  7. Samantha

    1. Just as you said, the information was very interesting. I enjoyed the graphs and being able to see all the data more visibly. My favorite part of the ppt was when you mentioned a study or a book, I can’t recall, that said it’s easier to achieve the American Dream in Canada. As funny and ironic as this statement might be, it is also very sad. I feel like a lot of people don’t know these statistics and continue to perpetuate the idea that we are the best country. I saw a clip from “90-day Fiance” where the fiance’s family assumed the girl came to America because she wanted to achieve the American Dream and thinks America is the best simply because she was from a different country. The fiance just said, “no” very tiredly as though she gets this comment a lot. When I saw the graph on I.E. earnings and Inequality, I thought of “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander where she discusses the disenfranchisement of black people in the United States and idea of an invisible caste system. I think some Americans like to think that the American Dream is possible for everyone, pointing out success stories and such, but there is a lot to this “American Dream” that we truly have to consider. I don’t think this is related, but it makes me curious about the success rate of American Dreams for immigrants vs. families who may have lived in the United States all their life and the success of the American Dream for different races.
    2. Everything was clear and straightforward to me.
    3. The main conclusion is that our social mobility is lower than other developed countries and there is a lot of variation between states, as well. Researchers are able to use big data to study and measure social mobility in the U.S. and that is what they have concluded. One finding is that there is larger social mobility in rural areas. They’ve studied why and came up with five predictors. These five are segregation, income inequality, quality of public schools, strength of social networks and family structure. I wonder if the data or predictors have changed since the video, which was uploaded in 2016.
    4. The crash course video discusses social mobility in the United States. She poses the question of the American Dream, asking whether it is possible or not. The first study she discusses states it is common to remain in the same class as your parents. The next data she discusses is the fact that annual family income has risen, but has plateaued, except for those at the top of the income distribution. The next study states that absolute mobility has declined. Those who stay at the top tend to stay at the top while those at the bottom tend to stay at the bottom. It varies even more when discussing race/ethnicity, gender and education. Therefore, not likely. The American Dream can be achieved, but it is hard and selective, which is by no means what the dream was defined as. Essentially, the American Dream is “The American Dream (with an asterisk)”.

  8. Meghan Ndiaye

    1. I feel that the power point was pretty clean explaining intergenerational mobility and the relationship between absolute and relative mobility throughout the world. Anyone that is in the bottom percentage stays there especially African Americans because they lack certain things or resources that will help them move up. The charts were very helpful showing and comparing different demographics and their relationship with income, education and mobility.

    2. The reading did a good job helping me understand absolute and relative mobility more. Even though absolute and relative mobility are two different things they both tie together because of the concepts behind children being financially different from their parents. The reading also talks about how policies can improve intergenerational mobility which I felt was very interesting. Most of these policies show success in absolute and relation mobility which eventually produces positive feedback. I feel that these policies make a huge difference and are aimed at the stages of someone’s life cycle which will then break the cycle of inequality.

    3. Raj talks about how they want to use data to improve public policy decisions. Social mobility is usually measured throughout the world. Comparing the US to other countries however social mobility within the US varies. According to Raj to study social mobility within the US you have to break the US into 740 areas called commuting zones. From the map shown the southeast has very low levels of social mobility compared to other parts like the great plains and the northeast. There are many different factors that play a part in the difference of mobility in the US. These factors are level segregation in cities, level of income inequality, quality of schools, strengths of social networks and family structure.

    4. The video was quite interesting and informing on the different types of mobility; intergenerational, intragenerational, absolute and relative. A study was conducted and it showed that ⅓ of men will end up in the same job as their fathers. The video talks about how those born in their quantile tend to stay there. It also touches on threads in the US, there was a long run upward social mobility and then a recent decline in absolute social mobility. Lastly the video informs us on the different opportunities in social mobility. The opportunities are based on class, race and gender.

  9. Enajia Clemente (she//her)

    The PowerPoint was clear but looking at the chart comparing global poverty levels I do wonder if the American Dream is holding on because of the mobility that is available for immigrants rather than the people who already live in America. Seeing that a lot of small businesses ( in New York anyway) are owned by immigrants and entrepreneurship is a big staple for upward mobility relative mobility is only shown positively through immigrant stats.

    The video goes over the current trends of social mobility in the United States. He begins the video by going over the different levels of social mobility between the United States and other developed countries. He explains how social mobility in the United States actually differs between the region. Throughout this explanation, he reveals that southeast America has the lowest social mobility in the United States. He then goes over five predictors that explain why there is such a different outcome for children born into poverty in different areas in America. He states that these predictors are segregation, income inequality (larger wealth gaps), the quality of public schools, social networks, and family structure(two-parent or single-parent household).

    The crash course video goes over the different classifications of social mobility within the United States. Starting with intragenertational, intergenerational, and horizontal social mobility explaining how they all show some sort of change in social mobility between the generations. The crash course video then goes to reveal how little social mobility there is within the United States with only 10% of people born in the bottom quintile being able to move upward while 36% stay in the lower quintile and 30% of people born into the upper quintile stay in the upper quintile. The video also takes into account that social mobility is affected by race, ethnicity, gender, and education. White Americans have a higher possibility of social mobility than black people and black people also have a higher possibility to move down socially.

  10. Cha-Neice Gordon

    Everything was pretty clear and precise in the powerpoint. I do not have any questions and/or comments.
    All concepts and measurements are clear for the most part. I enjoy that it discusses how to improve absolute and relative mobility.
    Some of the main conclusions from the video are the five predictors that allow individuals to transition from lower to upper class within society. In comparison to other countries, there have been statistics shown in the video that individuals in the US have been stagnant in regards to social mobility.
    Some of the main takeaways from the crash course video are that factors such as marriage, education, race, gender, and income distribution have an impact on social mobility on people within that country.

  11. Joanel Sassone (He/Him/His)

    1. I found the PowerPoint presentation to be very informative. It did a very well job of incorporating content we covered in previous weeks. I found the intergenerational mobility in education between men and women to be intriguing. Although, women are earning more degrees than men in high-income economies, the same can’t be said about income. Nonetheless, it’s good to see that the gap is closing in developing economies. The chart showing the relationship between the gini coefficient and intergenerational income elasticity was interesting. In countries with higher levels of inequality, intergenerational income elasticity of individuals was more dependent on their parents. I also found the last chart on the world income distribution to be fascinating. I think it really depicts how poverty and wealth aren’t the equal across all countries. Also how mobility can be negative in the sense that someone can go down social classes.

    2. In my honest opinion the reading was dense and full of information so I don’t think I captured everything. However, what I did understand is that absolute intergenerational mobility is the difference in education and income between an individual and their parents. The definition the text gave was a bit confusing. I believe that absolute mobility will be expressed in quantitative units such as dollars, degrees and other material things. On the other hand, relative mobility is more of a ratio or percentage. Relative mobility is dependent on the income distribution. In this case, mobility is measured in what percentile of the income distribution each generation is positioned. The text described relative mobility as “the extent to which an individual’s position on the economic scale is independent of the position of his or her parents”. To me this sounds more like intergenerational elasticity so I’m confused whether or not it’s the same thing or two different concepts.

    3. According to Raj Chetty, social mobility for children born in the 1970’s and children born today are quite similar. This is good news because it means that social mobility has remained stable in the United States over this period of time. Nonetheless, social mobility in the United States is lower in comparison to other developed nations. Chetty mentions that there is huge variation in social mobility among Americans than there is between Americans and other nationals. The social mobility map of the United States presented in the video was no surprise to me. I’m not too informed on which states have effective education systems and which states are the wealthiest but I’ve heard that states like Mississippi have very low qualities of education which may be a reason for the lack of social mobility. I was surprised to find out that urban areas have less levels of social mobility than rural areas But while reflecting on this I can see why. As described in the reading educational and racial segregation make it difficult for people of low income neighborhoods to take advantage of resources in high income neighborhoods. This is especially true in NYC where the quality of one’s education is dependent on where the student goes to school and who they are. Chetty also mentioned 5 indicators of social mobility, which are segregation, level of income inequality, quality of public education, strength of social networks and family structure. I think these are all evident in NYC with the possible exception of social networks. I personally don’t come from an area with strong social networks but I believe that CUNY has changed that for me. Networking maybe one of the things making social mobility possible for low-income CUNY students as seen in the powerpoint.

    4. From the Crash Course video, Intragenerational mobility is defined as how an individual moves up or down the social ladder during their lifetime. Intergenerational mobility is the comparison between generations. The Crash Course video mentions how much of economic growth has been at the top of the income distribution and this is directly correlated to the era of technology and globalization. By outsourcing production and jobs, corporations can maximize profits way more today than before. Some key findings in recent years is that African-Americans have less social mobility than White Americans. African-Americans are also more likely to have social downward mobility than White Americans. In addition, although women have decreased the gender wage gap in recent years, the pay is still not equal. Overall, in terms of absolute mobility there has been an upward movement. However, when it comes to relative mobility, race, gender and social class all account for different results. The lack of relative social mobility in the United States is directly related to its high level of inequality among developed countries. Policies aren’t trickling down to those who need assistance most and tax legislation isn’t progressive enough.

  12. Mir Mohammod

    1. The powerpoint presentation was clear and easy to understand. I liked how there were many graphs to show mobility. I also liked how the graphs at the end showed a comparison between the United States and other countries. The poorest people in the United States are richer than 50 percent of the world, which would mean rich people from poorer countries are probably considered less wealthy in the United States. This sounds bizarre but it starts to make more sense when everything is put together and the numbers are drawn out.
    2. The Fair Progress reading was very informative. The concepts and ideas discussed in the fair progress reading about the many types of mobility were translucent and comprehensible.
    3. The Raj Chetty video is explaining what social mobility looks like across the United States and the main reasons why social mobility is lower for certain people and certain places. Chetty starts by saying that at a national level, social mobility is stable. People entering the labor market now have about the same chances of moving up the income distributions as people in the 1970’s. While this might sound great, Chetty explained how social mobility is actually lower in the United States today, and in the past, compared to other countries. Within the United States there are many variations of social mobility. Chetty believes that there are 5 reasonable ideas to what causes lower levels of social mobility. He believes segregation, income inequality, quality of schools, strengths of social networks and family structures are the main causes for lower levels of social mobility.
    4. The Crash Course video went over many terms that show social positions. They went over intragenerational, intergenerational, absolute, relative and horizontal mobility. Intragenerational mobility is how a person moves in the social ladder during their lifetime but, intergenerational mobility is the movement in social positions across generations. Absolute mobility would be when you move in absolute terms while relative mobility is how you move in social position compared to the rest of society. Lastly, horizontal mobility is when people work in a different job than their parents but stay in the same or similar social position. The Crash Course video also talk about how in the United States the standards of living now are much better than they were 60 years ago, but that means nothing since family income hasn’t changed much. The rich who are in the higher income remain at the top while the lower income people stay the same basically in terms of economic growth and mobility. The unequal growth in income means less absolute mobility to most Americans. They also said that the impacts of where you are born in the social ladder can have far reaching consequences.

  13. Sophia Youssef (Her)

    1. From what I can understand about mobility, it is that it helps us to understand economic progress in regard to changes in personal and societal wealth over either inter or intra-generational periods. There are 2 different types of social mobility, those being absolute and relative mobility. Furthermore, I learned from the powerpoint that the main difference between these two types of mobility is that absolute mobility refers more specifically to the extent of the quality of life of an entire generation and whether or not it exceeds that of its predecessor. However, relative mobility refers more to the individual success of a person in comparison to their parents. In summary, absolute mobility describes intergenerational change from a macro-economic perspective, whereas relative mobility does the same, but from a micro-economic perspective. Lastly, the only thing that could have been a little more clear were the graphs, specifically the one that compares the share of individuals who have reached the top quartile in education across the world. My main question is what exactly factors in to a student reaching the top quartile and how these top levels of education may potentially differ amongst these countries? Other than that, the powerpoint slides were clear and interesting.

    2. In the fair progress reading, most of the concepts were clear, however there were a few points that stood out more than others to me. The first of these was the part where the author mentions IGM enhancing policies and the factor that social contracts play in achieving that. I do believe that in todays world, the way to break away from the things which keep people disadvantaged and socially and economically marginalized is to build connections in high places, oftentimes through another familiar source (ex. A mutual friend) or colleagues from school (ex. An experienced professor). Those who lack the opportunities to obtain such connections would have to work many times harder than others. Furthermore, I agreed with so much information from this chapter, such as the idea that another way to de-marginalize societies with low mobility, would be for state governments to invest in the core foundations which help a society flourish (ex. Raising school budgets, funding public libraries, funding homeless shelters, etc.). I personally feel as though many state governments do the exact opposite of this and tend to invest the tax payers money on the wrong things like funding both private and public prison complexes or funding a police force that may be quite harsh on crimes like petty theft, minor drug offenses, etc.

    3. The main conclusion I took away from Raj Chetty’s video is that public policy has a clear and strong impact on social mobility on both the micro and macroeconomic spectrum. I liked how early on in the video he used the analogy of how internet companies such as Google or Facebook can use our data to their own advantage to appeal to our tendencies, hobbies, and thus boost their own sales by catering to our individual wants and needs. I believe that his reason in sharing that analogy was to show that by redirecting the goal or purpose of studying such data, we can also learn about trends in social mobility and the direct factors and results that may affect social mobility. An example of how researchers are able to figure this out may include comparing across different periods of time (U.S social mobility trends today match the trends from the 1970’s) or across different countries (Children in Denmark today have twice the chance of climbing high up the social ladder than kids in the U.S.). The one question I really had after watching this video was about how researchers could transition their research into solutions that can improve social mobility trends in the U.S.

    4. The crash course video mostly debases the theory that true equal opportunity exists in America and that although there are many rags to riches stories, they are mostly an anomaly. This is because there are a number of factors which serve as obstacles to kids in marginalized inner cities in achieving success. Anything from misallocated government funding (ex. underfunding schools and after school programs) to heavy volume policing in designated locations can stint the social mobility of inner city societies. Furthermore, the video also does a good job in distinguishing the difference between intragenerational mobility which refers to mobility during the period of a single lifetime and intergenerational mobility which refers to mobility across generational periods. This video also does a good job in explaining what horizontal mobility is, which is when kids may not work the same exact job as their parents, but remain stagnate in their social mobility. This video was pretty straight forward and all of the points were pretty clear to me.

  14. Lei Liu

    1.It was explained clearly in the powerpoint presentation. Mainly explained the mobility of the global economy and education. The two methods of liquidity are liquidity and relative liquidity. According to the comparison of the income of parents and children in the slide, the income of children is usually much higher than that of parents (of course these depend on the distribution of social income). Of course, without absolute mobility, living standards cannot be improved, and social cohesion may be threatened. Lack of relative liquidity has harmful potential for economic growth and will lead to uneven distribution of resources.
    2.In the Fair Progress chapter, it discusses the mobility of education and income. In most areas, parents want their children to receive a good education and lead a higher standard of living than them. The mobility of education is the key to the mobility of income, and the income of parents also affects their children. The education level of children is usually higher than that of parents. The chart shows that the income of girls has surpassed that of boys. Girls in the high-income economy have higher education than boys, and the absolute IGM is higher than that of boys. The gender gap in developing countries has narrowed.
    3.In the video, Professor Raj Chetty discusses the use of big data to improve public policy decisions, as well as measuring social prevalence in the United States. He mentioned that for children born between 1971 and 1982, the relativity of their income and the income of their parents were measured. The social prevalence in the United States varies greatly. When you are born in a low-income family (the red area on the map), your chances of getting out of poverty are very low. The differences in social mobility are regional differences, income inequality, the quality of regional schools and the advantages of social networks.
    4.The crash course video discusses different types of social mobility (American Dream). Intergenerational mobility (compared to when the parents are the same age), absolute mobility (compared to yourself, better or worse than before) and relative mobility. The living standards of the United States are much better than 60 years ago, but the trend of social mobility is not high. The increase in income inequality has reduced the absolute mobility of Americans. People usually increase their income by acquiring education and skills (children earn more than their parents). White Americans have more upward mobility than black Americans (these are related to living environment and school quality). Therefore, the mobility of the social class depends on your starting point and identity. The ladder of American social class is getting harder and harder to climb.

  15. Karla Marin

    I found this week’s PowerPoint presentation to be clear and comprehensive. The PowerPoint talked about economic mobility, such as relative mobility and absolute mobility. I appreciate how it defined both terms and gave examples to help us better understand what they mean. Although the reading talked about economic mobility as well, I found the slides to be easier to understand and much helpful to piece what I read from the article. One thing I found interesting from the slides was the example of relative wealth and how someone can be “wealthy” in one country and be considered “poor” moving to another country. Overall, I found the charts, graphs and examples to be helpful as always and this week they helped me get a better understanding on mobility, specifically shining light on how the United States being a big country is struggling with economic mobility.
    While reading the Fair Progress article I found it quite challenging and a bit confusing to grasp all of the concepts and ideas that were mentioned. I wouldn’t say that the article was ineffective in getting its point across and explaining mobility, but rather that it took some time to fully understand what it was saying. After reading this article I came to understand that the lack of funding prohibits individuals from getting certain opportunities, for example, being from a “poor” family a child will not be presented with the same level of education as a child from a “wealthy” family. I learned that this is a form of integrational mobility, and that it refers to the socio-economic standing of a parent and how it affects the status of their children. Although the article was dense, after rereading it I did notice that the article did a good job in explaining the different kinds of economic mobility and how policies can be created to help with mobility. Overall, I found that the article was was well packed with information that was easier to understand with the PowerPoint slides.
    The Raj Chetty video focused on the United States social mobility in comparison to other countries. It also focused on how social mobility can be studied and how it can be improved in the United States through different policies. One of the biggest take a way’s that I got from Raj Chetty’s video was that the United States has a very low social mobility and that there is big difference in variation of social mobility between Americans and that public policies can positively impact social mobility.
    The concepts presented in the Crash Course video were very simple and clear to understand. While the Crash Course video also discussed mobility it also discussed the existance of equal opportunity and the importance of it. The video provided us with data and studies to exemplify mobility and how it is becoming hard to move up and that those who are wealthy tend to stay wealthy while those who are poor stay poor, due to the lack of mobility. I liked how the video also focused on contributing factors such as race and gender that is affects social mobility.

  16. Angel Garcia

    The PowerPoint was very helpful to me because after viewing and studying the charts it helped me get a deeper understanding of the things that both videos were analyzing. Of the charts that I found most interesting was the one showing how incomes persist from one generation to another, this is because I had never stopped to think about how this works and how your parents’ education and characteristics shape one’s same qualities. However, I would also like to add that besides from those two another big factor that plays into an offspring’s education and income is the sacrifice made from the parents, with this I mean and it is backed by personal experience, ]most of not all parents from countries outside of the US sacrifice raising their children to send them away to come live, educate, and work here so that they could get a better education which results in a better job and an overall better life not only for the offspring but the parents.

    One of the sections from the reading that stuck to me was the section that analyzed educational mobility as a key element to economic mobility. As it stated, education plays the most important role when it comes to successfully developing one’s economics and social status. Also, in this section the writing supports my claim as it talks about another sacrifice being made by parents, in this case being the sacrifice of providing finances to ensure the success of their children educationally which as we know transfers to their economic and social status. The reading was straightforward and it covered the same facts that were discussed in the PowerPoint. Only question I was left with was the anxiety of knowing how we could make the changes necessary to better this situation? How can we put this information to good use and come up with ways in which we could bring about change as we proceed to move forward and further our knowledge and obtain our careers? In my case, How can I, as I aspire to be a Constitutional Attorney would fight for this to be a problem of the past and more of a reality that could come with hard work and persistence?

    The First from Professor Raj Chetty reminded me of my previous Sociology classes “Capitalism” and “Urban Politics and Policy” because in these two courses we discussed the poverty trends in the US along with other trends caused by systems such as redlining and mass segregation. I find it very disappointing to know that we live in a country with so many opportunities yet these same ones are limited more and more as we go down the lines of injustices known to flourish in such a “great nation”. There should be no reason why children should be so limited to social, economic and educational mobility in this country. Watching and listening to Prof. Chetty brought me to thinking, where does it end? We know there is inequality, we know that kids born into low income families are twice less likely to move up in the socioeconomic ladder but, what is being done to ensure this does not continue? How can we get the government to turn their eyes and hands to those who are actually in need? How do we break through so many injustices and say enough is enough? How can America be great when the levels of segregation, gentrification and inequality just keeps rising? Is it aiming to be great for itself or for the people that so desperately need it?

    The main takeaways I received from the crash course is that there are many different ways to analyse socio-economic mobility. Absolute mobility refers to when you move up or down based on the percentage of your income in comparison to your parents, while relative mobility refers to the same calculations but in the sense of the social hierarchy. There is also what the presenter called “horizontal mobility” which in simple words just means that you are in the same social position as your parents while holding a different job or occupation. The fact that stuck to be the most is the elephant in the room, the same old fact that White Americans are more likely to experience motility by 18% only in the bottom quintile by 40 compared to Black Americans. This to me is no surprising news, it just comes out as another number added on to the list of American injustices. As the presenter first said the american dream is nothing more than just a dream and if I may add it is nothing but a dream sold to White Americans by banks to have an excuse to lend out money and place people in debt while suppressing and segregating Blacks.

  17. Mariyam Mohammed

    1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts, or comments you would like to share? Compared to all the other lessons, I personally felt as if I understood the PowerPoint better this week. It might be because last semester in one of my classes, we discussed social mobility, so I grasped ideas more quickly. However, as usual, the graphs helped me understand how nationwide and globally wise where the United States stands regarding social mobility and how education plays a major role in looking at ways people can rise on the social ladder. Many factors help people reach the top of the social ladder. Besides absolute mobility and relative mobility, we learn that there are outer factors that affect reaching certain social mobility such as an individual’s upbringing in a sense early childhood education, the school system at the second age, government and the private sector play a role well. Reaching the top of the social ladder has its steps, and the whole process is a cycle. One aspect of life, such as education alone, is where an individual can stand in society.
    2. From the Fair Progress reading are all concepts, measurements, and ideas clear
    I felt as if the reading was repetitive. But it was a lot of information to digest and to understand. However, I believe I understood the main idea of how education leads to different individuals’ economic growth according to where they are from. The most interesting parts were comparing the south Asian countries followed by African countries and East Asian countries. Also, the maps and graphs helped to understand where each country stood and their improvements throughout the years. As education is important to move up the social ladder, leveling equal opportunities plays a role in improving individuals’ lives.
    3. Summarize the main conclusions from the Raj Chetty video. Do you have any questions?
    Raj Chetty talks about national social mobility and social mobility in the United States. He stated that the United States social mobility is lower today than in other developed countries and is indeed true. We see from all the graphs and maps. However, from the map he presented in the video, we also see how students from Iowa and around that region’s social mobility is rising. Students from those regions move to big cities to have successful jobs. Because there is a huge variation in where students do well, just as the southeast region of the USA social mobility shows the exact opposite, Chetty questions what exactly are students from Iowa regions doing right that they can move up in the social ladder. Chetty also talked about some of the social mobility predictors, and they are as follows: Segregation, Income inequality, Quality of public school, Strength of social network, Fractions of single parents.
    4. Summarize the main takeaways from the crash course video. Are all concepts clear?
    Almost everything mentioned in the crash course video was the same except for the new word “Intragenerational Mobility,” which means “how a person moves up or down the social ladder during their lifetime.” In addition to the same concepts mentioned in other readings, the professor mentioned race, gender, and marriage also play a role in social mobility.

  18. Stanley Lopez

    1-) The powerpoint as always was very informative and well done. From the powerpoint I understood the difference between absolute mobility and relative mobility. From what I understand, absolute is when the standards are higher than those of your parents (You aim to be more successful than your parents or your income increased over the years) and relative mobility is when your economic position isn’t based on the position of your parents, but more based in the situation you were born in (How your economy compares to others). Based on the powerpoint I learned the importance of both mobilities and how both need economic progress. Something really important in the slides were the factors that are needed for each stage in life to equalize opportunities between people with different economic status. I felt that the graphs were a little overwhelming because they provided lots of information. One question that I have is which type of mobility is more important or are they both equally important?

    2-) The Fair Progress reading was really dense, but it provided lots of useful information to the public. Mainly it focuses on how Intergenerational Mobility changes in different parts of the world, how its IGM is different in developed countries and developing countries, and why are the challenges people face during mobility. In most cases parents want their children to have a better “life” than them and be more successful in terms of economy. Something said in the article that I think it’s very important is that Higher relative IGM correlates with lower inequality opportunity. I totally believe that Relative IGM is a big deal because if children in certain places are offered many opportunities to accomplish many achievements this will increase their mobility greatly. Networking is very important for social mobility, as we know low-income people don’t receive as many opportunities as we hoped, but networking could change their life. Making connections will eventually open a whole new path of opportunities to improve your mobility.

    3-) The video from Raj Chetty talks about social mobility in the United States. One of the big problems of social mobility in the United States is that it is much lower today in the past compared to other developed countries because kids who are born in the low income class have a better chance of making it to the top. Something really surprising is how social mobility differs within the United States, in the video map was present and I couldn’t believe how many areas in the Southeast have a chance less than 5%. I believe that it isn’t fair for the people who were born in poverty to have such a small chance of escaping poverty just because they were born in a different area. There should be equal opportunities within these areas that will give children somewhat similar chances of escaping poverty. Lastly, Chetty mentioned 5 factors that are associated with these differences of social mobility: Segregation, Income inequality, Quality of public Schools, Strength of social networks and family structure. I just hope that we can find the “reason” why some areas are really successful in having kids from low backgrounds make it to the top, if we find that factor, we could improve the US drastically.

    4-) The second video about Social Mobility was also very informative and eye catching. At the beginning I felt that the video was a summary of the powerpoint and the readings because it talked about the same concepts such as Relative vs Absolute mobility and Intergenerational Mobility. Based on the video the US has had less absolute mobility throughout the years because the higher income class has increased, but the low income class has mostly stayed the same. Another point made is how race influences social mobility, according to a study low income White High School dropouts were better in life than low income Black High School dropouts. Social mobility can also be affected by gender, although women have increased their absolute mobility throughout the years, women who are born in low income are more likely to remain there when compared to men in the same situation. It’s crazy to think how many factors influence social mobility, and how unfair it is for some people because they don’t have the same chances to make it to the top as others do.

  19. Sharharra Pettway

    1. The powerpoint was clear. At first the definition of relative mobility was a little confusing but the graph/chart looking at occupational class schemes helped put it into a more clearer perspective. Another thing that I thought was interesting was inequality of opportunity and outside factors. For example, there are more opportunities for people when there is a demand for it. The environment also plays a part in grooming people especially how it mentioned self-fulfilling prophecies and the sibling example. I’m an older sibling myself and my sister went to the same school as me up until high school, she always had the same teachers I did and even in middle school we shared teachers at the same time at one point, and there was always this comparison between us like almost that some teachers expected us to be alike.
    2. The concepts from this reading were kinda clear. It was interesting to read that relative IGM and incomes would improve if richer economies would invest more in public spending and work on making opportunities and access to resources equal for all people. People who do not have the means to do so for their children on their own, their children are disadvantaged to those children whose parents do have the means to afford more opportunities for them. The reading mentioned this to be the gap of private investments and that more public spending would compensate for it because it would equalize opportunities for children with parents that cannot afford to invest what rich parents can in their children.
    3. This video touched on moving up in social mobility and income distribution in the U.S and the chances. He also mentioned that the U.S has less social mobility than other countries. Using the map of the U.S, it shows areas and their chances for social mobility among lower income, lighter meaning higher chances and darker meaning lower chances. One thing that he mentioned was how people that come from low income areas do well but that’s because they do not stay within the same areas that disadvantaged them and when they change locations they are getting higher paying jobs too. It was also mentioned how higher levels of segregation limits chances for social mobility as well.
    4. The main takeaways of this video are the types of social mobility and how mobility is affected by factors like race, gender and education. The video mentions how even if children work in different occupations than their parents or even gaining education and skills they can still stay within the same income distribution, meaning that there hasn’t been any social mobility. The video mentions how outcomes are different even being from a low socioeconomic status for both white and Black children later on in life and Black people have more of a chance to move out downward from middle class than white middle class. In terms of gender, it is easier for men to go up the ladder than women and women experience more downward mobility.

  20. Kelly Zhumi (she/her)

    1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts, or comments you would like to share?
    The PowerPoint presentation was clear and informative especially with the inclusion of charts and graphs. I have a better understanding of the difference between absolute and relative mobility. Absolute mobility measures the difference between parents’ and their children’s income while relative mobility independently measures that child’s income with other members of society. The last graph that included the World Income Distribution in 2011 had reminded me that the concept of poverty in the U.S. is different than other countries.
    2. From the Fair Progress reading are all concepts, measurements, and ideas clear?
    The Fair Progress reading had provided a lot of new information and concepts, which took a while to process it all in one go but the PowerPoint presentation had helped me understand it more with ease. The reading had informed that women have moved ahead of men in high-income economies and are closing the gap in developing economies by providing graphs. Although this is good news, it’s disappointing that the gap still exists. Women continue to face these disparities despite earning the same degrees as men, but this emphasizes that gender continues to play a role in society. Furthermore, I liked how the reading provided suggestions on how to reduce the inequality of opportunities for individuals. For instance, improving the early life environment of a child can be beneficial for their educational outcomes and wages and can be the first step to reduce inequality. However, that depends if the parents are informed of this information.
    3. Summarize the main conclusions from the Raj Chetty video. Do you have any questions?
    In the video, Raj Chetty discusses the current trends of social mobility in the United States and how they plan to use big data to improve public policy decisions. A major takeaway from the video was when Chetty reveals that for many years, the United States has much lower social mobility than other developed countries. However, there is more variation in social mobility within the United States than variation in other countries. For instance, urban areas have lower rates of social mobility than rural areas—mainly the southeast part of the United States. The five predicators that may be responsible for the variation of social mobility are segregation, income inequality, quality of public schools, the strength of social networks, and fractions of single parents. The five predicators give an explanation regarding why individuals from urban areas move to rural areas—because they want to gain a higher socioeconomic status, which they can’t accomplish in urban areas.
    4. Summarize the main takeaways from the crash course video. Are all concepts clear?
    The crash course video defined the different types of social mobilities and discusses social mobility trends in the United States. Individuals like to refer to the United States as the “land of opportunity,” but the video provides a different perspective and makes us the question is it really? They have explained the concepts of intragenerational mobility, intergeneration mobility, absolute mobility, and relative mobility. Furthermore, the video discusses factors such as marriage, education, race, gender, income distribution that play a role in social mobility. For instance, African-Americans with low SES would most likely not have a chance for upward mobility than low SES white men. There are many obstacles that prevent upward mobility and not many individuals can achieve it, many remain to stagnate. While remaining stagnate is beneficial for the wealthy, the lower and middle-class individuals continue to face hardships.

  21. Kimberly Figuereo (She/her)

    I found the PowerPoint to be pretty clear and informational. The concept of mobility for economic progress makes a lot of sense. The charts showing the world income distribution were really great at helping me really see the worldwide economic disparities.

    The reading touched on economic mobility across generations which is an interesting topic to discuss because it’s always been something that’s discussed in terms of where our parents come from and where our parents, parents come from and how that kind of passes down by generations to come. I think an important point that is made in the reading the fact that it’s much harder in developing countries to move up from the bottom of the economic ladder than it is in wealthier countries.

    Raj Chetty speaks on social and economic mobility and how one can go from rags to riches. He makes some interesting points on measuring the correlations between children and their parents’ incomes. According to Chetty, social mobility has remained stabled. However, he says that the social mobility in the US is much lower than in other countries. Apparently, children from Canada have twice the chance of moving up the ladder than children in the US have. I found this video to present many interesting points which I’d like to further dive into.

    The crash course video essentially summed up the very thought I’ve been having for years, is the United States really the land of opportunity? It’s extremely difficult to climb up the social ladder in the United States, unless you are already at the top. Unfortunately, many Americans will likely stay in the same social class as their parents and don’t really move upwards in the ladder. Poverty makes it difficult for many people to have the opportunities or resources needed to be able to climb up the ladder. According to the crash course, African Americans experience more downward mobility and tend to stay at the bottom of the income distribution in comparison to White Americans. Sadly, mobility in the social economic ladder in the United States only seems to be getting harder to climb.

  22. Maria Victoria Ruiz Flores

    1. From my PowerPoint presentation, what still isn’t very clear? Any questions, thoughts or comments you would like to share?
    The presentation was very clear but something about relative and absolute mobility is becoming more difficult to understand. After reading the passages and listening to the videos I feel like there a lot of forms of definition, but none really make sense to me. I also wondered with mobility how much does single parent household affect it. I believe single parent households have increased in the last 50 years, so do children experience less mobility? Does a single parent with better education still uphold more mobility than two parents that have low income and less education levels? Or does a single parent with low income have an increased mobility rate then two low-income parents?

    2. From the Fair Progress reading are all concepts, measurements and ideas clear?
    Like stated before id like a better understanding of the difference in absolute and relative mobility, I understand the importance and get the idea of what it measures but how is it being measured? I liked the fact that mobility and the article see the importance of targeting equality in prenatal and utero development since it all has an impact in a mother’s stability and can holds cognitive development. Also, we know the impact of policies and I think everyone gets the idea of how we can improve mobility for all but there is just something more powerful that always leads the other way. The idea of hierarchal power and domination will not allow policies like equal education, better health insurance, and other to rise in our society.

    3. Summarize the main conclusions from the Raj Chetty video. Do you have any questions?
    The main conclusion is that there is large regional distribution of mobility and very limited to less than 20% of opportunity. The video mentions that Urban areas have lower rates of mobility than rural areas which I found surprising due to urban areas having more labor oppurtuities. Raj Chetty concludes that there are five predictors to mobility such as segregation, income inequality, quality of public schools, strength of social networks and fraction of single parents. At the beginning of the video, he mentioned big data and its contribution to statistics and such. Amazon and google and other platforms such as facebook are always controvertialized due to this, and im thinking about the impact of the data collected and am now questionable about the ethics vs the impact it has had on our society.
    4. Summarize the main takeaways from the crash course video. Are all concepts clear?
    My takeaways from the video were the definitions of intergenerational and intragenerational mobility as well as absolute and relative mobility. Also, the trends of social mobility and the impacts that that social economic status has a huge, but it is also interlapped with identities, such as gender, race and educational level. It spoke about trends in social mobility and how it creates different opportunites. I found the distinction of a single mother houselold lowering the mobility rates interesting. Not only because being a single mother is hard but women in general are always a target to inequality in the labor market. During the poewerpoint I questioned the impact of single parent households and the video very broadly answered my curiosity that marriage has a positive impact of mobility to the double income contribution, but what about when only one parent has an impact, is it the same rate of mobility as a single parent household or are other factors also contributing

Comments are closed.