
The Sources of Intergenerational Mobility in Denmark and the US - lumberjack
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22465.pdf
======
Roboprog
Ugh. I saw one of the researchers was from University of Chicago (economic
"Mordor"), and really struggled not to expect some kind of
[Mussolini/Franco/Pinochet-style] "fascism is good" spin on the whole thing.

Slavery is freedom, or some such thing. "Only when 50% of the population is in
danger of homelessness will there be incentive to get advanced education". OK,
it doesn't say that, but part of the conclusions seem to lean that way:
security is bad for educational level, which is an end unto itself???

------
gedy
The key take aways appear to be:

> Scandinavia invests heavily in child development and boosts the test scores
> of the disadvantaged. It then undoes these beneficial effects by providing
> weak labor market incentives.

> The U.S. excels in incentivizing educational attainment. The Danish welfare
> state promotes cognitive skills for the disadvantaged children.

~~~
ptaipale
Or, from the abstract:

" While Danish social policies for children produce more favorable cognitive
test scores for disadvantaged children, these do not translate into more
favorable educational outcomes, partly because of disincentives to acquire
education arising from the redistributional policies that increase income
mobility"

As the equality of outcomes is achieved by transfers, it makes the equality of
opportunities meaningless (money-wise), and therefore makes education
hereditary.

~~~
wutbrodo
> As the equality of outcomes is achieved by transfers, it makes the equality
> of opportunities meaningless (money-wise)

It's actually worse than that; Danish equality of opportunity isn't just
"meaningless", it doesn't exist (relative to the US). There was a recent study
done that indicated that income mobility (after taxes and transfers) in
Denmark isn't any higher than in the US. This means that the taxes and
transfers aren't actually having much of (any?) effect on equality of
opportunity, as measured by the outcomes of the next generation.

~~~
netcan
The elephant in the room on many such topics is that state policies are a part
of the picture, but often a limited part.

It's not just material advantages that child members of a class or subculture
receive relative to peers. It's soft education, example and such. A child of a
doctors and lawyers extended family is more likely to conform to this pattern
than a child of a subculture where this is foreign.

Educational parity and even parental income parity can narrow the gap, but it
can't close it. Who your parents are matters, apples fall close to trees..
Pick your cliché

~~~
mseebach
Denmark was rich (by international comparison) and equality was a well
established value long before the welfare state. A song written by one of the
most popular poets of the time, Grundtvig, in 1820, contained the line "Og da
har i rigdom vi drevet det vidt, når få har for meget og færre for lidt." ("We
have achieved much in wealth, when few has too much and still fewer too
little". My translation does not do the poetic qualities of the original
justice, but it's pretty accurate for content.)

------
shadowmn
Note: Working Paper = not peer-reviewed

The premise seems flawed on its face. If people are able to make a living wage
and are happy with what they do, why do they need to worry about an advanced
education?

Having a better educated populace regardless of how they choose to proceed
from it seems like a positive outcome on its own.

Similarly, if a Danish person can have a good quality of life without having
to engage in an American-style employment grind, why would they choose to
follow that path?

The scope of this paper seems entirely too narrow.

------
Roboprog
On the plus side, somebody has to work at the coffee shop, and they can earn a
living doing so. Plus, said person doesn't feel like he/she should fill a
chair in University for 4 years (at _somebody 's_ cost) doing something he/she
doesn't _really_ care about.

Winning.

~~~
Roboprog
PS - I suppose, "winning" based on _my_ value system.

YMMV - your value system could be more in line with Mel Brooks' History of the
World Roman Senate: "F--k the poor!" (vs more like that 1st century jewish
guy...)

