
Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations - confluence
http://www.economist.com/node/21571399
======
hdevalence
This is a very interesting article. Particularly commendable is the complete
listing of the source papers, so that readers can delve more deeply into the
material.

I wonder, however, whether the surname analysis took into account the effects
of the changes in surname frequency over time -- as I recall, it was Galton
who investigated statistically how the surname distributions change with time,
and the point is that the number of unique surnames goes down over time,
because each child usually has only one of their parents' surnames. So it's
not clear to me that we would expect the wealth distribution of uncommon
surnames to become more equal over time. Maybe that would explain the
disparity between the surname analysis and other measures of social mobility?

------
omegant
It's amazing how this works, I've been Paying some attention to this stuff for
some time, and it is mostly like that. I've observed 3rd generation families
of wealthy landlords and/or bankers (the ones that made the fortune). It's
just anecdotal, but the ones that put more effort and attention on education
and hardwork (not having access to the money till they are out of the
university and have proved their capabilities) are the ones able to mainatain
or increase the wealth of the family. On the other hand, those that just surf
their lives through the existing money, are able to put themselves down the
ladder at surprising speed (like 15 years once they get access to the
principal of the money) their sons will be low middle class (or mileuristas as
we say in Spain). All this is obvious of course, but It's interesting to
follow this people's evolution. The ones loosing it don't have a clue of
what's happening to them.

Edit: some typos and sentences.

~~~
swombat
Couldn't agree more on education. Putting a strong emphasis on educating your
children to themselves be successful must surely be a strong success factor
for them - and something they're likely to do in turn for their own children.
Conversely, neglecting your children's education is also likely to be passed
on, and also likely to have significant effect.

By "education" I don't just mean what happens at school - most school systems
provide only the thinnest veneer of "education", which includes many things
not taught at school, like critical thinking, social skills, being widely
read, broad general knowledge, the habit of trying to solve problems yourself,
and many other features of people in "elite" positions.

For example, one might notice the strange preponderance of Jewish people in
those "elite" positions, both academic and artistic and commercial and
political. This is perhaps more easily understood when you know that the
Jewish culture places enormous focus on educating the next generation and on
critical thinking, probably because of thousands of years of history where
Jews might be chased out of their homes by mobs with pitchforks and torches,
and leave with nothing but what was in their heads. In that context, social
mobility is total: you rise or fall to the level of what you can carry inside
your skull.

~~~
ckuehne
"This is perhaps more easily understood when you know that the Jewish culture
places enormous focus on educating the next generation and on critical
thinking"

Or maybe it is even better understood in terms of genetic differences:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence).

~~~
lepukowsky
That makes no sense. How could one group possibly slowly evolve over a great
period of time to be any different than anyone else?

~~~
ckuehne
What exactly do you think "makes no sense"? That two groups could evolve
different traits over time? If so, how would you explain differences in skin
color between West Africans and Northern Europeans? Or differences in lactose
tolerance between different ethnic groups [1]?

[1]
[http://www.foodreactions.org/intolerance/lactose/prevalence....](http://www.foodreactions.org/intolerance/lactose/prevalence.html)

~~~
lepukowsky
Because I live in a western liberal democracy and have been indoctrinated to
believe that differences between cultures have no qualitative bearing, they
are merely choices among equal values, and as such I cannot possibly
comprehend such blatant facts.

Please tell me you knew I was being sarcastic...

~~~
ckuehne
Well, I was going to add "EDIT: Or are you just being sarcastic?". Twice. But
I didn't. After all, it's Hacker News.

------
6ren
They don't seem to account for non-socioeconomic factors like genetics and
nurturing.

I'm not saying aristocrats are a master race, just that if your ancestors won
competitions, you may have inherited whatever genetic factors helped them.
These might include abilities for collaboration, "reading" other people,
intelligence... and perhaps competitiveness, controlled aggression and
ruthlessness.

Nurture would include very basic care of infants (e.g. talking to them), and
general ways of thinking and attitudes. It's easier to be "successful" if you
reach your basic potential by having your developmental needs met. You'll tend
to raise your children the same (partly because you've experienced it, partly
through oral tradition passed on from grandparents).

NB: I'm not saying "social success" is necessarily a good thing, nor that the
factors leading to it necessarily make a better world, just noting what
explains the data. Of course, maybe this article is only measuring social
mobility, and not claiming social position as complete causation.

~~~
heurist
The article did suggest upbringing as a possible cause. If genetics were that
big of a factor wouldn't we see the two groups dividing over time? Instead the
article says that the odds of surnames having the same economic value are the
same after 300 to 500 years. I assume all of the genetic traits you listed are
more fluid than that.

~~~
6ren
I'm not clear which two "groups" you mean, or that they'd divide.

There _is_ a class divide for human "breeding", with expressions like
"marrying below" etc. But more importantly, people marry people they meet, who
tend to be in their social group. So I guess this does come down to a class
"race".

Aside: I expect specific surnames having the same economic value over time is
a consequence of that class strata having the same value over time. i.e. it's
the class, not the specific lineage. But I agree that if was due to the
lineage, not the class, it would indicate something else passed on (money,
influence etc) other than genetics. Of course, in practice all these factors
are present to some degree and hard to disentangle.

Tangent: I think many people take political solace in us all being genetically
more-or-less equal - but I think the true source of equality is that we can
all _think_ and _exchange_. We can create things that didn't exist before,
solve problems we haven't seen before. I don't mean scientific breakthroughs,
just the trivial problem-solving we all do, every day, to function. From
making a joke to baking a cake. And we can communicate and trade, to combine
our strengths and work together - which benefits each of us more than zero-sum
conflict. Who cares who's at the "top"?

This philosophy enables aliens - of all kinds - to be "one of _us_ " instead
of "the _other_ ".

------
hrktb
It's intersting how generations of successfull girls each marrying someone
higher in society than her parents wouldn't be traced by this study on
surnames.

~~~
aestra
Successful women tend to keep their surname after marriage. I did. Some
consider me mildly successful I guess? It is also because I didn't want to
lose my identity I had for 30 years, and I am not the property of my husband.

~~~
taeric
Many of us are under the impression that this option is relatively recent.
That is, historically you didn't have a choice as to whether to keep your name
or not. That not the case?

(Or course, I'm curious how much choice anyone had. Many "surnames" that we
know are either occupation or city of origin based. Or am I off on that, as
well?)

~~~
aestra
About 20 percent of women in their 60s have different names from their
husbands for what it's worth.

I know people like lawyers celebrities and real estate agents have a vested
interest in keeping the name they built a reputation around.

[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3287883](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3287883)

------
alextingle
I think using professions ("lawyer") as a proxy for privilege is a little bit
problematic. I'm sure I could have been a lawyer, but I never considered it
because I'd never met a lawyer. It just wasn't on my radar.

Instead, I became an engineer. My grandfather & father had been engineers, so
working in industry, making things was something that I could conceive. I'm
sure I didn't suffer financially - I'm better off than all the lawyers I know.

So, to reiterate my point: Using a particular career as a proxy for social
mobility is problematic, because life choices can be "sticky" between
generations.

~~~
varjag
Well this is highly anecdotal: none of my parents or grandparents were
engineers, yet here I am.

The lawyer practice is structured differently though: there's limited supply
of positions at law firms where the money are, and without connected family
the chance of fresh grad getting there is slim. Same with banking in
Scandinavia: certain banks' departments annual retreats can feel more like
family reunions.

~~~
antocv
Yea my dad a carpenter, mom cleaning lady, grandparents farmers without iron
tools until their middle ages, myself saw a computer first time at age 14. Yet
Im software engineer and siblings too have master degrees in medicine and
philosophy.

Heh. just another small anecdote.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Agree. I'n N'th generation dirt-farmer, so are my siblings. We're 5 computer
professionals and one research nurse. All college-educated; all of our
children are college-educated. Our upcoming generation will outstrip us all in
achievement.

So if culture were the determinant factor, shouldn't all Iowa farm kids be
economically rising? Yet few are; in our neighborhood the rest of our
generation are working clerical, farm-services or trades. I guess that's
upward too, farmer is pretty much the bottom.

However, the fact that nearly none of my generation took up farming has less
to do with social mobility than it does with the changes in the farming
landscape. All farms are corporate now; the family farm is largely a myth. It
takes $1M+ to get into farming.

Maybe its observer bias; my family is certainly not typical. But who's is?

------
lepukowsky
"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human
tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability."

I think this raises a very important question: How far are we willing to go to
pursue equality in the modern age? It seems that -- generally -- there is an
inevitable tendency of humans to mate with someone of similar "stature" or
"capacity". Of course, like any generalization, there are exceptions, but it
certainly seems that we each possess a certain amount of "personal capital"
which determines our worthiness as a mate. Can we really prevent the good from
mating with the good, and the bad from getting stuck with the bad, generally?
Is that even a goal worth pursuing? Such presumption seems to be in conflict
with nature itself.

It's almost amusing how the modern era is so committed to the science of
evolution and yet works so hard to derationalize it!

~~~
hrktb
The main point of equality it to allow a brilliant child of a not so brilliant
parents to bring as much value to society as he can. If a very bright kid is
born in a farmer's family, we want he/she to become a top member of the
society and work on the hard to solve problems, and not become a KFC store
manager.

Equality of chance and fluidity is as important to society as it is to
individuals. Of course there is a price to pay, for this to be possible it
also means that this kid's education will be as far as possible removed from
his parents world of view and opinions, and be set under society's values and
management, which would be detrimental if the parents could have actually
given a better education. But I think it's something we should strive for in
balanced proportions.

~~~
swombat
> _The main point of equality it to allow a brilliant child of a not so
> brilliant parents to bring as much value to society as he can. If a very
> bright kid is born in a farmer 's family, we want he/she to become a top
> member of the society and work on the hard to solve problems, and not become
> a KFC store manager._

As pointed out elsewhere, the problem with that is education. The school
system provides a very poor excuse for "education", and if the parents don't
supplement that (as well-educated parents likely will), that naturally hampers
the bright-child-in-a-poor-family example.

There are exceptions of course, there will always be - but to solve the
problem at a larger scale, what must be solved is the education problem. At
the moment, 90+% of "education" must still be provided by the parents.
Educated people understand that the school system is a parody of education,
and so tend to compensate for that. But how can uneducated people understand
that and compensate for it?

~~~
hrktb
I agree what is taught in school is very poor and lacking. I hope he current
system is a least a gateway for most people: once you start understanding that
you need more education, you can look for yourself how to get this education.
Then comes to play libraries, grants, online resources etc. Not everyone has a
chance to access all the resources he/she needs, but at least middle class and
slighty lower classes should have a chance.

To be clear, there will always be a gap between child with clever/well
educated parents and other childs, and I don't think we should lower the top
level. I just think we need a eay to push people who might be stuck at the
bottom level while they could go much higher.

------
alexrson
The example English surname they chose, "Micklethwait" is the name of The
Economist's editor. Just a little inside joke.

------
tempestn
Interesting article, but I was a bit disappointed; I was expecting it to look
at names originally derived from occupations, like Baker or Smith. Their
approach obviously makes more sense; it's just not as much fun.

~~~
zhemao
Actually yeah, that's what I thought too from the title.

------
rwmj
Fun fact: 21% of Koreans have the family name "Kim" (means "gold"):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_name)

~~~
mrcactu5
And in English the most common last name is "Smith". Both of deal with metals
is that a coincidence?

~~~
saraid216
In short, yes:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_(Korean_name)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_\(Korean_name\))

In my experience, East Asian surnames tend to indicate the geographic origin
of your ancestors, rather than their professions. In the case of the Kims,
chances are you had an ancestor in Gimhae. (OTOH, I wouldn't be terribly
surprised to learn that Gimhae was once famous for its blacksmiths or
goldsmiths.)

------
VladRussian2
it would be interesting to see as a baseline the study of for how many
generations descendants of an alpha lion/wolf/gorilla get into the alpha
position themselves, if any.

~~~
varjag
It's precisely the opposite thing though: success through inherent qualities
vs via available social context.

~~~
VladRussian2
the article didn't point to any evidence that some human genetic lines stay at
the top for generations due to social context vs. say inherent qualities. The
article pointed only to correlation. Such correlation doesn't means causation,
especially considering that the social context may be a direct result of
inherent qualities (while inherent qualities may be only very indirect result
of social context). This is why comparison with baseline where we _think_
inherent qualities play significant role is important.

If, for example, aristocracy like English lords started (or was significantly
affected through such a process) as most successful fighters, and didn't have
significant gene mix with "lower" classes, when it would be very reasonably to
suppose that their inherent qualities is somewhat different.

------
thewarrior
"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human
tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability."

So does this mean that over tens of thousands of years rich people could
evolve into a separate race ?

~~~
lepukowsky
According to Wikipedia, that question doesn't really matter: "race has no
taxonomic significance and that all living humans belong to the same species"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29)

I suppose if some group of people got themselves into their own species, where
they could not in fact mate with what we know as "human", it would be a pretty
big deal.

Edit-- I quoted the same line... please feel free to respond to my comment
below.

~~~
larksimian
'Race' is a dumb concept. We know that there are groups of people that are
biologically distinct from others. Not to say that they can't interbreed,
merely that there are genetic/phenotypic differences between groups.

Probably the most obvious example is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-
cell_disease#Epidemiolog...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-
cell_disease#Epidemiology) which is a condition that mostly appears in people
with ancestry in regions that expose them to malaria.

Skin color is obviously a biological difference that distinguishes different
human populations, it just _doesn 't correlate with all the stuff we actually
care about_, for instance intelligence. 'Race' is loosely correlated with some
specific biological traits, for instance [http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-
high-blood-pressure/guide/...](http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-
pressure/guide/hypertension-in-african-americans)

As for hyper-successful people breeding themselves into a sub-group with
specific traits, for better or for worse, this is _obviously_ possible
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prognathism#History](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prognathism#History)

~~~
jmerton
Thanks for the links. My area of (amateur) research is "contra-science," and
one sub-set I find most interesting is so-called "race." What is called "race'
seems actually to be the result of environmental/geographic induced gene
expression. My favorite examples is a South African sub-culture that possesses
the Cohen gene (Tribe of Isaiah), but looks identical to their neighbors. They
have been in South Africa for about 800 years.

------
confluence
This concurs with my belief that the world is fairly deterministic. You can't
work your way out of most situations. Your life is pretty much determined at
birth. The rest of the stuff is just going through the motions.

------
vincie
Look at the Indian subcontinent for an extreme version of this phenomenon.

------
dnautics
"Although American and British mobility rates had converged by the middle of
the 20th century, America’s social order was considerably more fluid than
Britain’s in the 19th century."

What changed?

------
guard-of-terra
Sweden might be very equal but also a country without major wars or
revolutions for centuries. Also probably was industrialized for long.

Same for UK, actually.

~~~
robotresearcher
England, and more recently the UK, has been almost continuously at war for
most of its history. Big wars, small wars, but wars.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Most of the history is irrelevant - we're talking a few centuries here. Also,
overseas wars don't count.

~~~
robotresearcher
England has been at war for most of _any_ part of it's history, including the
last couple of centuries.

"without major wars or revolutions for centuries" doesn't seem to discount
overseas wars.

For what it's worth, the first world war had a major impact on the social life
of British people by the simple device of killing a large fraction of the
upper class men, and a smaller fraction of working class men. That contributed
to the subsequent rise of the middle classes, which may have come to an end
recently.

