Mean child household income is the average income of children born between 1980-1982 in 2010-2012 (when they are approximately 30 years old). Parent household income is the average income of parents between 1996-2000 (when the children were between 14 and 20 years old). Dollar values are adjusted for inflation so they reflect purchasing power in 2012. Income data comes from tax records.
On average, the more the parent makes, the more the child will make. I think the slope become less sharp after 150,000 because on average, people do not make 200,000. I question whether single parent households were excluded? I also wonder why the parent's income reached to the 400,000's while the child only reached to 100,000?
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with Alejandra, the graph shows that the child's income reflects the income of his or her parents' income. It is seen that the slope becomes less dense as it reaches towards the 400's value. I believe that this may reflect the downfall of the economy and the difficulty of making more money. However, I wanted to know what exactly may have caused the slope to become less dense as it reached towards the 400's.
ReplyDeleteThis graph clearly shows that, on average, the more money your parents make the more money you end up making. However, the reverse shows that if your parents income was low than on average yours will be too. This is a clear example on how the current system in place essentially sets one up to be low income at birth. According to this chart regardless of work ethic or intelligence, you hit the ground running being at a disadvantage because your parents where. This is not the American Dream that so many expect from our country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone has already stated; your parents income (when you were younger) reflects your income now, that is to say, if their income was high/ in the middle/low, your income will be high/ in the middle/ low (respectively). But the child's income does not increase as much as the parents nor does it mirror it. Although, I think it would have been good to compare the income of the child at the age of 30 with that of their parents when they were 30 years old. I hope that makes sense. All in all, I think there are numerous factors/ specificities that are missing ( that would allow for a better/ more clear understanding of the data.)
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting to me is the sharp drop off in the correlation of parental and filial income after the parental income reaches about $150,000. Is this due to the lack of volume of parents making that much money? Or could there be another reason, such as the decreased likelihood of children making that amount of money at a younger age?
ReplyDeleteLike said above, the graph shows the correlation between your parents income and your income, and most likely the more money your parents make, the more money you are likely to make. I think the line tends on straightening out at $150,000 because today with the economy and job market, it is hard to make a lot of money. It evens out even more around the $400,000 mark and I think that is also because of the economy these days.
ReplyDeleteThe graph is a correlation between parents and their children’s income. It in details that the more money your parents make the higher the chances that their children will make more money. However I believed it to be flawed, there needs to be more graphs to support its data. The other graphs should include; single parent, low income family, and average salary per adult parents. Then we could compare those graphs to see if there is an actual difference.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with the latter part of your statement. I'd love to see the outcome of a graph featuring the family's ethnic background and class. Being a first generation Haitian-American, its expected that I am to make more income (as far as annual income) then my parent's ever made.With that being said, if I were to make the same graph featuring only the income of immigrant parents from third world countries and their children, the graph would be reversed. I believe that, on average, children of parents from developing countries make more than their parents because of many reasons. Three of them being: 1. The parents are probably leaving an unstable developing country where there is a of the lack work (low wages) 2. The access to higher education in the United States 3. Education and income are positively correlated.
DeleteRead more about the relationship between first and second generation immigrants at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/
(Nehemie Sejour)
As everyone else has mentioned the graph shows on average the amount of money that parents make will have some effect on the income of their child. Although some supplementary information would be useful; the ages of the parents, ethnicity, class etc.
DeleteMark
I understand the correlation of the child's household income at age 30 compared to that of their parents' household income. Clearly, generational mobility plays a role in this correlation; making upward income mobility difficult for those whose parents had low incomes, and easier for those whose parents had high incomes. However, I wondered if the data of the child households account for the child having a family to take care of, or whether the child is single at 30, or single/not married/divorced/or have a cohabitating partnership with children. I wondered these characteristics in regards to the parents as well.
ReplyDeleteDeven Powell
I agree with alot that has been said. To answer Ashley, I think the slope getting less dense reflects the economic stratification of a smaller group of people owning a larger proportion of the wealth contributing to the exponential shape of the graph. And to address Alejandras last question, the childrens' income starting at lower numbers than their parents household income reflects as well how much harder it is to obtain a well off income, let alone a worthy job, by the age of 30. With a college degree not guaranteeing job security anymore the time and energy input of grad school and an internship can take away the resources you could put into a full time job that paid well.
ReplyDeleteThis graph demonstrates a large problem with American society: class immobility. Generations that are born in poverty have an extremely hard time breaking into the middle classes. This can be attributed to the types of resources, education, and opportunities that they do not have unlike generations born into wealthier families.
ReplyDelete~Jack
As stated before this graph shows the relationship between a child's income at 30 compared to their parents income. While it is harder for individuals to make more money, it would be interesting to see how much education the children received at the time of the study. There is the possibility that by the time the children were at 14-20 their parents had obtained higher degrees of education thus allowing them to potentially have more money then their children would at 30. Similarly, by age 30 most people are considered young adults and for the most part have not reached their peak in terms of career advancement.
ReplyDelete-Tchad
As the child gets older their income seems to be gradually increasing upon till $80,000, then its pace began to decrease; this could be derive from the highest level of education of the child. However, the parents seem to have stood at a higher income than the child over the years, which could be, because of investment and savings.
ReplyDeleteAs the child gets older their income seems to be gradually increasing upon till $80,000, then its pace began to decrease; this could be derive from the highest level of education of the child. However, the parents seem to have stood at a higher income than the child over the years, which could be because of investment and savings. (shackerah Scale)
DeleteIn my perspective there are many flaws with this data, there can be many reasons as to why the second generation makes more money than their parents at the similar age, I realize that money was adjusted to evaluate but this presents a problem in that there are limited demographics and statistics to refer to, for instance usually the wealthier the parents, the higher likelihood for the children to be wealthy, the data does not represent investment time and economic fluctuation in the real-time. Class representation and native generations were not taken into account, for instance if a father is new to the country, it is more likely for this son to make more money than him in that his son will have more time and education of economic structure to make money.
ReplyDelete-Crash
This graph evidently portrays that the income of an individual reflects the income their parents received. However, it is interesting that the density of the similarities between children and parents in graph remains only between 0-$150,000. It implies that the children are incapable of receiving higher income than their parents. Furthermore, I believe that there are many flaws with this graph. It does not include significant characteristics that influence the income of an individual.
ReplyDeleteI find this interesting because it shows that after a certain point a parent's influence on their child's income seems to wane quite a bit. This is seems to reflect the same idea we encountered with the problem with geniuses. Once you hit a certain point it is really up to you with what you can do with the resources you are given.
ReplyDelete-Matt Fera
I found this graph to be very interesting and logical. It shows that there is a direct correlation between parents and their children’s income. It proves that the more money your parents make, the higher the chances you have of making more money. I think that this makes sense because if your parents are successful, you have more opportunities to be successful such as good grade schools, tutors, college education, the ability to not have to work during school and focus on your learning, networking opportunities, ect.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Stalnaker
This graph shows that the income of an individual reflects the income their parents received. However, it is interesting that the density of the similarities between children and parents in graph remains only between 0-$150,000. It implies that the children are incapable of receiving higher income than their parents. Furthermore, I believe that there are many flaws with this graph. It does not include significant characteristics
ReplyDeletethat influence the income of an individual.
Caitlin Crouse
This graph makes sense because if you think about it, where you grow up is the most important factor in determining if you are going to proposer economically. The amount of money your parents make really dictates what kind of life you are going to have and what resources you are going to have. If your parents have enough money to pay for your college you are more likely to be successful.
ReplyDeleteThe chart shows what we have been talking about this whole semester. If the parents have made more money then their kids will often make a significant amount of money as well. This chart shows that those who are born into wealth will often maintain that wealth through out their lives unlike those who are born into poverty or with less money. It is unlikely that those who are born with less finical means will be able to move and gain social and finical status. This chart shows the severe income slope.
ReplyDeleteThis chart directly shows that if a child was born into a family that has more money, the more money that they are likely to make when they grow up. This should be no surprise, as there are a lot of logical reasons as to why this is the correlation. A more affluent family has more resources to help their child succeed. For example, a family with a lot of money can pay for their child to go to private school, get a top education, and get into a good college. After they get out of school, their parents may have connections to get them good jobs. People with poorer families would not have that same luxury. Because of the income inequality in the United States, the children of the wealthy stay wealthy, and contribute to the wealth distribution problem even more.
ReplyDeleteThis chart is not surprising by any means,it is more of a reminder for me. That reminder being that wealth breeds wealth. Whether it is due to the opportunities available to wealthy families or the skills they can easily acquire. However, these things effect the wealth it only does one thing for everyone else. It makes more inequality in america because the playing fields are not equal at this point.
ReplyDeleteThis chart confirms what I knew to be true, but also what we have talked about all semester. People want to believe in the American dream and believe that if they work hard they can become rich and successful. While that is sometimes true there are a lot more obstacles in the way for someone who is born into a low income family. I think that it is something our country needs to be a lot more aware of because there is way too much blame on the lower class for their financial standing then the system and our country institutionally.
ReplyDeleteAna Kyriakos
The graph is a pretty accurate example of how the ways in which families are structures can have a very strong bearing on how the children in these families will fare in life. In potential mates, we tend to look for similar qualities such as cultural beliefs and educational background. In the case of the latter, obviously if the parents have a higher level of formal education, they will (ideally) have more resources to provide their children with education as good as or better than they (the parents) acquired.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, the graph probably does not represent families who are immigrants and whose children are the first to have to opportunity to gain formal education.
Lindsay Bonaparte
I think that this graph clearly shows that there is a correlation between how much children make based on their parents' incomes. If a parent is wealthy, it is more likely that their child will be wealthy when they grow up. Unfortunately, the same correlation goes for poverty stricken families. I agree with some above comments in the sense that the graph probably does not take into account first generation children. They would be the first ones to receive some sort of formal education and therefore are already steps ahead of where their parents were. Therefore, they will set the new standard for the family.
ReplyDelete- Hannah Lamotte
It isn’t a surprise to me that parents make more money than their kids at age 30. However, I wasn’t expecting such a huge gap between parents and kids income. Looking at the graph, there’s a drastic drop in the slope from 85 to 20. It is clear that generational mobility accounts for a large role in this correlation. Furthermore, the graph doesn’t show education attainment so it is hard to really draw conclusions because there isn’t much evidence of why there’s such a drastic drop in income.
ReplyDeleteI have to imagine the large difference between the parents income and the child's income is caused by the fact that the parents potential have two paychecks. I'd be interested to see how the graph changes if they used just the highest income parent or if the child was married those incomes.
ReplyDeleteBased on the data in this graph, it is obvious that a child's future potential income is intangibly linked to the income of their parents. In this way, ones socioecomical status is almost absolute, unless they gain or neglect key opportunities which causes them to subsequently lose or gain wealth and affluence. I would also be interested in seeing which "breadwinner" within the family has the largest correlation to their child's potential income in the future.
ReplyDeleteThis graph proves that parent income is a strong determinant of child income. In other words, you are likely going to maintain or advance the income of your parents if you are in the top income bracket. Unfortunately, this also points to the fact that parents of low income will produce children of low income. This means it is harder for them to move up income brackets.
ReplyDeleteObviously, this chart shows a strong correlation between parent income and child income. It's interesting that they chose 30 as the age for the child to have achieved a comparable income to their high earning parents. Especially now that college graduates have more obstacles in finding jobs, need a master's degree, and have to hold internships for an extended period of time before getting a job and a starting salary. I think now it's harder and takes longer for an individual to achieve a comparable income to their parents
ReplyDeleteI never thought of income as something that is rooted from parent income simply because I was always optimistic that no matter where you came from you can always seek opportunities to gain better income. Such as, going to school or seeking interviews to high paying jobs. However, now that I see that parent income is a strong indicator of child income It is interesting to relate to the constant inequality cycle that is present in our society. If you are rich you are more likely to maintain or advance the income of your parents while the lower income parents and their children experience more challenges to advance, though it is not impossible.
ReplyDeleteThis chart shows the relationship between parent and child income. I am one to believe that you can be successful no matter where you are from, a higher socioeconomic status or low. The chart shows that parent income is a strong indicator of child income, which is interesting to me. If you are rich in our society then you are more likely to become successful and maintain the income of your parents.
ReplyDeleteThe chart shows just how much an individual’s environment as a child in regards to their parent’s affluence plays into their affluence later in life. With more wealth as a child, there tends to me more wealth later as an adult. While this could be attributed to a variety of factors, the fact that there is correlation at least leads us to think there may be some causation. Overall, people that start poor tend to stay poor and those who start well-off tend to stay well off. This contributes to inequality in that it doesn’t allow for people to move up in the wealth brackets as well as the American Dream depicts.
ReplyDeleteFor this link, we see that the United States is ranked 41st in terms of Inequality (where number 1 is the most inequal and number 141, Sweden, is the country with the most equality based on income.) This was quite startling when seeing how much more equal many European countries ranked such as Sweden, Germany, and even Russia was slightly better. While these countries may not have as large of economies or be as prosperous from capitalist standpoint, they do spread their wealth out more evenly and we should see what we can learn from them.
ReplyDeleteI think that this chart accurately reflects what we have been talking about all semester long. I find it very ironic that the mobility level is so low in a country that was built on the idea that anyone can be successful if they just work hard. I do not see the mobility in this country getting much better in the future. It is a harsh reality. -Damarr Gordon
ReplyDeleteThis graph represents a correlation between the mean child household income and the parent household income in 2012. I think that the graph shows that the child’s income also reflects the income of his parents. But the most interesting thing is the correlation of parental and filial income after the parent’s income reaches about $160,000. I would like to know why the decrease since the graph does not really give much information about it.
ReplyDeleteThis graph shows that the more money your parents make, the more money you will make in the future. This chart only reflects a part of the population though. There are many factors going against this. Some people have grown up with nothing, but they still found a way to become successful and make more money than their parents ever did. Other people who have probably grown up middle class may not end up making a lot of money. It depends on who you are, and a lot of this does depend on our parents because they are the ones who raised us and that helps to shape us into who we are. To me, my parent's income does not mean that I will make more or less than them one day, their parenting and my hard work will.
ReplyDeleteTo see our generation’s income in comparison to ours and how the two are dependent on each other. The correlation between low inequality and mobility is not surprising but rather upsetting. With as many government funding programs as we have in this country, it should not be so hard for people who want to achieve higher education to do so.
ReplyDelete