tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232587951592761390.post7935391866996905449..comments2023-10-24T06:09:31.378-05:00Comments on EconWeekly: Income mobility in the U.S.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232587951592761390.post-2435475737464484512007-12-27T15:28:00.000-06:002007-12-27T15:28:00.000-06:00Absolutely. I should have added that to my post. A...Absolutely. I should have added that to my post. As I read your comment I started thinking that maybe excluding young and old individuals would do. That would be better than what the Treasury does, but not best: earnings still rise and fall over the life cycle, even considering people between the ages of 30 and 55, for instance.<BR/><BR/>One would have to track cohorts, as you say. With PSID data, for instance, you'd have to take 5-year cohorts, for example, in order to have a homogeneous group and still a decent sample size.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for leaving a comment!Franciscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07037104984110610259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232587951592761390.post-27472085210027088222007-12-27T13:54:00.000-06:002007-12-27T13:54:00.000-06:00You should also look at the fact that the Treasury...You should also look at the fact that the Treasury study didn't take into account age.<BR/><BR/>In other words, much of the move in income from first quintile to second quintile over the period in question simply reflects college students -- who are in the lowest quintile while in college -- graduating and starting careers.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, the drop in the income of the fourth quintile probably reflects people reaching retirement age, at which point their income drops off.<BR/><BR/>The only way to really study social mobility is to track a the quintiles of a generation, rather than simply quintiles over time. What matters is economic status among the peers of the same generation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com