World's richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder. Calls for lower minimum wage and tax cuts

[Immortal]

Kasz216 said:

Immortal said:

That methodology does seem to leave room for a host of errors. A lot of the children could still be studying, given the time period, and could still be relying on their parents to some extent. I'm not sure how much that constitutes "income". I guess you can't really do anything much better, though. If they were very specific with what they measure and what they classify it as, they probably wouldn't come up with anything presentable that you can really conclude anything from.

Also, the statistics for the daughters are even more surprising. For the lowest quintile, given what I'd guess is a significant margin of error, it's more or less equally probable for them to end up in any of the first four quintiles.It's harder to make a general statement about the top quintile, but it also seems fairly decent, really.

Nah, This study was of children born between 1957 and 1964.

So the childs age in 1975 would be 11-18.  Meaning in 1995 the youngest would be 31, and the oldest would be 48.

Furthermore they use a formula to adjust the salaries of the fathers and children so they account for boths age effecting their salaries.

Keep in mind as well, this is one of the studies that shows inequality at it's worst.

Looks like they've adjusted for more or less everything then. Of course, I bet there's still a lot of holes to poke in this if I tried desperately, but I suppose that would be taking it too far.

If this study is showing more lack of mobility than most, though, do studies generally have statistically insignificant differences in terms of how likely someone is to end up being poor as an adult when he or she is born poor? Because this was awfully close to that in some parts already.