Income Persists More than Wealth between Generations

Tuesday, August 16, 2016
income and wealth persistence

This post is the first in a two-part series on intergenerational economic mobility. Today’s post discusses persistence of income and wealth from parents to children.

Research has shown evidence of persistence in both income and wealth across generations. But which one persists more? How likely are people to do better than their parents? A recent article in The Regional Economist explored intergenerational mobility, or the changes in family economic status between successive generations.

Research Officer and Economist George-Levi Gayle and former Technical Research Associate Andrés Hincapié noted: “Being able to do better than one’s parents is part of the American Dream. Also, a society with intergenerational mobility might have less economic inequality across generations.”

The authors mentioned two ways to approach increasing economic mobility:

  • Economic growth, or raising earnings or wealth for the entire population
  • Economic opportunity structure, such as policies aimed at leveling the playing field

Gayle and Hincapié focused on the effect of the economic opportunity structure, examining which type of policies are more effective for promoting mobility: helping the poor escape poverty or limiting the advantages of the privileged. Those who grew up in more well-to-do homes simply have advantages over those who didn’t, as Gayle and Hincapié noted that persistence across generations has been documented for both income and wealth:

  • Earnings persistence is mostly due to investment in early childhood education and other human capital development.1
  • Persistence of residual wealth (or wealth net of education and lifetime earnings from working, or permanent income) is due to bequests, asset accumulation and the capital market.2

Gayle and Hincapié examined age-adjusted correlations of wealth and income across generations for the period 1968-2013. They found that the intergenerational elasticity of earnings was 0.4 and of wealth was 0.38. This means that 10 percent differences in parents’ income and wealth led to 4 percent and 3.8 percent differences, respectively, for offspring’s income and wealth.

However, for technical reasons, the wealth calculation excluded individuals with no wealth or with net debt, which would be one in five people. To incorporate these households, Gayle and Hincapié also reported the correlation between people’s rank in their generation’s income or wealth distribution and their parents’ rank. This is called a rank-rank correlation.

The authors found that the rank-rank correlation was 0.3 for wealth and 0.4 for labor market earnings. They wrote: “Once the wealth distribution with both positive and negative net worth is accounted for, labor market earnings appear to be 33 percent more persistent than wealth.”

Still, as the authors pointed out: “Using one number to summarize the intergenerational persistence of earnings and wealth cannot answer whether such persistence is due to the inability of the poor to escape poverty or the persistence of wealth and income at the top.” The next blog post will examine how children move to a different rung of the income and wealth ladders from where their parents were.

Notes and References

1 Gayle, George-Levi; Golan, Limor; and Soytas, Mehmet A. “What Is the Source of the Intergenerational Correlation in Earnings?” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Working Paper 2015-019A.

2 Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press, 2014.

Additional Resources

Posted In Financial  |  Tagged george-levi gayleandres hincapieincome inequalitywealth inequalityeconomic mobilityintergenerational mobility
Commenting Policy: We encourage comments and discussions on our posts, even those that disagree with conclusions, if they are done in a respectful and courteous manner. All comments posted to our blog go through a moderator, so they won't appear immediately after being submitted. We reserve the right to remove or not publish inappropriate comments. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that are:
  • Vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise disrespectful or discourteous
  • For commercial use, including spam
  • Threatening, harassing or constituting personal attacks
  • Violating copyright or otherwise infringing on third-party rights
  • Off-topic or significantly political
The St. Louis Fed will only respond to comments if we are clarifying a point. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters, so please edit your thinking before posting. While you will retain all of your ownership rights in any comment you submit, posting comments means you grant the St. Louis Fed the royalty-free right, in perpetuity, to use, reproduce, distribute, alter and/or display them, and the St. Louis Fed will be free to use any ideas, concepts, artwork, inventions, developments, suggestions or techniques embodied in your comments for any purpose whatsoever, with or without attribution, and without compensation to you. You will also waive all moral rights you may have in any comment you submit.
comments powered by Disqus

The St. Louis Fed uses Disqus software for the comment functionality on this blog. You can read the Disqus privacy policy. Disqus uses cookies and third party cookies. To learn more about these cookies and how to disable them, please see this article.

Subscribe to
On the Economy

Get notified when new content is available on our On the Economy blog.

Email Alerts  |  RSS

About the Blog

The St. Louis Fed On the Economy blog features relevant commentary, analysis, research and data from our economists and other St. Louis Fed experts.

Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or of the Federal Reserve System.

Contact Us

For media-related questions, email For all other blog-related questions or comments, email