DOCSLIB.ORG

WIDER Working Paper 2020/6-Drivers of Mobility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WIDER Working Paper 2020/6-Drivers of Mobility WIDER Working Paper 2020/6 Drivers of mobility Patrizio Piraino* January 2020 Abstract: Empirical studies in developing countries tend to find higher levels of socioeconomic persistence across generations compared with those of high-income economies. However, there have been relatively few advances in the identification of the drivers of such higher levels of intergenerational persistence. By focusing on relevant evidence from developing and emerging economies, this paper points to some of the potential drivers of mobility that are either outside those typically considered in high-income countries or likely to be of greater relevance in the developing world. The paper builds on the standard model of intergenerational mobility to discuss the appropriateness of some of its assumptions in a developing-country context. It will then advance some suggestions for future theoretical and empirical investigations of social mobility in the Global South. Key words: intergenerational mobility, Global South, market exclusion JEL classification: D63, J62, O15 Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Vito Peragine and Kunal Sen for detailed comments on an earlier draft, as well as participants in the UNU-WIDER workshop on Social Mobility in the Global South (Helsinki, 2019) for helpful discussions. * University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA; [email protected]. This study has been prepared within the UNU-WIDER project Social mobility in the Global South—concepts, measures, and determinants. Copyright © UNU-WIDER 2020 Information and requests: [email protected] ISSN 1798-7237 ISBN 978-92-9256-763-7 https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2020/763-7 Typescript prepared by Luke Finley. The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research provides economic analysis and policy advice with the aim of promoting sustainable and equitable development. The Institute began operations in 1985 in Helsinki, Finland, as the first research and training centre of the United Nations University. Today it is a unique blend of think tank, research institute, and UN agency—providing a range of services from policy advice to governments as well as freely available original research. The Institute is funded through income from an endowment fund with additional contributions to its work programme from Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom as well as earmarked contributions for specific projects from a variety of donors. Katajanokanlaituri 6 B, 00160 Helsinki, Finland The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute or the United Nations University, nor the programme/project donors. 1 Introduction A large empirical literature on intergenerational income mobility shows consistent evidence of positive correlations between the income of parents and that of their adult offspring. This is true for every society for which we have data and for several types of income (e.g. labour market earnings, total market income, welfare receipts, etc.). Björklund and Jäntti (2009), Black and Devereux (2011), and Corak (2013) provide comprehensive reviews of this literature. The existing international evidence has allowed researchers and policymakers to identify a number of ‘stylized facts’ on the multitude of factors that can help to explain the observed variation in mobility levels across and within countries. This largely descriptive literature, while falling short of identifying the relative role of alternative causal mechanisms, offers very plausible hints about where to look to improve social mobility. At the same time, it is notable that most of the stylized facts on possible drivers of mobility are derived from empirical analyses of high-income countries. Since only a relatively small share of the world population currently lives and works in this group of countries, a natural question is whether the findings from these regions can easily be extended to the much larger pool of the world population living in the developing world. Empirical studies of intergenerational mobility in developing countries tend to find higher levels of economic status persistence across generations compared with those of developed economies (Brunori et al. 2013; Narayan et al. 2018), but there have been relatively few advances in the identification of the underlying drivers of this higher persistence. This is due to a combination of data availability and, to some extent, an over-emphasis in the economics literature on analyses of the Global North (e.g. Europe/North America). In fact, it is fair say that even the existing theoretical contributions in this literature appear to be implicitly benchmarked on structural processes that may be more applicable to the developed world. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to reducing this gap in the literature and offering a more complete picture of social mobility across the globe, including in developing and emerging economies. It will point out some of the potential drivers of mobility that are either outside those typically considered in high-income countries or likely to be of greater relevance in the developing world. I will begin with a simplified description of standard models of intergenerational income mobility, followed by a discussion of the appropriateness of some of their underlying assumptions in a developing-country context. I will then advance some suggestions for future theoretical and empirical investigations of social mobility in the Global South. 2 Theoretical framework Empirical analyses of intergenerational mobility have largely relied on the classic model developed by Becker and Tomes (1979, 1986)—and subsequent adaptions and extensions—for a theoretical underpinning of the intergenerational income regression typically estimated in the literature. In its most basic versions, the model assumes a two-period utility framework for families consisting of one parent and one child. In the first period, the parent faces a budget constraint which dictates the allocation of disposable income between own consumption and investment in the child’s human capital. In the second period, the child earns income as a function of the acquired human capital and other endowments. I discuss here a simplified version of the standard model using the adaptation presented in Solon (2014). 1 2.1 Parental investments and heritable endowments Following Solon (2014), we can begin by expressing the income-generating function for the child as ln(푌푡) = 휇 + 훾푡퐻푡 (1) where 푌푡 is the child’s income, 퐻푡 is their human capital, and 휇 is the intercept for the 푡 generation. The returns to human capital in the labour market are captured by 훾푡. Next, we can specify the child’s human capital as depending on the parent’s investment in the previous period, 퐼푡 − 1, and on the composite effect of other endowed attributes: 퐻푡 = 휗 ln(퐼푡 − 1) + 퐸푡 (2) The parameter 휗 in Equation 2 represents the ‘effectiveness’ of parental investment in generating human capital. Substituting Equation 2 into Equation 1 gives ln(푌푡) = 휇 + 훾푡휗 ln(퐼푡 − 1) + 훾푡퐸푡 (3) A key assumption of the model is that 퐸푡, which is independent from parental investments, is transmitted across generations according to a first-order autoregressive process: 퐸푡 = 휅 + ℎ퐸푡 − 1 + 휔푡 (4) That is, the child’s endowed attributes are partly inherited from the previous generation according to the heritability parameter ℎ ∈ [0,1]. As we will see below, the parameter ℎ plays an important role in these models. These inherited endowments encompass a variety of genetic, cultural, and environmental attributes that are transmitted across generations via a mechanic heritability process—i.e. they are independent of parental investments in the child’s human capital (Solon 2004, 2014). Examples of these attributes may be genetic ability or non-genetic aspects of family culture, attitudes, and connections that children gain by virtue of belonging to a given family. Parents are aware of Equations 1 to 4 and decide the income allocation between own consumption, 퐶푡 − 1, and investments in the child’s human capital, 퐼푡 − 1, by maximizing a Cobb- Douglas utility function of the form 푈 = (1 − 훼) ln(퐶푡 − 1) + 훼ln⁡(푌푡) (5) subject to the budget constraint 푌푡 − 1 = 퐶푡 − 1 + 퐼푡 − 1 (6) where 푌푡 − 1 and 푌푡 are, respectively, the parent’s and the child’s income. The parameter 훼 represents parental altruism, which determines the weight that parents assign to children’s future earnings relative to current own consumption. The budget constraint and Equation 3 allow us to rewrite the parent’s utility as 푈 = (1 − 훼) ln(푌푡 − 1 − 퐼푡 − 1) + 훼휇 + 훼훾푡휗 ln(퐼푡 − 1) + 훼훾푡퐸푡 (7) 2 which, after solving the first-order condition, yields the optimal investment in the child’s human capital: 훼훾푡휗 퐼푡 − 1 = [ ] 푌푡 − 1 (8) 1 − 훼(1 − 훾푡휗) Intuitively, Equation 8 suggests that parental investments in the child’s human capital will be higher for richer and more altruistic parents, and for periods of greater returns to human capital. This simple model allows a rationalization of the intergenerational earnings elasticity (IGE) typically estimated in the empirical literature to measure the degree of economic mobility in a given society. To see this, one can substitute the optimal investment amount Equation 8 into the child’s earnings function Equation 3, to obtain: ∗ ln(푌푡) = 휇 + 훾푡휗 ln(푌푡 − 1) + 훾푡퐸푡 (9) As explained by Solon (2014), this is a first-order autoregression of ln(푌푡) with a serially correlated error that also follows a first-order autoregression.1 In steady state—i.e. when 푉푎푟[ln(푌푡)] = 푉푎푟[ln(푌푡 − 1)]—the slope coefficient in Equation 9 is the commonly estimated IGE, which will be equal to the sum of the two autoregressive parameters divided by one plus their product: 훾푡휗+ℎ 퐼퐺퐸 = (10) 1+훾푡휗ℎ Expressing the IGE as in Equation 10 clarifies that earnings persist across generations (i.e. 퐼퐺퐸 > 0) as a result of two main ‘transmission channels’: (i) Higher-earning parents invest more in their child’s human capital, which increases income in the next generation: 훾푡휗 > 0.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Mobility in Rural America Insights from Communities Whose Young People Are Climbing the Income Ladder
    A Field Report by National 4-H Council and The Bridgespan Group Social Mobility in Rural America Insights from Communities Whose Young People Are Climbing the Income Ladder By Mark McKeag, Mike Soskis, Luis Ramos & Bill Breen in collaboration with National 4-H Council and the Cooperative Extension System of our nation’s land-grant universities Collaborating to accelerate social impact November 2018 Table of Contents Letter from the President and CEO, National 4-H Council ������������������������������������������������������ 3 Foreword ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 Executive Summary ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7 Social Mobility in Rural America ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 10 Getting a Ground-Level View ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13 Communities Whose Youth Are Advancing Economically ����������������������������������������������������16 Six Factors That Might Support Upward Mobility �����������������������������������������������������������������������������18 Factor #1: A high expectation that youth will “opt in” and work hard to
    [Show full text]
  • How Economic Inequality Shapes Mobility Expectations and Behavior
    How Economic Inequality Shapes Mobility Expectations and Behavior in Disadvantaged Youth Alexander S. Browmana Mesmin Destinb,c,d Melissa S. Kearneye,g Phillip B. Levinef,g a Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 b School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 c Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 d Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 e Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 f Department of Economics, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02481 g National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA 02138 Nature Human Behaviour, 2019 © Springer Nature Limited, 2019. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in Nature Human Behaviour. The final article is available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0523-0 2 Abstract Economic inequality can have a range of negative consequences for those in younger generations, particularly for those from lower-socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. Economists and psychologists, among other social scientists, have addressed this issue, but have proceeded largely in parallel. This Perspective outlines how these disciplines have proposed and provided empirical support for complementary theoretical models. Specifically, both disciplines emphasize that inequality weakens people’s belief in socioeconomic opportunity, thereby reducing the likelihood that low-SES young people will engage in behaviors that would improve their chances of upward mobility (e.g., persisting in school, averting teenage pregnancy). In integrating the methods and techniques of economics and psychology, we offer a cohesive framework for considering this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Social Mobility on Individual Well-Being, Attitudes
    The Effects of Social Mobility on Individual Well-Being, Attitudes, and Behavior: A Bounding Approach Ethan Fosse Fabian T. Pfeffer University of Toronto University of Michigan Abstract Researchers have long sought to estimate the effects of intergenerational socioeconomic mo- bility in a range of individual outcomes. There is also widespread public speculation about the role of downward mobility in explaining political upheaval. However, the empirical study of mobility effects faces a fundamental methodological challenge: The linear depen- dency among among social origin (O), destinations (D), and social mobility (M = D − O), prohibits the use of conventional statistical methods to estimate the unique contributions of the three variables to any given outcome. This paper applies a novel non-parametric bounding approach to partially identify the effects of social mobility. We study the effects of absolute mobility on a range of individual outcomes, such as socio-psychological well-being, political attitudes, fertility, and health. Results indicate that – in contrast to findings from a number of recent studies – the effects of social mobility on individual outcomes are large. 1 Introduction Americans face a new reality: they are increasingly more likely to be worse off than their parents, i.e., to experience downward social mobility. Whereas a minority of children born in the 1940s fell below their parents’ level of educational attainment and income as adults, about half of children born in the 1980s do so today (Hout and Janus 2011; Chetty et al. 2017). Some scientific work and much popular debate have hypothesized pernicious effects of rising rates of downward mobility on a range of outcomes, from extreme political views to early mortality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Social Mobility of Immigrants and Their Children
    The Social Mobility of Immigrants and Their Children Demetrios G. Papademetriou, Will Somerville, and Madeleine Sumption Migration Policy Institute June 2009 The Migration Policy Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank dedicated to the study of the movement of people worldwide. 1 Executive Summary Social mobility is central to immigrant integration. Since first-generation immigrants in Europe and North America typically experience downward mobility when they migrate, they are over- represented in low-skilled or low-earning jobs, in many cases despite high levels of education. With upward social mobility, however, immigrants can break out of their position at the bottom of the labor market – bringing strong social and economic benefits for both immigrant families and their communities. Immigrants’ initial downward mobility is largely attributed to four factors: language barriers, differences in educational attainment, difficulties obtaining recognition for credentials and experience gained abroad, and problems accessing opportunities through social networks and other recruitment channels. Many of these obstacles can be overcome with time. However, analysts disagree on the speed and degree of labor market integration among the first generation, specifically, whether immigrants can make rapid gains in wages and employment rates and whether they are able to catch up with their native counterparts during their lifetimes. What is clear is that substantial differences exist between different groups, categorized by ethnicity or by country of origin. Some – such as Asians in the United States – eventually outperform native workers; while others – such as Moroccans in the Netherlands – show little sign of convergence with their native counterparts. The second generation – which in many countries represents a rapidly growing segment of the population – improves substantially on its parents’ generation.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Nature and Consequences of Social Mobility Beliefs
    Understanding the Nature and Consequences of Social Mobility Beliefs Martin V. Day and Susan T. Fiske Social mobility beliefs offer a unique window into how people make sense of a non- trivial outcome – where people end up in life. But what do we know about the nature and consequences of social mobility beliefs, that is, the perceived likelihood of moving up or down in society? Many disciplines – including economics, political science, psychology, and sociology – study these beliefs, in part because theory links them to societies’ maintenance of economic inequality (e.g., Benabou & Ok, 2001; Kluegel & Smith, 1986). Given the large, consequential gap between the rich and poor in nations around the world (Alvaredo, Chancel, Piketty, Saez, & Zucman, 2018; Pickett & Wilkinson, 2015), social mobility beliefs call for scientific atten- tion. As explained in our review, emerging research finds conditional support for the link between these beliefs and support for inequality. Overall, this chapter aims to shed light on the characteristics of social mobility beliefs and how they may critically affect thoughts, feelings, and behavior. In par- ticular, we review relevant work from psychology and related fields, providing novel conceptual perspectives on the societal and personal significance of social mobility beliefs. Further, we explore how these beliefs can affect tolerance for inequality and support for the status quo, as well as personal status-related goals and well-being. First, we elaborate on our view of social mobility beliefs, before consid- ering their nature and accuracy, as well as their societal and personal impacts. M. V. Day (*) Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada e-mail: [email protected] S.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Mobility and Escaping Poverty
    Social Mobility and Escaping Poverty The Challenge It’s commonly assumed, and proven through research1, that household income impacts the social mobility of children within that household. The children of middle to upper income families have more advantages in education, greater exposure to opportunities, and a better understanding of career readiness and money management than children from lower income homes. Children raised in households with lower incomes or who experience impoverished living conditions are at distinct disadvantages. However, there is also research2 that indicates children who move from unsupportive neighborhoods to supportive ones, even if they are of a lower income, have a better chance of positive social mobility and escaping the cycle of poverty. The Role of JA There are external factors that can help foster a sense of self-efficacy (or “I Can”) in young people which can result in beneficial behaviors that lead to future success. These factors are measured in knowledge of and attitudes toward particular behaviors. JA’s proven programs and volunteer role models provide students with the positive realizations and reinforcement of career aspirations, an understanding of money management, and exposure to the benefits of business ownership that help overcome negative, competing environmental factors (peer pressure, lack of understanding or support in community, etc.). The JA experience helps foster the self-belief and sense of purpose necessary for young people to overcome challenging circumstances. Proof of Impact Research shows that JA alumni have higher education attainment and median household income than the general U.S. population. When asked to consider their household financial situation growing up compared to now, there is a notable shift from lower income to middle and upper income.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in Breaking the Poverty Cycle
    PROBLEMS IN BREAKING THE POVERTY CYCLE Francis A. Cizon, Director of Research School of Social Work Loyola University There are no simple ways to break the poverty cycle. There are few experts to provide the answers. To try to understand the problem and to share with each other our experiences in coping with the complexity of modern poverty is our immediate task. Poverty has been given a new status of importance in our society, because we have suddenly become very conscious of it. We have be- come aware of the economics of poverty, its relationship to a growing economy and high employment, and the socio-cultural implications of little education, poor skills, and social disorganization among the poor. We have become conscious of the political implications of poverty legislation and the influence of administrative know-how on effective programming. We have begun to discuss the moral issues and the rights of people which are involved in the relationship of the people who have to those who have not. The problem is complicated and many faceted. The present comments are, therefore, confined to one aspect, the socio-cultural factors involved in the "new poverty," the kind of poverty the "war on poverty" is designed to conquer. Three issues must be considered. First, do we understand the "new" poor and their poverty? Second, do we really want to eliminate poverty? Third, if we do accept the challenge, are we willing to mobilize the resources of our communities to eliminate poverty? Poverty has been with us for a long time. We have, however, given it a social position of special significance within the last few years.
    [Show full text]
  • How Increasing Income Inequality Is Dampening U.S. Economic Growth, and Possible Ways to Change the Tide
    Economic Research: How Increasing Income Inequality Is Dampening U.S. Economic Growth, And Possible Ways To Change The Tide Credit Market Services: Beth Ann Bovino, U.S. Chief Economist, New York (1) 212-438-1652; [email protected] Secondary Contact: Gabriel J Petek, CFA, San Francisco (1) 415-371-5042; [email protected] Research Contributor: John B Chambers, CFA, New York (1) 212-438-7344; [email protected] Table Of Contents Is Income Inequality Increasing? When Ends Don't Meet Not Just The Fruits Of Our Labor The Impact Of Government Policy Undereducated Workers: Both Today's And Tomorrow's Catching Up With The Joneses Secular Stagnation Not Just A Problem For The Poor Striking A Palatable Balance WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT AUGUST 5, 2014 1 1351366 | 302136118 Table Of Contents (cont.) Glossary Of Relevant Terms Endnotes WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT AUGUST 5, 2014 2 1351366 | 302136118 Economic Research: How Increasing Income Inequality Is Dampening U.S. Economic Growth, And Possible Ways To Change The Tide The topic of income inequality and its effects has been the subject of countless analysis stretching back generations and crossing geopolitical boundaries. Despite the tendency to speak about this issue in moral terms, the central questions are economic ones: Would the U.S. economy be better off with a narrower income gap? And, if an unequal distribution of income hinders growth, which solutions could do more harm than good, and which could make the economic pie bigger for all? Given the decades--indeed, centuries--of debate on this subject, it comes as no surprise that the answers are complex.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summary of What We Know About Social Mobility
    547174ANN The Annals of the American AcademyWhat We Know About Social Mobility research-article2014 Academic research on social mobility from the 1960s until now has made several facts clear. First, and most important, it is better to ask how the conditions and circumstances of early life constrain adult success than to ask who is moving up and who is not. The focus on origins keeps the substantive issues of opportunity and fairness in focus, while the mobility question leads to confusing side issues. Second, mobility is intrinsically symmetrical; each upward move is offset by a down- ward move in the absence of growth, expansion, or A Summary of immigration. Third, social origins are not a single dimension of inequality that can be paired with the outcome of interest (without significant excluded vari- What We Know able bias); they are a comprehensive set of conditions describing the circumstances of youth. Fourth, the about Social constraints of social origins vary by time, place, and subpopulation. These four “knowns” should inform any Mobility attempt to collect new data on mobility. Keywords: social mobility; opportunity; social origins; life chances By iscussions in public media show that MICHAEL HOUT DAmericans now worry that the engine of social mobility has stalled. Worry abounds where pride once held sway. Generations of Americans took for granted that each succeed- ing generation did better than the last. No more. Stagnant wages, insufficient employment opportunity, and rising inequality stand in the way of young people’s aspirations. Scholars would like to join the conversation with facts to confirm or allay the public’s worries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Social Mobility Concept Paper and Demonstration Project
    The Social Mobility Concept Paper and Demonstration Project By: The Contingent June 2020 Published by: The Contingent Contributing Authors: Ben Sand Felicia Tripp Folsom Dr. Pam Kingpetcharat Dr. Beth Tarasawa Dr. Andrée Tremoulet Amani Austin Sarah Molbert i Table of Contents A Call to Action ............................................................................................................................... 2 What is Social Mobility? .................................................................................................................. 3 The Proposition ............................................................................................................................... 4 A Convergence of Vexing Data ...................................................................................................... 6 College Attendance and Persistence.......................................................................................... 6 Student Debt Crisis & Employment Entrance ............................................................................. 7 Income ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Income-Related Health and Intergenerational Impacts .............................................................. 9 Wealth ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Additional Nuances in Considering Post-Graduation Interventions
    [Show full text]
  • Income Inequality, Social Mobility, and the Decision to Drop out of High School
    MELISSA S. KEARNEY University of Maryland PHILLIP B. LEVINE Wellesley College Income Inequality, Social Mobility, and the Decision to Drop Out of High School ABSTRACT It is widely documented that places with higher levels of income inequality have lower rates of social mobility. But it is an open question whether and how higher levels of inequality actually lead to lower rates of mobility. We propose that one channel through which higher rates of income inequality might lead to lower rates of upward mobility is lower rates of human capital investment among low-income individuals. Specifically, we posit that greater levels of income inequality could lead low-income youth to perceive a lower rate of return on investment in their own human capital. Such an effect would offset any potential “aspirational” effect coming from higher educa- tional wage premiums. The data are consistent with this prediction: Individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to drop out of school if they live in a place with a greater gap between the bottom and middle of the income distribution. This finding is robust in relation to a number of specifica- tion checks and tests for confounding factors. This analysis offers an expla- nation for how income inequality might lead to a perpetuation of economic disadvantage, and it has implications for the types of interventions and pro- grams that would effectively promote upward mobility among youth of low socioeconomic status. nternational comparisons show that the United States is a country that Iranks high in its level of income inequality and low in its level of social mobility.
    [Show full text]
  • Wealth and Social Mobility Impact Partner Workshop 13 March 2017
    Wealth and Social Mobility Impact Partner Workshop 13 March 2017 Current Research The impact of parental wealth on childhood outcomes • Is parental wealth related to childhood outcomes? • Housing and financial wealth • Children’s mental health, cognitive ability and physical health • How does the effect of wealth compare to that of household income? • Do the results vary across the three childhood outcomes? Why might we expect wealth to affect children? “Wealth could be a more accurate indicator of longer term economic resources of the family and a family’s access to opportunities and advantages” (Oliver and Shapiro, 1995) • Consumption • Material deprivation from low income can result poor nutrition, unsafe environments, lack of educational resources etc • Longer term investment • Housing wealth allows families to live in more desirable areas, higher performing schools or to fund education and long-term resources • Security and empowerment • Protection from day to day stress and anxiety, Income shocks e.g. job loss, health • ‘Conspicuous consumption’ – alleviate class anxiety, increase prestige, aspirations and expectations, acceptance peers • Family characteristics • Behaviours e.g. postponement of consumption, financial discipline and long term planning Wealth, family SES and child outcomes (all age11) 160000 140000 Perman 120000 Total Housing Financial Current ent Cognitive 100000 wealth wealth wealth income income ability SDQ Total wealth 80000 (median) Housing wealth 0.918 60000 Financial wealth 40000 (median) Financial wealth 0.617
    [Show full text]