Unless I am reading the article wrong, that says that children of high income earners do better on the SAT, and that high income parents spend a lot on education.
I don't see anything about the correlation between parent income and child income.
I don't see anything about the correlation between parent income and child income.
"On graduation, many members of America’s future elite will head for the law firms, banks and consultancies where starting salaries are highest."
Here are some more explicit articles on the phenomenon:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/rich-peo...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11763836/Wealthy-pare...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/upshot/rich-children-and-p...
If you'd like to read a study on it ("Poor Little Rich Kids? The Determinants of the Intergenerational Transmission of Wealth"), you can do so here:
Here's another from Pew:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-repo...
If you want more information, google "social mobility united states", "intergenerational mobility united states", and read "Twilight of the Elites" and "The Son also Rises."
The Atlantic article just quotes the IZA article, which is about wealth transfer in Sweden, not income. Wealth is heavily affected by spending habits; income less so. And t Telegraph and NY Times articles don't offer anything concrete on the subject.
The Pew source does address the subject. The key part is:
> Approximately half of parental income advantages are passed on to children. The IGE [intergenerational elasticity], when averaged across all levels of parental income, is estimated at 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women.
(That means that if someone earns $40k above average, their children can be expected to earn $20k above average.)
In comparison, IGE in UK is 0.5, France is 0.41, and Denmark is 0.15. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Intergen...
IGE studies are somewhat scarce, but that's no excuse for the original NY Times making a bunch of unsubstantiated implications.