Gregory Clark on Social Mobility, Migration, and Assortative Mating (Live at Mercatus) - Conversations with Tyler Recap

Podcast: Conversations with Tyler

Published: 2025-02-19

Duration: 1 hr 23 min

Summary

In this episode, Tyler engages with economic historian Gregory Clark to discuss the complexities of social mobility, asserting that it has remained relatively static over centuries despite improvements in living standards. Clark argues that both historical and contemporary data indicate little change in social mobility across societies like England and Denmark.

What Happened

Tyler welcomes Gregory Clark, recognized as a leading economic historian, to discuss his views on social mobility and migration. Clark's notable works, including 'A Farewell to Alms' and 'The Sun Also Rises,' delve into the nuances of social mobility, which he believes has not changed significantly over the last 300 years. Tyler challenges Clark's perspective, suggesting that a broader definition of social mobility—considering improved living conditions—might indicate higher mobility than Clark acknowledges.

The conversation reveals a fundamental disagreement between Tyler and Clark regarding the metrics of social mobility. While Tyler emphasizes absolute living standards and the improved freedom of life compared to previous generations, Clark maintains that relative rankings and the stability of social positions remain critical indicators. He argues that both historical and modern societies, such as Denmark and Britain, display comparable levels of immobility, countering the perception that Denmark is more mobile. Clark's data suggests that despite the cultural and institutional differences, social outcomes are still heavily influenced by one's origins, reinforcing the idea that true meritocracy, as he claims, was achieved much earlier than expected.

Key Insights

• Social mobility has shown little change over centuries, according to Gregory Clark.
• Absolute living standards have improved, but relative rankings remain static.
• Cultural perceptions of mobility can differ significantly from actual social outcomes.
• Migration can enhance material welfare but does not necessarily alter relative social positions.

Key Questions Answered

What are Gregory Clark's views on social mobility?

Gregory Clark argues that rates of social mobility have been surprisingly static, asserting that if we look back to medieval England, social mobility rates were just as high as they are today. He emphasizes that while people may have improved living standards, the relative rankings—how well individuals do compared to their parents—have not significantly shifted over the past 300 years.

How does Tyler challenge Clark's perspective on social mobility?

Tyler challenges Clark's focus on relative ranking by suggesting that many people are more concerned with their absolute living standards and the quality of life they experience compared to their parents. He proposes that social mobility should also include the improvements in freedom and living conditions that have occurred over time, which he believes are substantial.

What does Clark say about Denmark's social mobility?

Clark notes that social mobility rates in Denmark are not higher than those in Britain, despite the common perception that Denmark is a more mobile society. He highlights that factors such as schooling and social connections do not notably alter the outcomes for individuals, and that one's social position remains heavily influenced by their familial background, similar to Britain.

What role does migration play in social mobility according to Clark?

Clark acknowledges that migration can significantly increase material welfare for individuals, citing examples of families moving from places like India to the United States. However, he also points out that such migrations do not necessarily change one's relative social position, indicating that underlying societal structures still play a powerful role in determining social outcomes.

What is Clark's perspective on meritocracy?

Clark posits that a form of meritocracy was achieved much earlier than many would expect, suggesting that social positions are primarily influenced by genetic factors and randomness. He argues that by the 1700s, England had already achieved a status quo where inherited conditions played a crucial role in determining social outcomes, challenging the notion that modern societies are more meritocratic than their historical counterparts.