Comment by eslaught
2 years ago
Has anyone done anything like this for historical time periods? I realize the data is inherently sparse, but I'd be curious to see what the results would look like in 1900, 1800, 1700, 1600, etc.
My impression of the data is that, actually, we're doing pretty well with social mobility. Not perfectly by any means, and there is lots of room to improve. But as compared to (I think) just about any historical period, I think the graphs would be even more skewed. I'm fairly certain that as a medieval peasant, there were basically no viable routes to improving your lot (and even the word "lot" betrays the assumptions of the time), and so acceptance was the only viable route (violent rebellions excepted).
We are indeed doing well by historical standards. Looking back to Dickensian times, for example, those at the lowest echelons of society were lucky to make it to their teenage years at all! Infant and child mortality was far higher than it is today. And for those (who were poor and who lacked supportive parents) that lived to 13+, the majority had received little or no schooling, were virtually guaranteed to be illiterate, had likely already lost close family / friends, had likely already been employed in slave-like conditions, had likely already lived a life of crime out of necessity, and were likely to be incarcerated or executed in their lifetime.
Not that any of that means we can't do better today. We can and we should.