Full Twitter thread unrolled -> https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1792267464258048408

This person basically uses a bunch of graphs to argue that status of elite groups persist under even the most extreme cases. For example, the elites targeted in the PRC and the Soviet Union bounced back in elite status after a generation or two, how many elite southern planter families regained their status after the Civil War, how formally interned Japanese Americans reached the same homeownership rate as the non-interned Japanese Americans after a decade, etc.

But then they suggest that

So status persists throughout history even in the most extreme scenarios. What explains this? Genes play a major role. Consider how status persists when the status is accurized purely through chance.

Is this really a reasonable conclusion to draw? I saw one tweet criticizing this, saying

this information is very interesting, but it's nonsense to think this implies genetics/talent/effort causes success. i see this as evidence that social/human capital is persistent and important for economic development, so inequality on this dimension breeds economic inequality https://x.com/leonveliezer/status/1792413175301935124

Which seems like a good objection to me.

What do you all think?

  • HeavenAndEarth [she/her]
    ·
    7 months ago

    That graph is interesting but I think it's beside the point for this discussion. The question is not the level of income inequality but which families occupy the high status positions/accumulate the most wealth in a given society. In the case of China, 'elite' simply refers to the families that had status/wealth before the Cultural Revolution, lost it for a generation during the CR, and somehow got it back a generation afterwards.