Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Social Stratification and Mobility

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rssm

Intergenerational income mobility table revisited: A trajectory

group perspective☆
Xi Song a, *, Emma Zang b, Kenneth C. Land c, Boyan Zheng d
a
Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, USA
b
Departments of Sociology and Biostatistics, Yale University, USA
c
Department of Sociology, Duke University, USA
d
Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There is a long history of studying intergenerational mobility using mobility tables or transition matrices. This
Income trajectory approach has two potential limitations: each generation is typically divided into several equally sized income
Mobility table groups based on percentile ranking to create ad-hoc social classes or into predetermined broad occupational
Intergenerational mobility
groups, and inter- and intragenerational changes in social class are not jointly analyzed. To address these lim­
Gender
itations, we construct intergenerational income mobility tables using an alternative, group-based trajectory
approach to determine the number of socioeconomic groups and characterize the development of social status
over the course of individuals’ working lives. Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (1968–2017),
we show intergenerational differences in income dynamics as each generation’s life-cycle profile unfolds. Spe­
cifically, parents and offspring who, based on their average household incomes, belong to different income strata
may have similar working life-course income trajectory patterns. As a result, by focusing exclusively on the
average income levels, studies using income quintiles for mobility tables may underestimate intergenerational
income associations.

1. Introduction
Social scientists and policymakers have long been interested in the
degree to which economic inequality at one point in time affects future
inequality, both within and across generations. Income, like many other
social, behavioral, and biological characteristics, evolves over the life
course (Elder, 1985;Elder, 1998; Mayer, 2009). An age-income profile
features a developmental trajectory, which typically trends upward in
the early working-life years, until it reaches a plateau that remains flat or
even declines thereafter. This view of life-span development is expressed
in numerous theoretical and empirical studies on the relationship be­
tween life-cycle income and intracohort inequality (Carroll, 1997;
Cheng, 2014; Cunha et al., 2006; Dannefer, 1987; Hall, 1978; Heckman,
1976). Some recent studies have begun to incorporate this view into the
study of intergenerational mobility, showing the association between
family background and the development of intragenerational income
trajectories (Curry et al., 2022; Gabay-Egozi & Yaish, 2019; Hällsten &
Yaish, 2020; Yaish et al., 2021). However, few studies have investigated
life-course earnings patterns across two or more generations. The only
exception, to our knowledge, is Cheng and Song (2019), which exam­
ined how offspring resemble their parents in terms of characteristics of
income trajectories, such as initial position, growth rate, changes in
growth rate, and volatility. Their approach follows the gradational view
in the study of social mobility, which represents social positions with a
unidimensional, continuous measure and assumes that parents pass on
their social (dis)advantages to their offspring in a gradational form of

☆
We are grateful to Deirdre Bloome, Allison Dunatchik, Laura Bellows, Siwei Cheng, Linda K. George, Christina M. Gibson-Davis, Wen Fan, Bobby Jones, Scott M.
Lynch, Seth G. Sanders, Yu Xie, Hui Zheng, and the RSSM editor, Meir Yaish, for their helpful comments and suggestions; Xia Zheng for outstanding research
assistance. Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at the 2017 Population Association of America annual meeting in Chicago, IL, the Sociology Department
Colloquium at the University of Pennsylvania, the Social Demography Seminar at Harvard University, the Intergenerational Mobility and Income Inequality
Workshop at the University of Haifa, and the 2018 American Sociological Association annual meeting in Philadelphia, PA. Any remaining errors are the sole re­
sponsibility of the authors. Send correspondence to Xi Song, Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xisong@upenn.edu (X. Song).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2022.100713
Received 3 May 2020; Received in revised form 27 June 2022; Accepted 30 June 2022
Available online 12 July 2022
0276-5624/Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
X. Song et al.
income, occupational prestige, or socioeconomic standing (Davis, 1927;
Duncan, 1961; Ganzeboom et al., 1989; Treiman, 1977; Hauser &
Featherman, 1977; Hauser & Warren, 1997; Hodge et al., 1964; Jonsson
et al., 2009; Nakao & Treas, 1994; Nam & Powers, 1983; Svalastoga,
1959; Weeden & Grusky, 2012).
Contrary to this gradational approach, another line of research has
proposed a class- or group-based view of social positions, which focuses
on group heterogeneity in occupation, education, and income strata
across generations. A socioeconomic group refers to the aggregation of
inherently different individuals that are sufficiently similar with respect
to economic positions, social status, life styles, consumption behaviors,
and culture so as to be balkanized into discrete categories that are
relatively homogeneous within classes but qualitatively different be­
tween classes (e.g., Edwards, 1938; Erikson et al., 1979; Glass, 1954;
Hauser, 1980; Lipset & Bendix, 1959; Sorokin, 1959; van et al., 2002;
van et al., 2011; Weeden & Grusky, 2005; Wright, 1997). Previous
studies have widely adopted this approach to study intergenerational
mobility matrices using either occupational classes (e.g., Blau & Duncan,
1967; Breen, 2004; Hout, 1983; Jonsson et al., 2009) or the quartiles of
the parent’s and child’s earnings (Bütikofer et al., 2018; Chetty et al.,
2014; Mitnik et al., 2015), also see a review of Black and Devereux
(2011). This group-based approach, however, has not been incorporated
into the study of intergenerational associations of intragenerational
mobility.
To address this gap in the literature, we examine the relationship
between parents’ and offspring’s income trajectories across various
identified trajectory groups. In contrast to a large body of mobility
research that summarized the strength of intergenerational income
persistence using intergenerational elasticity (Becker & Tomes, 1986;
Behrman & Taubman, 1985; Bowles, 1972; Corak, 2006; Sewell &
Hauser, 1975; Mazumder, 2005; Solon, 1992; Zimmerman, 1992), we
rely on a set of mobility tables, also known as transition matrices, which
characterize the intergenerational status transmission by associations in
categorical measures of social class between parents and offspring (Blau
& Duncan, 1967; Featherman & Hauser, 1978; Goodman & Kruskal,
1954). Mobility tables provide a simple and effective tool to test whether
intergenerational persistence of status is uniform across the income
distribution or whether it is stronger among the upper, lower, or middle
strata. In particular, the probability that a child will reach the top in­
come stratum has been increasingly referred to as measuring “a child’s
chances of ‘success’" (Chetty et al., 2014). However, few studies have
investigated whether mobility tables based on income strata from
single-year data can adequately reflect intergenerational associations,
given that income changes more frequently than occupation over an
individual’s life cycle (see a review in Sakamoto and Wang (2020).
The present study examines parents’ and offspring’s working life-
course income trajectories, in the form of cross-sectional income ob­
servations linked by transitions and fluctuations across successive years
(Bernhardt et al., 2001; Gottschalk & Moffitt, 2009; Haider, 2001;
Lemieux, 2006). We represent individual trajectories as consisting of a
small number of distinctive trajectory groups. Unlike the income strata
approach that rank-orders income groups along the vertical (stratifica­
tion) dimension, we characterize income trajectory groups that can be
both hierarchically and horizontally positioned (DiPrete, 1987; Gerber
& Cheung, 2008; Hatt, 1950; Morris & Murphy, 1959). For example, if
multiple income groups develop diverging trajectories over time, these
groups can be hierarchically ranked. By contrast, if multiple income
groups with different baseline incomes have trajectories that cross over
time, both vertical and horizontal boundaries between income groups
should be considered.
We then construct intergenerational mobility tables using parent and
offspring income trajectory groups. Unlike traditional mobility tables
based on income quintile or other percentile measures, in which all in­
come classes are of equal size arbitrarily, we estimate the sizes of income
trajectory groups from the data. This data-driven approach has the
advantage of reducing the heterogeneity of income trajectories within
2
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713
each income group and maximizing between-group differences.
Following Breiger (Breiger, 1981, 578), we consider the aggregation of
income groups in mobility tables as a fundamental theoretical issue – the
boundaries of these groups may vary across empirical contexts rather
than remain fixed as “an exogenous ‘given’ to be decided upon prior to
the construction of explicit models." We hypothesize that income tra­
jectory groups generated from boundary-detection algorithms (e.g.,
Cheng & Park, 2020) would show a higher degree of intergenerational
association than that from mobility tables using income strata.
Drawing on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics
(1968–2017), we show that intergenerational associations are signifi­
cantly higher in mobility tables constructed from income trajectory
groups than those from income strata based on multiple-year averaged
income. Parents and offspring may belong to different income strata, but
the shape of their income growth or year-to-year income change may be
similar. Some offspring may experience upward and downward mobility
due to periodic shocks while still exhibiting a high-level similarity to
their parents’ social statuses when their life-cycle income trajectory is
considered. Therefore, studies that rely on snapshot measures of income
for each generation may have underestimated intergenerational asso­
ciations, because they overlooked similarity between parents and
offspring in terms of status instability, working life career development,
and long-term income dynamics. We found similar results for male and
female offspring. Overall, the group-based approach, as an alternative to
the gradational approach, is useful for understanding linked trajectories
across generations. We call for future studies to construct mobility tables
based on trajectory groups rather than static or snapshot income mea­
sures to better uncover intergenerational associations in life-course in­
come patterns.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Previous research on intergenerational associations based on income
strata
Sociologists have long relied on mobility tables, also known as
transition matrices, to examine parent-offspring associations in cate­
gorical measures of social and income class (Hout, 1983). Typically,
mobility tables present parents’ classes as rows and offspring’s classes as
columns, giving an equal number of row and column categories.1 This
approach provides a simple and effective tool for examining whether
intergenerational persistence is uniform across an income distribution or
stronger among the rich, poor, or middle classes. Yet, it demonstrates
two potential limitations. First, research relying on a single-year or
snapshot measure may provide less reliable proxies for individuals’
lifetime income than work that relies on average income over multiple
years (Black & Devereux, 2011; Jenkins, 1987). The difference between
these two estimates can be attributed to attenuation bias, a statistical
problem caused by measurement error in an independent variable
(namely, parent’s income), and often yields an underestimate of true
intergenerational association. This problem was particularly salient in
mobility studies in the 1970s and 1980s, which used cross-sectional data
(Behrman & Taubman, 1985; Treiman & Hauser, 1977), and it became
less significant as longitudinal data that follow individuals over a period
of years became more readily available, along with, in the best case,
administrative data that provide more reliable income estimates (Chetty
et al., 2014).
The second limitation is that even where income measures contain
no measurement error, mobility table estimates may nevertheless be
inconsistent across studies due to the different ages at which the incomes
of parents and offspring are measured (Grawe, 2006; Lee & Solon, 2009;
Solon, 1999). In general, intergenerational associations are greatest
1
Mobility tables can be converted into transition matrices if the rows
represent intergenerational mobility probabilities rather than raw frequencies.
X. Song et al. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713

when both generations are measured in their 40s. The discrepancy be­
tween intergenerational mobility estimated during an individual’s 40s
and other ages is termed life-cycle bias. Previous studies have preferred
a measure of mobility that uses the income data available in the middle
of the life cycle, when incomes of both parents and offspring are good
predictors of their lifetime incomes (see the review in Black and
Devereux (2011). However, such estimates ignore the roles of income
growth and persistent or transitory income shocks in the intergenera­
tional transmission of status and do not take advantage of income data
that cover the entire working lifetimes of both generations.
This study takes a developmental approach to understanding inter­
generational income associations. Instead of averaging out the differ­
ences over multiple years of income, we represent income changes
throughout life as a developmental trajectory and assess the number of
distinct trajectory groups in a population for both the parents’ and the
offspring’s generations. We conceptualize the shape of the trajectories,
such as transitions and turning points, in individuals’ income develop­
ment as theoretically important as their overall levels of income (Cheng,
2014; Goldthorpe & McKnight, 2006; Yaish & Gabay-Egozi, 2019). For
example, income transitions in parents’ lives may not only entail
changes in their offspring’s life circumstances in childhood but may also
have important implications for offspring’s work and life trajectories in
adulthood. Parents with unstable income growth may have children
with similarly unstable career paths, resulting in intergenerational as­
sociations in not only the absolute level of economic status but also the
pattern of status changes, which may better reflect individual well-being
throughout the life course. Recent empirical evidence supports this hy­
pothesis. For example, Björkenstam et al. (2017) found that children
growing up in families with decreasing income trajectories are more
likely to develop psychiatric disorder. Cheng and Song (2019) estab­
lished the intergenerational resemblance of characteristics of income Fig. 1. Gradational Perspective vs. Group-Based Perspective in Summarizing
trajectories (e.g., initial value, growth rate, volatility, etc.) between the Population Trajectory Heterogeneity Notes: The graphs are plotted for illus­
trative purposes. In (A), we assume all the individual trajectories can be sum­
fathers’ and the sons’ generations. However, their variable-centered
marized by a mean trajectory. The parameters that characterize the growth
approach based on growth curve models is not suitable for identifying
curve of each individual trajectory (i.e., the intercept and slope) are drawn from
trajectory groups and building mobility tables. In the following section, a multivariate normal distribution. In (B), we assume the presence of several
we highlight the dynamics of income inequality from a trajectory subpopulations within the overall population. We estimate the mean growth
perspective, focusing on the description of variations in income growth trajectories for each of the subpopulations, as well as the subpopulation to
in a population based on trajectory groups. which an individual observation belongs.

2.2. A group-based view of income trajectories
To characterize income trajectories in a population, we distinguish
between two widely adopted perspectives in previous literature. In the
first approach, variations between individuals to an extreme
degree∣potentially due to distinct experiences in school, the labor mar­
ket, family, and other domains of life∣would result in a unique trajectory
for each individual (Budig & England, 2001; Fuller, 2008; Moen et al.,
1995; Waldfogel, 1997; Warren et al., 2002). The gradational or distri­
butional perspective considers individual trajectories as continuously
distributed across individuals and varying around a population mean,
often assumed to be drawn from a normal distribution. This approach
provides an effective way of summarizing a myriad of trajectories, if
they exist, each of which may differ in its beginning, ending, and
orderliness of development.
To illustrate the gradational perspective, Fig. 1A shows a hypothet­
ical population consisting of twelve individuals whose incomes from
ages 25–55 are depicted by a series of linear growth curves. Based on
observational data, it is impossible to estimate a unique slope for each
individual. However, if the slopes are assumed to be normally distrib­
uted, which is often true in large samples, variations in the slopes can be
identified. Therefore, the gradational perspective evaluates and explains
population heterogeneity in a quantitative manner, relying on a para­
metric distribution with unknown parameters to approximate the dis­
tribution of income trajectories in a population.
The second approach emphasizes categorical differences between
individuals, especially similarities in the shapes of trajectories that may
yield latent group memberships. The group-based trajectory approach,
first introduced by Nagin and Land (1993) and advanced by Nagin and
Tremblay (2005), provides a developmental way of thinking about the
progression of human behaviors over the life course and the identifi­
cation of distinctive trajectory groups in a population. The group-based
perspective, technically termed a finite-mixture, latent trajectory model
for the study of hidden heterogeneity within panel data, reveals the
qualitative dimension of individual differences. It assumes that a pop­
ulation consists of a finite number of subgroups that vary in size and
shape. The purpose of sociological research is to uncover the composi­
tion of such groups∣or at least the most essential differences between
groups, such as distinct growth patterns and relative size. Population
heterogeneity is thus expressed in terms of group differences, as opposed
to individual variations that constitute a continuous distribution, as in
the gradational approach. Although the group-based approach does not
require any parametric assumption about population parameters that
determine individual differences in development trajectories, its flexi­
bility does not come without cost. This approach approximates the
hidden heterogeneity of individuals in a general sample with a set of
relatively homogeneous groupings, which does not take into account the
possibility of intra-class variations. Fig. 1B provides a graphical illus­
tration of the group-based approach for a hypothetical population with
four latent groups, or ideal types of income trajectories. The growth
pattern of each individual may grow or decline in a nonlinear way or
remain relatively stable through time.
The group-based view of socioeconomic status is deeply rooted in the

3
X. Song et al.
sociological literature that emphasizes the role of social class or occu­
pations in predicting economic outcomes (Chan & Goldthorpe, 2007;
Hauser, 1998; Hauser & Warren, 1997; Sakamoto & Wang, 2020;
Weeden & Grusky, 2005). In particular, Goldthorpe and McKnight
(Goldthorpe & McKnight, 2006) offered a synthetic cohort approach to
show class differences—measured by the classic
Erikson-Goldthorpe-Portocarero class (EGP) scheme – in lifetime earn­
ings profiles, earnings stability, and earnings security. More recently, a
fast-growing body of literature has deployed longitudinal data to illus­
trate the strong associations between social class and long-term earnings
thanks to the increasing availability of linked administrative tax income
data from many countries (e.g., Kim et al., 2018; Westhoff et al., 2021;
Yaish & Kraus, 2020; Yaish et al., 2021). Following this line of work, the
present study highlights group differentiation among earnings trajec­
tories in a population.
Our approach, however, differs from these prior studies in several
regards. First, we identify social groups using earnings exclusively rather
than rely on occupation-based class classifications based on EGP (Yaish
& Kraus, 2020), three-digit detailed occupations (Kim et al., 2018), or
the European Socio-Economic Classification (Westhoff et al., 2021). As
discussed in the introduction, our data-driven approach does not rely on
a priori assumptions about earnings or income classes or distributions.
Second, our earnings groups are latent, consisting of individuals who
follow approximately the same developmental course. The group
assignment is probabilistic rather than deterministic, which means that
individuals are not assigned to a single trajectory group, but instead
show a mixture of probabilities of belonging to different groups. These
earnings groups thus should “not be regarded as concrete or real" or
directly observable in the real world (Nagin & Tremblay, 2005a). Third,
our definition of earnings groups relies on life-course repeated obser­
vations of earnings, which typically vary from year to year and follow a
parabolic curve with age. By contrast, most previous measures of social
class or occupation assume a time-invariant summary of socioeconomic
status over the life course.
Overall, the gradational and group-based perspectives provide two
different ways of representing individual heterogeneity in income tra­
jectories in a population. There is an ongoing historical debate about
which view provides a better description of the social world (Bauer &
Curran, 2003; Maughan, 2005; Nagin & Tremblay, 2005a; Nagin and
Tremblay, 2005; Raudenbush, 2005; Sampson & Laub, 2003; Sampson
and Laub, 2005). As Nagin and Tremblay (2005b), p.147) argued, “the
answer to which method is preferable will depend upon the specific
problem setting and on matters of taste concerning the most effective
way of communicating statistical findings." We do not intend to adju­
dicate between these two perspectives. Instead, we show that the
group-based perspective, which has not been the focus of the existing
literature on intergenerational mobility, reveals new evidence of het­
erogeneity in mobility opportunities among offspring whose parents
have experienced divergent income trajectories over the life course.
2.3. A dual trajectory approach to intergenerational income mobility
A sizable literature has relied on the group-based trajectory approach
to assess the progression of psychosocial behaviors, criminality, and
disease across life stages and to identify groups of individuals with
similar trajectories over the course of their lifetimes (D’Unger et al.,
1998; Hamil-Luker et al., 2004; Mustillo et al., 2003; Nagin and Trem­
blay, 2005; Willson & Shuey, 2016). We incorporate this developmental
perspective into the study of intergenerational social mobility, with a
particular emphasis on the link between income dynamics across gen­
erations. This approach departs from previous studies of intergenera­
tional income mobility in two ways. First, our analyses exploit the
longitudinal characteristics of income data, rather than relying on a
snapshot observation or a short-term average over multiple observation
years. Although earlier studies have suffered from a lack of adequate
data (Becker & Tomes, 1986; Behrman & Taubman, 1985), more
4
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713
effective income panel data should be able to capture both the perma­
nent and the transient aspects of the economic status of an individual
(Friedman, 1957). Instead of focusing on the overall economic status of
parents and offspring, a static indicator of family advantages, a trajec­
tory approach illustrates the dynamic advantages that families have,
reflected by income growth accumulated throughout the life course of
each generation.
Second, this approach provides a rich yet accessible summary of the
similarity in income dynamics across two generations. Most prior studies
have assessed intergenerational income correlations in a population
with a single number, whether it be a measure of intergenerational
elasticity, a rank-rank slope, or a copula-based measure (Chetty et al.,
2014; Fox et al., 2015; Jäntti & Jenkins, 2013; Mitnik et al., 2015).
These measures are often applied to all population members, ignoring
potential heterogeneity in intergenerational income correlations across
subpopulations. The dual trajectory approach describes the income se­
ries of both parents and offspring in the form of trajectory groups and
estimates the linkage across generations with an array of mobility
probabilities. This approach resembles that of occupational mobility
tables (Hout, 1983; Torche, 2015), except that in this study, we deter­
mine an individual’s group membership from empirical data rather than
predetermining it using quintiles or other percentile measures of
household income (Chetty et al., 2014; Jäntti et al., 2006; Mazumder,
2008). Two mobility tables may be identical in terms of the mobility
probabilities found between all possible pairs of income classes, while
differing in the sizes of the income groups. Mobility tables that are
constructed on income quintiles assume that income groups are uni­
formly distributed across generations. We put this assumption into
question and test whether groups with varying sizes can better capture
the parent-offspring resemblances in life-course income patterns.
3. Analytical strategy
3.1. Models
A group-based trajectory model is a special class of mixture models
that provide representation of population heterogeneity over a devel­
opmental course with a finite number of hypothetical classes. We denote
the income sequences from (standardized) age 0 to age T as Y1 = {yi0 ,
yi1 , ..., yiT1 } for the parent generation and Y2 = {yi0 , yi1 , ..., yiT2 } for the
offspring generation. The number of unique trajectory subgroups for
each generation is assumed as M. It is arguably reasonable to assume
that the number of trajectory groups does not change across generations.
If we allow the number of groups to vary across generations, it is difficult
to tell whether differences between traditional percentile-based mobility
tables and our trajectory group-based mobility tables are due to different
numbers of groups or different group sizes, or both. For each parent-
offspring pair, the likelihood of observing the income sequences {Y1,
Y2} is specified as follows:
M ∑
∑ M
P(Y1 , Y2 ) = πk|j πj pj (Y1 )pk (Y2 ) (1)
j=1 k=1
where the conditional probability πk∣j refers to the mobility probability
of moving from trajectory group j in the parent generation to trajectory
group k in the offspring generation. This conditional probability, also
known as transition probability, provides the basis for describing the
mobility table. If the trajectory group for Y2 is independent of the tra­
jectory group for Y1 in the parent generation, then the realization of the
underlying social process is known as “perfect mobility" (Powers and Xie
2008: 69–77). The marginal probability πj refers to the probability of
membership in each of the J groups for each individual in the parent
generation. The term pj(Y1) denotes the probability of observing the
income trajectory Y1, if a parent’s group membership is j, and pk(Y2) is
the probability of observing Y2, if the offspring’s group membership is k.
The sequential realization of income over age is expressed as a joint
X. Song et al.
probability for each generation:
∏
T1 ∏
T2
pj (Y1 ) = pj (yit ) and pk (Y2 ) = pk (yit ) (2)
t=0 t=0
To model the evolution of income over working-life ages, we assume
that the income equation of the logarithm of Yit takes a second-order
polynomial function form. This modeling approach captures potential
nonlinear changes in individuals’ income over time. The model is
specified as follows:
log(yit ) = βj0 + βj1 ⋅t + βj2 ⋅t2 + ϵit (3)
where β0 is the intercept coefficient; β1 and β2 are the slope coefficients;
and ϵit is an error term that is independently and identically distributed
with a mean of 0 and a variance of σ 2 among individuals in the parent
generation. The probability of observing yit, namely pj(yit), is estimated
from the probability density of the normal distribution. Models are
estimated with a censored normal distribution because our data include
only positive income observations.
This method is one way of identifying the age-sequenced trajectories
for individuals’ income. Other modeling approaches, including the
optimal matching analysis (Aisenbrey and Fasang, 2010), latent class
analysis (Collins and Lanza, 2010), and the growth mixture model
(Muthén, 2004), are also feasible. Warren et al. (2015) discuss how the
results may sometimes depend on the methods being used. A major
reason for these discrepancies is their different underlying assumptions.
For example, in contrast to the group-based approach, some previous
research has relied on a continuous approach, in which each individual
is represented by a unique trajectory in a growth curve model (Budig &
England, 2001; Fuller, 2008; Moen et al., 1995; Waldfogel, 1997; War­
ren et al., 2002). The continuous approach considers individual trajec­
tories as continuously distributed across individuals and varying around
a population mean, often assumed to be drawn from a normal distri­
bution. Building upon this approach, Cheng and Song (2019) developed
a linked trajectory mobility model (LTMM) to show variations in
intergenerational elasticity across ages and life stages of parents and
offspring, respectively, and the period during which they overlap.
The basic model of equations (1)–(3) describes the long-term course
of economic outcomes by assigning individuals to different trajectory
groups. We then model the relationship between the assigned trajectory
group membership and parents’ and offspring’s social and demographic
characteristics (covariates) using an ordinal logistic model.2 Formally,
the cumulative probability that a parent belongs to the trajectory group
smaller than j is modeled as a function of covariates, Z; that is,
exp(θ0j + Z⋅θ)
P(Y1 ≤ j|Z) = . (4)
1 + exp(θ0j + Z⋅θ)
We model the probability that a child belongs to trajectory group lower
than k given that the father in group j as
P(Y2 ≤ k|W, Y1 = j) =
exp(γ0k + W⋅γ)
(5)
1 + exp(γ0k + W⋅γ)
where covariates W may include the covariates of parents, offspring, or
both. The coefficients θ0j and γ0j refer to threshold cut-points that divide
the whole latent space of y into J categories, and other θ and γ refer to
the coefficients of the covariates. The transition probability P(Y2 = k∣Y1,
W) can be estimated as the difference between two cumulative proba­
bilities of P(Y2 ≤ k∣Y1, W) and P(Y2 ≤ k − 1∣Y1, W). If the covariate wi
has no impact on transition probability, this implies that
2
As discussed earlier, these trajectory groups indicate nominal rather than
ordinal differences. We choose ordinal logistic regressions here because we
noticed that the trajectory groups are vertically positions. An ordered logistic
model thus imposes fewer parameters than a multinomial logistic model.
5
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713
intergenerational associations in income trajectories are not explained
by the covariate of interest. We also construct intergenerational income
trajectory mobility tables using the predicted group memberships of
parents and offspring. Each person is assigned to a unique group based
on the one with the highest probability.
4. Data, sample, and measures
4.1. Data
We use data from PSID, a large-scale longitudinal social survey that
has been widely used in previous studies of intergenerational economic
mobility. The data provide an excellent sample for studying income
dynamics within and between generations due to its longitudinal and
genealogical design. In 1968, the PSID began with over 18,000 house­
hold members of roughly 5000 families. The study followed all of the
individuals and their offspring, regardless of later household composi­
tion, annually until 1997 and biennially thereafter. The socioeconomic
characteristics of this sample, especially detailed income information,
are gathered in each wave of the survey and are linked across years. The
PSID project also provides a Family Identification Mapping System tool
that allows users to link family members across generations. Our anal­
ysis draws on all waves of the PSID data from 1968 to 2017.
4.2. Sample
The PSID contains two distinct samples: SRC is a cross-sectional,
nationally representative household sample using a stratified multi­
stage selection of the civilian non-institutional population of the United
States; SEO is a national sample of low-income families with heads that
were younger than 60 years in 1968 and thus implies unequal selection
probabilities. Following existing practice in the income mobility litera­
ture (e.g., Solon, 1992), we restrict our analyses to the SRC sample.
Our final sample includes 2535 sons, 2537 daughters, and their
parents. We focus on the prime working age of both parents and
offspring, namely, from ages 25–55, excluding ages when workers are
too young or too old, as income data for those years may be subject to
substantial year-to-year variation. If individuals’ family income histories
contain missing data for some years, we delete those years from the
analyses. The sample also excludes observations from individuals who
were in school, out of the labor force, or unemployed in the calendar
year. We drop a parent-offspring dyad if there are no valid income data
for either generation.
4.3. Measures
Income. The key outcome variable is the age-specific logarithm of
annual family income for PSID parents and offspring who are household
heads or wives. We measure parents’ household income by father’s age.
Single-parent families where the fathers are not PSID sample members
(either because they were not living in the original family unit at the
time of the first interview in 1968 or they were not born into PSID
households) may have incomplete information. In such cases, we impute
the missing family income using only mothers’ income. If the father’s
age is also missing, we create age-specific parental income based on the
mother’s age. In the parent-son sample, 2909 of 45,183 parent-year
observations have family income from mother’s income, and 343 out
of 2535 sons have no father’s income information for all survey years. In
the parent-daughter sample, 3416 out of 45,311 person-year observa­
tions have family income imputed by the mother’s income, and 350 out
of 2537 daughters have only mothers’ information in the data.
Family income is defined as the sum of all taxable income (including
labor income, income from assets, interests, and dividend income) and
all transfer income (such as social security income) from the head of the
household, the spouse, and other members of the household. All income
variables are converted to 2016 dollars using the Bureau of Labor
X. Song et al. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713

Statistics Consumer Price Index. We follow Card and DiNardo (Card & 5. Results
DiNardo, 2002) in replacing top-coded income with 1.4 * $Y if the top
value is $Y. Because PSID data were gathered annually at first and 5.1. Descriptive statistics
biennially after 1997, we lack income information for half of all years
after this date. We decided to use family income rather than individual Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the analytic sample used
income as the former is more frequently used in previous studies on to estimate our income trajectory models. We have, on average, 20.2
intergenerational income mobility. We discuss results using individual observations per parent and 12.3 observations per son or daughter. The
labor income and size-adjusted family income (using the square root of sample includes roughly the same number of observations for sons and
family size) in the robustness checks section and the online Appendix. daughters because we use family income rather than individual income,
Age. Age is reported by respondents for each wave of the survey but even though women’s labor force participation is lower than that of
may not be consistently reported. We first convert individuals’ ages into men. In addition, we have more person-year observations for the parent
their birth years and created a consistent age measure, using the survey generation than the offspring generation, for two reasons. First, the PSID
year minus the mode of the birth year measure for each person. We then changed its sampling schedule from every year to every other year after
restrict our sample to individuals aged 25–55 years. For estimations of 1997, meaning that data for parents’ incomes are provided on a yearly
parents’ income trajectory by age, we use the father’s age as the basis before that time, while offspring’s incomes are largely reported
benchmark. Mother’s age is used for single-parent families in which biennially. The larger number of observations from parents than from
father’s age is missing in all survey years. offspring in the longitudinal sample results from the more complete data
Covariates. We include race, education, birth cohorts, and occupa­
tions of parents and offspring as predictors for income trajectory group
membership. Race is measured as a binary variable, with 0 indicating Table 1
Whites and 1 indicating Black Americans and other races (fewer than 50 Sample Characteristics.
cases). Education was measured as the respondents’ highest years of Parent Son Daughter
schooling completed. About 10 parents, 7 sons, and 5 daughters have Variables
missing information on education. For simplicity, we impute these Log family income aged 25–29 (in 10.943 10.970 10.924
missing values with the sample mean. Birth cohorts include five 2016 dollars)
decennial birth groups for each generation. The parent cohorts include (0.656) (0.757) (0.788)
Log family income aged 30–34 (in 11.075 11.130 11.090
1910–1929, 1930–1939, 1940–1949, 1950–1959, and 1960–1972, and
2016 dollars)
the cohorts for offspring include 1920–1949, 1950–1959, 1960–1969, (0.690) (0.784) (0.842)
1970–1979, and 1980–1990. We control for birth cohorts, assuming that Log family income aged 35–39 (in 11.207 11.229 11.189
income levels vary by birth cohort, but due to the insufficient sample 2016 dollars)
size, we do not allow the number of trajectory groups or the shape of (0.699) (0.868) (0.858)
Log family income aged 40–44 (in 11.310 11.320 11.262
trajectory groups to vary by birth cohort. We also develop a measure of
2016 dollars)
occupation for each generation based on the occupational class that is (0.741) (0.906) (0.877))
most frequently reported by respondents for all waves. These classes Log family income aged 45–49 (in 11.321 11.344 11.228
include six categories: professional, technical, and kindred workers; 2016 dollars)
(0.808) (0.935) (0.994)
managers, officials, and proprietors; self-employed; clerical and sales
Log family income aged 50–55 (in 11.282 11.329 11.195
workers; craftsmen, foremen, operatives, and kindred workers; and la­ 2016 dollars)
borers and service workers (including farmers and farm laborers). These (0.838) (0.978) (1.064)
categories are defined in the 1968 occupational variable. The 1968 PSID Age 40.505 35.428 35.412
occupational scheme does not differentiate between service workers and (8.697) (7.961) (7.957)
Years of Education 13.667 14.092 14.431
farm laborers. We combine laborers and service workers with the
(2.542) (2.149) (2.086)
occupational group of farmers and farm managers due to the small Non-Whites (%) 12.017 11.613 11.953
number of observations in the latter group. We convert data for all Birth cohort (%)
subsequent years into the 1968 occupational scheme. Although occu­ 1914–1929 24.893 – –
1930–1939 16.270
pation is obtained at multiple time points in the PSID, we measure it as a – –
1930–1949 – 7.574 5.164
time-constant rather than a time-varying variable due to the high per­ 1940–1949 24.073 – –
centage of missing data and inconsistent coding schemes.3 1950–1959 27.741 24.536 25.030
1960–1969 – 21.657 21.797
1960–1972 7.023 – –
1970–1979 – 24.970 24.281
1980–1987 – 21.262 23.729
Occupation Class (%)
Professional, technical and 14.670 17.459 30.781
kindred workers
Managers, officials and proprietors 10.339 11.380 8.672
Self-employed 16.855 12.315 8.516
Clerical and sales workers 9.871 10.366 28.125
3
The PSID changed its occupational coding measures several times over the Craftsmen, foremen, operatives, 32.150 31.878 5.547
course of the data collection. These changes introduce measurement errors and kindred workers
potential bias to the mobility estimates. For example, no three-digits occupa­ Laborers and service workers, 16.114 16.602 18.359
tions were collected until the 1980 s. Between 1981 and 2011, occupations farmers and farm laborers, other
reported by respondents were coded into Census occupations, with several occupations, and missing
# Persons 2563 2535 2537
coders assigning codes independently and without information on prior work
# Person-Years 51,757 31,205 31,099
histories. Since 2013, the PSID switched to dependent coding, which relied on
reporting of respondents who changed jobs between adjacent years and there Data sources: Panel Study of Income Dynamics (SRC Sample), 1968–2017. Notes:
was no reporting of respondents who stayed in the same job. Jarvis and Song Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. Some families may have
(Jarvis and Song, 2017) showed that due to the occupational coding scheme multiple offspring in the sample. Their statistics are calculated by treating them
changes, mobility rates are significantly lower after 2013 compared to previous as multiple families. Age-specific family income and birth cohort for the parent
periods. sample are calculated from the age of fathers.

6
X. Song et al. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713

on the income history for the parent’s generation. Second, because many Table 2
offspring who were born or grew up in PSID households are only in the Finite-mixture five-group dual trajectory model coefficients based on family
early- or mid-career stage, their income trajectory data may be right- income across two generations.
censored.4 Table 1 shows that income for each generation increases first Parent-Son Dyads Parent-Daughter Dyads
with age and then reaches a plateau around ages 45–49 or declines Parent Son Parent Daughter
slightly from that point until retirement age is reached. The average ages
Group 1 Intercept 9.785*** 9.653*** 9.804*** 9.426***
of sons and daughters in the sample are around 35, whereas the parents’
(0.024) (0.046) (0.028) (0.038)
ages are around 41. More than 90% of the parents in the sample were Linear 0.013** -0.065*** 0.026*** -0.002
born between 1914 and 1959, and more than 90% of the sons and the (0.005) (0.009) (0.004) (0.008)
daughters were born between 1950 and 1987. The average years of Quadratic -0.001** 0.002*** -0.001*** 0.000
schooling are 13.7 for parents, 14.1 for sons, and 14.4 for daughters. The (0.0002) (0.0003) (0.0001) (0.0003)
Group 2 Intercept 10.580*** 10.337*** 10.650*** 10.265***
slightly higher average years of schooling for daughters than sons may (0.019) (0.028) (0.022) (0.033)
result from the expansion of higher education in the second half of the Linear 0.027*** 0.006 0.010** 0.020***
twentieth century, during which women, particularly White women, (0.003) (0.005) (0.003) (0.005)
caught up with or even surpassed White men in college completion Quadratic -0.001*** -0.001*** -0.001*** -0.001***
(0.00008) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0002)
(DiPrete & Buchmann, 2013). Because more than 60 % of the offspring
Group 3 Intercept 10.767*** 10.806*** 10.779*** 10.768***
in the sample were born after 1960, it is not surprising that we observe (0.016) (0.018) (0.015) (0.023)
slightly higher years of education among daughters. About 12 % of the Linear 0.047*** 0.022*** 0.039*** 0.027***
entire sample are Black Americans or of other races. Given that the (0.002) (0.003) (0.002) (0.003)
sample of Latino (Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican) households was Quadratic -0.001*** -0.001*** -0.001*** -0.001***
(0.00006) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0001)
not added to the PSID until the 1990 s, the intergenerational sample Group 4 Intercept 11.151*** 11.137*** 11.131*** 11.125***
analyzed in this study is mostly made up of White families. (0.013) (0.016) (0.014) (0.019)
Linear 0.045*** 0.044*** 0.043*** 0.045***
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.003)
5.2. Intragenerational trajectory patterns Quadratic -0.001*** -0.001*** -0.001*** -0.001***
(0.00006) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0001)
Group 5 Intercept 11.242*** 11.460*** 11.232*** 11.518***
Table 2 shows results from the five-group model. As discussed
(0.028) (0.024) (0.025) (0.023)
extensively in the literature (McLachlan & Peel, 2004; Muthén, 2004; Linear 0.095*** 0.090*** 0.097*** 0.071***
Nagin & Tremblay, 2005a,b; Nagin and Tremblay, 2005; Nylund et al., (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)
2007), the decision of model specification should depend on (1) the Quadratic -0.002*** -0.002*** -0.002*** -0.002***
substantive question being asked, (2) the availability of data, and (3) the (0.0001) (0.0002) (0.0001) (0.0002)
# Person- 50,789 31,205 51,535 31,099
performance of fit statistics and model diagnostics. We chose the best years
fitted model based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and # Persons 2535 2535 2537 2537
whether the predicted size of each class is greater than 2 % of the whole Log- -68,749 -68,749 -72,022 -72,022
sample (e.g., Paynter et al., 2015). We arrived at five trajectories likelihood
BIC (person-years) -69,065 -69,065 -72,339 -72,339
because the BIC for the best-fitted model is the largest among BICs for
Sigma 0.495 0.574 0.514 0.588
the best-fitted models with fewer than six groups.5 Although the BIC of (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)
the best-fitted model with six groups is slightly larger than that of our
Data sources: Panel Study of Income Dynamics (SRC Sample), 1968–2017.Notes:
final model with five groups, the predicted sample size in some trajec­
Sigma refers to the standard deviation of the normally distributed residual term
tory groups is smaller than 2 % for the models with six groups. There­
shown in Eq. 3. The models are described in Equations (1)–(3).*p < 0.05,
fore, we report the best-fitted model with five groups in our final results.
* * p < 0.01, * ** p < 0.001; two-tailed tests.
Substantively, five trajectory groups also make our results comparable
to previous findings from the analysis of income quintiles. Models with
inverted U, and career disruption groups (see Figure A1). Fig. 2 sum­
other numbers of groups are presented in Appendix Table A4.
marizes predicted income trajectories and their 95 % confidence in­
The slope coefficients defined in eq. 3 indicate the shape of each
tervals for each generation. The trajectories are distinct based on both
trajectory. If the coefficients for linear and quadratic terms are both
the baseline income and the pattern of change over time for both the
statistically significant, the group trajectory is characterized by a
parent and offspring generations. The five income groups are divided as
quadratic form. If only the intercept term is significant, such as the es­
follows: the lower class with no mobility (Group 1); the lower-middle
timate for Group 1 daughters, the trajectory remains almost flat with
class, with downward mobility (Group 2); the stable middle class
age. The intercept also represents the starting point (baseline economic
(Group 3); the upper-middle class, with some upward mobility (Group
status) of each trajectory group. Note that the groups are ordered from 1
4); and the upper-income class, with substantial upward mobility
(lowest) to 5 (highest) based on mean income between ages 25 and 55.
(Group 5). These patterns suggest that the level of income is associated
Similar to occupational classifications, income trajectory groups may
with intragenerational mobility opportunities. That is, high-income
not be strictly rank-ordered. The data may show crossovers between
groups are more likely to experience income increases over their life­
trajectories. Thus, instead of labeling the trajectory groups as low-,
time than their low-income counterparts.6
medium-, and high-income groups, we can describe the groups as stable
The estimated income trajectory groups are not equally distributed
low, monotonic increasing (or decreasing), early (or late) increasing,

4 6
The larger sample size for parents may introduce more year-to-year varia­
tion for the parent generation than the offspring generation. However, the
sample size may have a small effect on the trajectory estimation as Fig. 2 shows
highly similar trajectory patterns for the parent and offspring generations
(except for group 1).
5
We use the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) rather than the Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC) as the former is widely used in mobility studies for
model selection (Raftery, 1995).
Theoretically speaking, if we consider the combination of five income levels
(highest, upper middle, stable middle, lower middle, and lowest) and three
mobility patterns over the life course (no mobility, upward mobility, downward
mobility), there are 15 possible working life trajectories. However, the observed
data only show 5 out of the 15 possibilities. The absence of some groups, such
as lowest income class with substantial mobility or highest income class with
downward mobility suggest that the level of income is associated with mobility
opportunities.

7
X. Song et al. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713

Fig. 2. Predicted Family Income Trajectory Groups by Generation and Gender Data sources: Panel Study of Income Dynamics (SRC Sample), 1968–2017. Notes: We
describe the five income trajectory groups as the lower class with no or downward mobility (Group 1), lower-middle class with downward mobility (Group 2), stable
middle class (Group 3), upper-middle class with some upward mobility (Group 4), and upper class with substantial upward mobility (Group 5). The upper panel plots
changes in logged family income by parent’s and son’s ages. The lower panel plots changes in logged family income by parent’s and daughter’s ages. If father’s age is
available, we use father’s age as parent’s age. We divide each subsample into five latent trajectory groups and estimate the probability that each individual belongs to
each group. Individuals are assigned to a group based on the one with the highest probability. Numbers in the parentheses refer to the percentage of individuals in
each trajectory group.

across the population. For example, among the parents of PSID male
respondents, 5.4 % are in Group 1, 20.8 % are in Group 2, 34.7 % are in
Group 3, 33.6 % are in Group 4 %, and 5.5 % are in Group 5. Most
parents fall in the middle of the economic distribution, and fewer are
located at the bottom or the top. The graph shows a similar pattern for
the offspring generation: most offspring in Groups 2–4 experience no or
some mobility over the life course, and very few experience substantial
downward mobility (Group 1) or upward mobility (Group 5). A com­
parison of parents and offspring shows that the distribution of parents is
more right-skewed than that of their offspring, suggesting more mem­
bers of Groups 1 and 2 and fewer members of Groups 4 and 5 for parents
than offspring. For example, 13.4 % sons belong to the top income tra­
jectory group compared to only 5.5 % in the parent generation. The
estimated proportions of parents and offspring for each of the five
groups deviate significantly from the 20 % assumed in income analyses
using quintiles.
The intercept of the income trajectories (the baseline economic sta­
tus) of each income group is also worth noting. Overall, we find a lower
baseline income for offspring than for their parents in each group in
terms of absolute reference (inflation adjusted) dollar amount. A
possible explanation is that most individuals in the offspring generation
enter the labor market at an older age than their parents, leading the two
generations to be at different career stages at age 25. Due to the
expansion of higher education, many offspring were still in school at age
25 and had more years of schooling than their parents. In addition, the
gap in the starting income at age 25 among different trajectory groups is
larger for the offspring generation than for the parent generation, a
possible consequence of the growth of income inequality in recent de­
cades (Autor et al., 2008; Burkhauser et al., 2011; Kopczuk et al., 2010;
Piketty & Saez, 2003; Western et al., 2008).
The later-life income trajectories are even more divergent than the
different starting points for the five groups. Neither generation shows
trajectory crossovers, indicating that the trajectory groups that begin
with higher starting incomes in their early career years also show a
higher growth rate over time. In marked contrast to the small magni­
tudes of increase for Group 3, the log-transformed income for the Group

8
X. Song et al. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713

5 parents grew dramatically from roughly 11.24 at age 25–12.29 at age Table 3
55. The trajectory for the Group 5 offspring matches that of their par­ Ordinal logistic regression models for predicting group membership in the
ents, despite their lower starting point. Except for Group 1 offspring, the parent and offspring generations.
trajectories of all other groups drop over time, until around age 50. Independent variables Parents Sons Daughters
Changes in family income among lower-class offspring, especially Years of Education 0.347*** 0.253*** 0.264***
daughters, are consistently low over time. (0.020) (0.023) (0.023)
The results show almost no gendered pattern for income trajectory Occupation
when we examine family income rather than individual labor income. Professional, technical and kindred
workers (ref)
We report auxiliary analyses using labor income for each generation in
Managers, officials and proprietors 0.264† 0.630*** 0.438**
the discussion section. The differing labor income development of (0.156) (0.149) (0.153)
daughters relative to sons may reflect the complex interactions between Self-employed businessmen -0.362* -0.129 -0.227
women’s labor force participation, career choices, union formation, and (0.144) (0.150) (0.160)
parenthood. In particular, some working women may withdraw from Clerical and sales workers -0.758*** -0.151 -0.087
(0.164) (0.154) (0.107)
employment or switch to part-time jobs after marriage or after having Craftsmen, foremen, Operatives, kindred -0.618*** -0.099 -0.328†
children and may return to the workforce later in life. Changes in their workers
work schedules led to more fluctuation in their labor income than (0.135) (0.133) (0.183)
among men. Laborers and service workers, and -1.762*** -0.359* -0.536***
Farmers
(0.164) (0.143) (0.127)
5.3. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of individuals in Race (ref ¼ White) -1.433*** -0.524*** -0.748***
different income trajectory groups (0.129) (0.126) (0.123)
Birth Cohort
What factors, if any, distinguish parents and offspring within the 1910–1929 (ref) – –
– –
various trajectory groups? Using the models presented in Table 2, we 1930–1939 -0.136 – –
predict trajectory group memberships for each individual and his or her (0.109) – –
parents using ordinal logistic regressions to determine the association 1930–1949 – (ref) (ref)
between trajectory group memberships and covariates. Note that group –
1940–1949 -0.316**
identifications for individuals are probabilistic, but for the sake of – –
(0.111) – –
simplicity, we assign a unique group number to each person based on the 1950–1959 -0.410*** -0.172 -0.136
one with the highest probability. (0.109) (0.154) (0.178)
Results in Table 3 show that a one-year increase in a parent’s edu­ 1960–1972 -1.120*** – –
cation is associated with a 0.347 increase in their tendency (i.e., ordered (0.202) – –
1960–1969 -0.072 -0.256
log-odds) toward higher-income groups. We observe that Whites
–
– (0.156) (0.181)
working in professional and managerial occupations and born in an 1970–1979 – -0.073 -0.113
earlier birth cohort are associated with higher levels of income and – (0.154) (0.180)
greater upward mobility. For example, conditional on the other cova­ 1980–1990 – -0.427** -0.460*
(0.158) (0.181)
riates, for individuals whose parents were in clerical and sales occupa­ –
Parents’ Group Membership
tions, the odds of being in a higher-ranked group is 53 % (1 − e− 0.758) Group 1 (ref) –
lower than their counterparts whose parents were in professional and Group 2 – 1.027*** 0.941***
technical occupations. We also observe that achieving upward mobility – (0.187) (0.172)
and greater income over the life course is less likely for younger cohorts Group 3 – 1.873*** 1.750***
(0.189) (0.170)
than for older cohorts, a sign of declining returns to human capital
–
Group 4 – 3.121*** 2.490***
accumulation and productivity growth for recent cohorts. – (0.201) (0.177)
For the offspring generation, we control for the same set of covariates Group 5 – 3.520*** 4.087***
and income group membership of parents. The results show a clear – (0.263) (0.230)
Cut point 1 -0.076 1.256 1.599
gradient in the associations between parents’ income trajectory group
(0.315) (0.409) (0.404)
and offspring’s group. Relative to individuals with parents in Group 1, Cut point 2 2.335 3.29 3.313
individuals with parents in Group 5 are more likely to achieve a higher (0.313) (0.412) (0.407)
income class (odds ratios of e3.520 for sons and e4.087 for daughters), all Cut point 3 4.401 5.136 5.186
else being equal. Conditional on parents’ income group, the predictive (0.322) (0.419) (0.415)
Cut point 4 7.345 7.984 7.604
power of race, occupation, and birth cohort weakens, but does not
(0.341) (0.434) (0.427)
disappear, in explaining offspring’s income trajectory groups. Overall, N 2535 2535 2537
these covariates have similar explanatory power for both sons’ and Log likelihood -2935.063 -2935.063 -3056.1267
daughters’ life-course income development. We do not observe any Data sources: Panel Study of Income Dynamics (SRC Sample), 1968–2017. Notes:
covariate that only matters for sons but not daughters, or vice versa. We predict parents’ income trajectories using the parent-son sample. Similar
results are observed when the parent-daughter sample is used. The models are
5.4. Comparing income class mobility tables and trajectory group-based described in Equations (4)–(5).†p< 0.1, * p < 0.05, * * p < 0.01, * ** p < 0.001;
mobility tables two-tailed tests.

. Tables 4 and 5 show two sets of mobility transition matrices esti­
mated using the traditional income quintile method and the new dual
trajectory method, respectively. We constructed Table 4 using parents’
and offspring’s year-to-year family income averaged across available
years and divided each generation into five quintile groups. The esti­
mates shown on the diagonals are of special interest because they
measure the degree of intergenerational persistence.
Results using the income quintile method show that, on average,
both sons and daughters in Groups 2–4 are more mobile than those in
other Groups. The probabilities for intergenerational immobility in the
parent-son sample are 48.7 % for Group 1 % and 42.0 % for Group 5,
with 29.0 %, 25.8 %, and 26.2 % for Groups 2–4, respectively. The
probabilities in the parent-daughter sample are 44.9 % for Group 1 %
and 45.0 % for Group 5, with 22.8 %, 21.9 %, and 24.1 % for Groups
2–4, respectively. These results are consistent with the common view

9
X. Song et al. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713

Table 4 The transition matrices estimated from the dual trajectory modeling
Intergenerational mobility transition probability matrix estimated from income shown in Table 5 show different mobility patterns from the quintile
quintiles. results in Table 4. On average, sons born to parents in Groups 1 and 2 are
Son’s income quintile group more mobile than those born to other groups. The probabilities for
1 2 3 4 5 Total
intergenerational immobility in the parent-son sample are 30.7 % for
Group 1 % and 30.8 % for Group 2, with 39.5 %, 53.1 %, and 40.0 % for
Parent’s
Groups 3–5, respectively. The interaction between intra- and intergen­
Income
Quintile erational mobility suggests that the sons of parents who experience
Group upward mobility during their working lives are likely to inherit parents’
1 Bottom 48.7 24.3 13.6 10.1 3.4 100.0 acquired status advantages and remain in the same income origin class.
20 % The probabilities for intergenerational immobility in the parent-
2 Second 20.9 29.0 25.1 15.8 9.3 100.0
20 %
daughter sample suggest a similar pattern as those in the parent-son
3 Middle 13.2 20.3 25.8 22.9 17.8 100.0 sample. In general, we observe a higher level of intergenerational sta­
20 % tus persistence among groups that have relatively high income levels.
4 Fourth 9.3 17.0 19.9 26.2 27.6 100.0 The immobility rates are particularly high in the top income group
20 %
(Group 5): almost 58 % of daughters who grew up in top-income families
5 Top 20 7.9 9.5 15.6 25.1 42.0 100.0
% remain in the same income group. This percentage is higher in the
parent-daughter sample than in the parent-son sample. The mobility
Daughter’s income quintile group tables also show very little long-range mobility. There is almost no
1 2 3 4 5 Total mobility from Group 1 to Group 5 or vice versa for both sons and
Parent’s
Income
daughters.7
Quintile Previous studies have used the probability that a child reaches the
Group top quintile of the income distribution to indicate chances of success
1 Bottom 44.9 29.5 14.8 7.4 3.3 100.0 (Chetty et al., 2014; Mitnik et al., 2015). We compare our estimates with
20 %
prior work using different methods in Appendix Table A5. Most esti­
2 Second 24.4 22.8 24.0 20.8 7.9 100.0
20 % mates shown in Table 4 resemble those reported previously. A further
3 Middle 15.4 19.9 21.9 26.4 16.5 100.0 comparison between the dual trajectory mobility approach and the
20 % traditional income quintile approach shows a much lower percentage of
4 Fourth 10.3 15.2 23.1 24.1 27.3 100.0 upward mobility in the dual trajectory assessment. For example, the
20 %
5 Top 20 4.9 12.4 16.4 21.3 45.0 100.0
probability that offspring born into Group 2 enter Group 5 is about 8–9
% % in Table 4 and less than 3 % in Table 5. Therefore, the influence of the
birth lottery, namely, the income class to which a child is born, appears
Data sources: Panel Study of Income Dynamics (SRC Sample), 1968–2017. Notes:
larger when the parents’ income is measured by trajectory group rather
We divide each generation by gender into five equally-sized income quintile
groups. The mean income for each quintile group is reported in Appendix
than by quintile group.
Table A1. Next, we formally test whether intergenerational associations are

Table 5
Intergenerational mobility probability transition matrix estimated from predicted income trajectory groups.
Son’s income trajectory group

1 (lowest) 2 3 4 5 (highest)
4.1 % 14.8 % 28.2 % 39.5 % 13.4 % Total

Parent’s Income Trajectory Group

1 lower class w/ little mobility 5.4 % 30.7 34.7 23.3 10.4 1.0 100.0
2 lower-middle w/ downward mobility 20.8 % 6.0 30.8 39.8 20.5 2.8 100.0
3 stable middle class 34.7 % 2.2 11.3 39.5 41.0 6.0 100.0
4 upper-middle w/ some upward mobility 33.6 % 1.4 6.3 13.9 53.1 25.4 100.0
5 upper class w/ upward mobility 5.5 % 0.0 7.3 4.5 48.2 40.0 100.0

Daughter’s income trajectory group

1 (lowest) 2 3 4 5 (highest)
5.9 % 13.8 % 28.6 % 35.7 % 16.0 % Total
Parent’s Income Trajectory Group
1 lower class w/ little mobility 7.4 % 36.2 30.9 20.5 10.3 2.2 100.0
2 lower-middle w/ downward mobility 15.3 % 9.4 28.4 43.5 15.9 2.8 100.0
3 stable middle class 33.2 % 3.8 14.7 32.7 41.5 7.4 100.0
4 upper-middle w/ some upward mobility 36.2 % 1.2 6.2 24.6 44.9 23.1 100.0
5 upper class w/ upward mobility 7.9 % 1.4 0.8 9.0 31.3 57.5 100.0

Data sources: Panel Study of Income Dynamics (SRC Sample), 1968–2017. Notes: The transition matrices are estimated from the model presented in Table 2. The
trajectory groups are ranked from lowest to highest based on averaged income calculated from PSID respondents’ household income trajectories from age 25–55.

that the intergenerational persistence of social status is particularly
strong for the top and bottom social classes, as a result of the cumulative
advantage (or disadvantage) mechanism that reinforces social
inequality (DiPrete & Eirich, 2006), whereas the remainder of the
population is largely subject to “regression to the mean" on an inter­
generational scale (Zimmerman, 1992).
stronger for income quintiles or trajectory groups. We first convert the
transition matrices in Tables 4 and 5 into contingency tables by
7
Zero cells in the mobility tables may be attributed to sampling errors rather
than structural zeros in the population.

10
X. Song et al.
multiplying the row percentages by the row marginal counts and then
calculate χ 2 and BIC statistics for each mobility table. The results are
reported in Table 6. Test results based on p values show that the row and
column variables in all four mobility tables are far from independence,
suggesting that intergenerational associations between parents and
offspring exist in the overall economic circumstances for each genera­
tion as well as the shape of income that unfolds over the life course. The
χ 2 statistics show a higher association in income trajectories than in­
come strata (880.1 versus 642.3 and 885.1 versus 656.9, respectively),
indicating greater homogeneity within each income trajectory group
than within each income quintile.8 A comparison of BIC statistics be­
tween trajectory and quintile models also confirms this conclusion
(754.7 versus 516.9 in the parent-son sample and 759.6 versus 531.5 in
the parent-daughter sample). Comparing the χ 2 and BIC statistics across
tables, we observe very similar degrees of intergenerational association
in average family income levels and income trajectory groups for women
and men.
These results suggest that previous mobility research using income
quintile may have underestimated the degree of intergenerational as­
sociation. Although the income strata approach exhibits a higher degree
of intergenerational income immobility in some diagonal cells, the tra­
jectory approach highlights the importance of looking at off-diagonal
cells to understand intergenerational mobility. Individuals who do not
remain in a given income group as their parents are more likely to enter
adjacent groups than to flow randomly into other groups. The trajectory
approach reveals more rigid barriers and boundaries, which create and
reinforce social classes, than the strata approach. For example, mobility
tables constructed by income quintiles show moderate chances for sons
and daughters who are born into the highest social strata to flow
downward into the lowest strata (7.9 % and 4.9 %), but we observe few
such occurrences in our mobility tables created using income trajectory
groups (0.0 % and 1.4 %). By dividing individuals into high-, medium-,
or low-income groups and the like, the traditional approach focuses
exclusively on mean income levels in each generation while ignoring
intergenerational associations caused by the dynamics of intragenera­
tional processes.
Table 6
Goodness-of-fit results of contingency table models presented in Table 4 and 5.
df G2 N BIC
Parent-Son Family Quintile 16 642.3 2535 516.9
Income Association model
Trajectory 16 880.1 2535 754.7
model
Parent-Daughter Quintile 16 656.9 2537 531.5
Family Income model
Association
Trajectory 16 885.1 2537 759.6
model
Data sources: Panel Study of Income Dynamics (SRC Sample), 1968–2017. Notes:
The Bayesian Information Criteria is defined as BIC = G2 − log(n) ∗ df , where
G2 is the log-likelihood ratio χ 2 Statistic with the degrees of freedom (df) and the
total number of observations (n). A larger BIC indicates a higher degree of row
and column association. G2 is estimated by comparing the saturated model with
the row and column independence model.
8
This is consistent with the statistical modeling objective of finite-mixture,
latent trajectory group models – namely, to reveal hidden heterogeneity
among individuals in a sample and thereby to yield more homogeneous
groupings that lead to substantive empirical findings.
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713
6. Discussion
For comparison purposes, we estimate mobility transition matrices
for models, which vary from two to five income trajectory groups.
Previous studies in sociology and economics have tended to define the
social classes or quantiles arbitrarily. Comparisons between mobility
transition matrices using different numbers of groups allow us to
examine how sensitive our results are to the number of social status
groups. As shown in Appendix Table A4, in general, the greater the
number of groups, the smaller the numbers are on the diagonal for the
bottom and top groups. In particular, when we specify only four groups,
intergenerational status persistence for the top group is as high as 44.92
% for sons. However, when we assume five groups, intergenerational
status persistence for the top income group for sons drops to 40.0 %. This
suggests that in comparing results from different studies, one should pay
careful attention to the number of groups used to estimate the mobility
matrix. In the present analysis, the choice of four groups instead of five
leads to overlooking significant heterogeneity within Group 4, which
contains at least two subgroups that follow different income growth
paths. Likewise, a model with six trajectory groups is also possible, and
although the model’s goodness of fit is better for such a model, some
groups appear too small to represent a meaningful category (1.5 % for
the Group 6 in the parental generation and 1.7 % for the Group 2 in the
offspring generation).
Caution is advised in interpreting our results. Income measures are
among the most problematic variables in terms of comparability across
studies, populations, and time. In PSID, annual family income is calcu­
lated as the sum of individual taxable and transfer income from all
household members. We drop observations with 0 values after taking the
logarithm of income because the 0 values are not consistently defined in
the survey and only account for a small proportion of the data.9 Very few
families have zero income for both heads of household and their spouses.
However, by excluding 0 values, our analysis still ignores possible se­
lection into the income-earner group (Berk, 1983; Western & Pettit,
2005; Winship & Mare, 1992). Given that family income is sensitive to
family events, such as marriage, divorce, and residential status, the
intergenerational association in income may partly reflect occurrence
and timing of these events (Duncan et al., 1984; Thornton, 1991). We
also do not address the intergenerational transmission of income due to
possible parent-offspring association in unemployment risk. As part of
our sensitivity analyses, we added a small value, e.g., $1, to the observed
income, to retain zero value cases. The results are significantly different
p- from those reported based on positive family income. We suspect that
value the inconsistency is partly caused by changing coding rules in the PSID
0.000 family income variable. For example, the variable contains negative
values after 1994 to indicate a net income loss, whereas in waves prior to
0.000 1994, the income variable was bottom-coded at $1.
In addition, our results, based on annual family incomes, may not
0.000
apply to those relating to individual labor income, hourly wages, weekly
earnings, capital and business income, and income including govern­
0.000 ment and private transfers. We focus on intergenerational associations
of family income rather than individual labor income because living
conditions may be better represented by the economic circumstances of
the entire family or household (DiPrete, 2002). However, life-cycle
patterns of family earnings and individual earnings may differ due to
9
Only 119 observations have zero or negative income among the 51,757
person-year observations in the parent generation. Similarly, we observe only
127 out of 31,205 observations with zero or negative income in the son’s
generation and 87 out of 31,099 observations in the daughter’s generation. The
coding of zero income has also changed over years. For example, during some
years, zero indicates that household wives earned no labor income in the year
prior to the survey because they were unemployed or not in the labor force,
whereas during others, zero includes households in which no household wives
were present (PSID, 2019).
11
X. Song et al.
the “life-cycle squeeze" problem, which suggests that family income
needs do not increase in tandem with husbands’ earnings (Oppen­
heimer, 1974). We implement similar methods to analyze intergenera­
tional association in individual labor income and summarize the results
in Appendix Table A6. Following Bloome (Bloome, 2017), we also used
size-adjusted family income (dividing by the square root of family size).
The trajectory results shown in Appendix Figure A3 look similar to those
based on unadjusted family income shown in Fig. 2.
Because female labor force participation has risen and the gender
wage gap has narrowed in recent decades (Goldin, 1994; Oppenheimer,
1988), we also consider extending the analysis to both genders and all
members of a family unit. Some of these results are presented in Ap­
pendix Figure A1. Due to data limitations, especially missing data for
women’s income history in the early years of the survey, we do not
examine the separate effects for fathers and mothers or assortative
mating (Mare & Schwartz, 2006) in linking working-life income tra­
jectories across generations and among family members, but this is a
potential avenue for future research.
Our analysis relies on survey data, which may suffer from mis­
reporting, sample attrition, and nonresponse, as well as under coverage
of top income earners and population below the poverty line. These
potential problems may bias the estimated intergenerational trans­
mission (Kopczuk et al., 2007; Mazumder, 2005). Administrative data,
such as those based on income tax records, often provide more accurate
income measures and thus will be the next step to consider. However,
the IRS current income data are far from perfect. They do not include a
large enough number of years for a life-cycle analysis of income changes
for two generations (Solon, 2017). Mazumder (Mazumder, 2016;
Mazumder, 2018) compared intergenerational elasticity estimates from
PSID and administrative tax data and illustrated possible biases from tax
data due to the age structure, the limited panel dimension of data that
are currently available, and incomplete family income information for
some subpopulations. It is possible that findings reported in the present
study may not be validated by data from many other countries where
high-quality longitudinal datasets like PSID are not thus far available.
Even in countries with similar data available, our conclusion that the
trajectory approach yields higher association than the quintile approach
may not hold in other social contexts. If intergenerational mobility
patterns are not associated across generations, the trajectory mobility
table would show a smaller Chi-square statistics and BIC than the
quintile mobility table. In the U.S., we observe positive intergenera­
tional associations in both the level of income and the changes of income
over the life course, but these associations may be negative or null in
other societies or historic periods.
We have conducted an auxiliary analysis to show the correlation of
income trajectory groups with other social position measures both
within and between generations. The results in the online Appendix
Table A12 suggest that income trajectory groups are highly correlated
with income strata (r > 0.6) and are moderately correlated with occu­
pational classes (r = 0.2–0.25). The intergenerational association in
income trajectory groups are substantially greater than that in occupa­
tional or income class. A recent study of Yaish and Kraus (2020) suggests
that in the absence of longitudinal income data, occupational class can
serve as a good proxy for life-course income trajectories. Mobility esti­
mates based on such a proxy, however, may underestimate the inter­
generational association of social positions.
Finally, it is worth noting that the income trajectory group classifi­
cation is a nominal variable that is used to describe trajectory hetero­
geneity. Unlike income quintile groups, trajectory groups may not
contain a natural rank or order. Our labels of five trajectory groups from
lowest to highest are a special case of group labeling because we
observed no overlap between trajectory groups shown in Fig. 2. If we
reshuffle the order of groups in each generation and reconstruct mobility
tables using the new ordering, we will obtain the same χ 2 statistics as
those reported in Table 6. The reason is that the overall intergenera­
tional association implied in a contingency table based on a global χ 2 test
12
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713
does not depend on the orders of categories in the row and column
variables (Agresti, 2013; Powers & Xie, 2008). We chose the current
order to be consistent with the way that income quintile mobility tables
are presented but this ordering assumption is innocuous.
7. Conclusions
In this study, we revisit the traditional mobility table approach in
intergenerational mobility studies, which has been called “one of the
signature contributions of sociology over the last half-century" (Grusky
& Weeden, 2006):85; also reviewed in Hout and DiPrete (2006). Yet, as
Sakamoto and Wang (2020) argue, the use of mobility tables has
dwindled due to the lack of focus on long-term earnings and the
continued reliance on cross-sectional data in an era of increased labor
market volatility. The mobility table approach is most useful when the
economic status of individuals is relatively stable over time, or when it
frequently changes within working lives but without intergenerational
implications (e.g., Bernhardt et al., 2001). Yet, Americans have experi­
enced fundamental changes in their working lives over the past four
decades. Macroeconomic changes, such as the increasingly precarious
and short-term nature of work (the so-called gig economy) (Kalleberg,
2009), dependence on financial incomes (Lin & Tomaskovic-Devey,
2013), growth of occupational licensing (Redbird, 2017), and spread
of transitory incomes (Latner, 2018; Moffitt & Gottschalk, 2012), have
all influenced not only how researchers think about and model the
relationship between early- and later-life incomes but also how changes
in economic status over the life cycle persist into the next generation.
To address recent challenges to traditional mobility analyses, we
offer an alternative, group-based, trajectory approach to construct
mobility tables. This approach accounts for differences in income tra­
jectories among individuals in the parent and offspring generations with
several “ideal" categories, such as a high starting point and rapid growth
versus low starting point and slow growth, rather than, as previously
used in the mobility literature, high versus low average economic status
or by income groups based on quintile or other percentile measures.
Applying this group-based perspective to income trajectories, our ana­
lyses yield several new findings from intergenerational mobility tables
between parents and their sons and daughters in the United States.
First, we summarize the developmental course of individual char­
acteristics in the form of income trajectory groups. Each group suggests
a different type of life path shaped by a complex set of social factors that
may or may not be observed in the data. Individuals’ income trajectory
group memberships are strongly associated with their race/ethnicity,
occupation, gender, birth cohort, and social origin of income trajectory
group from the prior generation. Using this approach, we also show that
the growth in individuals’ family income over their life course does not
always display a quadratic relationship with age, as implied by Mincer’s
earnings equation (Mincer, 1958). Instead, income profiles of some
subpopulations, particularly the lowest-income group, remain largely
stable or even fall over time. The pattern of income growth demonstrates
the mechanism of cumulative (dis)advantage in maintaining and
reproducing temporal income inequality (DiPrete & Eirich, 2006). Un­
equal income growth among high-, medium-, and low-income groups
eventually leads to diverging income trajectories as individuals move
through life stages and further exacerbates inequality across
generations.
Second, our group-based trajectory approach estimates the size and
the optimal number of income groups from the data, rather than split­
ting the population into strictly rank-ordered and equally sized fifths (e.
g., Chetty et al., 2014). We find that the majority of the population –
more than 85 % in the parent generation and more than 78 % in the
offspring generation – fall into the middle-income trajectory groups
(Groups 2–4). This result affirms that the United States is still a broadly
middle-class society, with very large concentrations in the middle clas­
ses and very few at the two ends. The five groups may also differ in their
economic classes, consumption behaviors, timing of important life
X. Song et al.
events, parenting styles, and cultural tastes, all of which can be trans­
mitted across generations. However, this result contradicts recent find­
ings of a relatively stable trend in class structure in the United States
(Wodtke, 2016). We show that the distribution of income groups has
become skewed more to the left over generations, shifting more in­
dividuals in the offspring generation toward Groups 4 and 5 as the in­
come gap between the haves and the have-nots has widened in recent
decades ((Autor et al., 2008; McCall & Percheski, 2010; Neckerman &
Torche, 2007; Piketty & Saez, 2003). Because the relative size of income
groups has evolved – for example, the top income groups accounted for
roughly 7 % in the parents’ generation but roughly 15 % in the off­
spring’s generation (13 % for sons and 16 % for daughters) – the quintile
approach may overlook the permeability of class boundaries and the
dynamics of class structure.
Finally, a comparison between mobility tables based on income
quintiles and those using income trajectory groups suggests that inter­
generational immobility rates are higher in the latter due to possible
intergenerational associations in income changes that are not captured
by the former. Within one generation, those that started with higher
initial income experienced greater income growth over their lifetimes.
The positive association between initial income and age-graded income
growth has led to widening income gaps for individuals of different
trajectory groups. Across the generations, the pattern of income growth
as individuals and their offspring move through life stages has rein­
forced the intergenerational association of economic status. These re­
sults suggest that the economic status of parents and offspring is
associated not only in income levels, as most previous research using
mobility tables has found, but, more strongly, in the ways that income
evolves as each generation’s life cycle profile unfolds. With the growth
of intensive longitudinal data and relevant methods, it is time to
incorporate the methods and perspectives of life-course studies into the
study of intergenerational social mobility and investigate the micro-
level mechanisms that can explain the link between intragenerational
and intergenerational mobility.
In addition to the theoretical contributions of this study, its findings
have important policy implications. They can lead to advancement in
thinking on social welfare policies. Using snapshot or person-average
income information to evaluate a household’s poverty status may fail
to identify those who need help the most. Antipoverty policies should
prioritize the persistently poor and the recurrently poor over the
temporarily poor, who will come through hard times with the help of
existing social and private insurance (Gardiner & Hills, 1999). For
example, Group 1 parents and children began with similarly low levels
of income, but the offspring experienced downward-sloping income
growth during early adulthood years. They are thus more economically
disadvantaged, vulnerable, and dependent on social welfare programs.
Previous studies have found that children who grow up in households
with a downward income trajectory have long-term disadvantages in life
outcomes, such as higher risk of psychiatric disorder (Björkenstam et al.,
2017) and obesity-related outcomes (Kendzor et al., 2012) than those
with similar average income levels but in a context of stable or upward
income trajectories. It is likely that policy intervention for one genera­
tion will improve economic well-being over two or more generations,
but the intergenerational effects of the intervention may depend on a
wide array of individual, family, and community characteristics that
relate to income trajectory groups.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to support from the Penn Population Studies Center,
which receives support by the Eunice Shriver Kennedy National Institute
of Child Health and Human Develop-ment Population Research Infra­
structure Program (NIH P2C-HD044964).
13
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2022.100713.
References
Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis (third ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Aisenbrey, S., & Fasang, A. (2010). New life for old ideas: the “second wave“ of sequence
analysis bringing the “course” back into the life course. Sociological Methods &
Research, 38, 420–462.
Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2008). Trends in US wage inequality: Revising
the revisionists. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90, 300–323.
Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2003). Distributional assumptions of growth mixture
models: Implications for overextraction of latent trajectory classes. Psychological
Methods, 8, 338.
Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1986). Human capital and the rise and fall of families. Journal
of Labor Economics, 4, S1–S39.
Behrman, J., & Taubman, P. (1985). Intergenerational earnings mobility in the united
states: some estimates and a test of becker’s intergenerational endowments model.
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67, 144–151.
Berk, R. A. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data.
American Sociological Review, 48, 386–398.
Bernhardt, A., Morris, M., Handcock, M. S., & Scott, M. A. (2001). Divergent paths:
Economic mobility in the new American labor market. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation,.
Björkenstam, E., Cheng, S., Burström, B., Pebley, A. R., Björkenstam, C., & Kosidou, K.
(2017). Association between income trajectories in childhood and psychiatric
disorder: A Swedish population-based study. Journal of Epidemiology Community
Health, 71, 648–654.
Black, S. E., & Devereux, P. J. (2011). Recent developments in intergenerational
mobility. Handbook of labor economics (pp. 1487–1541). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Blau, P., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Bloome, D. (2017). Childhood family structure and intergenerational income mobility in
the United States. Demography, 54, 541–569.
Bowles, S. (1972). Schooling and inequality from generation to generation. Journal of
Political Economy, 80, S219–S251.
Breen, R. (2004). Social mobility in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Breiger, R. L. (1981). The social class structure of occupational mobility. American
Journal of Sociology, 87, 578–611.
Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American
Sociological Review, 66, 204–225.
Burkhauser, R. V., Feng, S., Jenkins, S., & Larrimore, J. (2011). Estimating trends in US
income inequality using the current population survey: The importance of
controlling for censoring. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 9, 393–415.
Bütikofer, Aline, Antonio Dalla-Zuanna, Salvanes, Kjell G. (2018). Breaking the links:
Natural resource booms and intergenerational mobility. Institutt for
Samfunnsøkonomi, NHH Discussion Paper https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/ha
ndle/11250/2561651.
Card, D., & DiNardo, J. E. (2002). Skill-biased technological change and rising wage
inequality: Some problems and puzzles. Journal of Labor Economics, 20, 733–783.
Carroll, C. D. (1997). Buffer-stock saving and the life cycle/permanent income
hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1–55.
Chan, T. W., & Goldthorpe, J. (2007). Class and status: The conceptual distinction and its
empirical relevance. American Sociological Review, 72, 512–532.
Cheng, S. (2014). A life course trajectory framework for understanding the intracohort
pattern of wage inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 120, 633–700.
Cheng, S., & Song, X. (2019). Linked lives, linked trajectories: Intergenerational
association of intragenerational income mobility. American Sociological Review, 84,
1037–1068.
Cheng, S., & Park, B. (2020). Flows and boundaries: A network approach to studying
occupational mobility in the labor market. American Journal of Sociology, 126,
577–631.
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity?
The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 129, 1553–1623.
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., Saez, E., & Turner, N. (2014). Is the United States still a
land of opportunity? Recent trends in intergenerational mobility. The American
Economic Review, 104, 141–147.
Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With
applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. John Wiley & Sons.
Corak, Miles. (2006). Do poor children become poor adults? Lessons from A Cross
Country Comparison of Generational Earnings Mobility. IZA Discussion Paper.
Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., Lochner, L., & Masterov, D. (2006). Interpreting the evidence
on life cycle skill formation. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 1, 697–812.
Curry, M., Mooi-Reci, I., & Wooden, M. (2022). Intergenerationally penalized? The long-
term wage consequences of parental joblessness. Social Science Research, 103, Article
102650.
D’Unger, A. V., Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., & Nagin, D. S. (1998). How many latent classes
of delinquent/criminal careers? Results from mixed poisson regression analyses.
American Journal of Sociology, 103, 1593–1630.
Dannefer, D. (1987). Aging as intracohort differentiation: Accentuation, the Matthew
Effect, and the life course. Sociological Forum, 2, 211–236.
X. Song et al.
Davis, J. (1927). Testing the social attitudes of children in the government schools in
Russia. American Journal of Sociology, 32, 947–952.
DiPrete, T. A. (1987). Horizontal and vertical mobility in organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 422–444.
DiPrete, T. A. (2002). Life course risks, mobility regimes, and mobility consequences: A
comparison of Sweden, Germany, and the United States. American Journal of
Sociology, 108, 267–309.
DiPrete, T. A., & Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for
inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review
Sociology, 32, 271–297.
DiPrete, T. A., & Buchmann, C. (2013). The rise of women: The growing gender gap in
education and what it means for American Schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Duncan, G., Coe, R., Corcoran, M., Hill, M. S., Hoffman, S., & Morgan, J. N. (1984). Years
of poverty, years of plenty: The changing economic fortunes of American workers and
families. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Duncan, O. D. (1961). A Socioeconomic index for all occupations and properties and
characteristics of the socioeconomic index. In Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (Ed.), Occupations
and social status (pp. 139–161). New York: Free Press of Glencoe,.
Edwards, A. M. (1938). A social-economic grouping of the gainful workers of the United
States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Elder, G. H. (1985). Perspectives on the life course. New York: Cornell University Press.
Elder, G. H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69,
1–12.
Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J. H., & Portocarero, L. (1979). Intergenerational class mobility
in three western european societies: England, France and Sweden. The British Journal
of Sociology, 30, 415–441.
Featherman, D. L., & Hauser, R. M. (1978). Opportunity and change. New York: Academic
Press,.
Fox, L., Wimer, C., Garfinkel, I., Kaushal, N., & Waldfogel, J. (2015). Waging war on
poverty: Poverty trends using a historical supplemental poverty measure. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 34, 567–592.
Friedman, M. (1957). A theory of the consumption function. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Fuller, S. (2008). Job mobility and wage trajectories for men and women in the United
States. American Sociological Review, 73, 158–183.
Gabay-Egozi, L., & Yaish, M. (2019). Intergenerational educational mobility and life
course earnings in Israel. Social Science Research, 83, Article 102302.
Ganzeboom, H. B. G., Luijkx, R., & Treiman, D. J. (1989). Intergenerational class
mobility in comparative perspective. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 8,
3–84.
Gardiner, K., & Hills, J. (1999). Policy implications of new data on income mobility. The
Economic Journal, 109, 91–111.
Gerber, T. P., & Cheung, S. Y. (2008). Horizontal stratification in postsecondary
education: forms, explanations, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 34,
299–318.
Glass, D. V. (1954). Social mobility in Britain. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Goldin, C. (1994). The U-shaped female labor force function in economic development and
economic history. Technical report. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Goldthorpe, J. H., & McKnight, A. (2006). The economic basis of social class. In Stephen
L. Morgan, David Grusky, & Gary Fields (Eds.), Mobility and inequality: Frontiers of
research from sociology and economics (pp. 109–136). Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Goodman, L. A., & Kruskal, W. H. (1954). Measures of association for cross
classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 732–764.
Gottschalk, P., & Moffitt, R. (2009). The rising instability of US earnings. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 23, 3–24.
Grawe, N. D. (2006). Lifecycle bias in estimates of intergenerational earnings persistence.
Labour Economics, 13, 551–570.
Grusky, D. B., & Weeden, K. A. (2006). Does the sociological approach to studying social
mobility have a future? In Stephen L. Morgan, David Grusky, & Gary Fields (Eds.),
Mobility and inequality: Frontiers of research from sociology and economics (pp.
85–108). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
H ¨allsten, Martin and Meir Yaish. 2021. “Intergenerational Educational Mobility andLife
Course Economic Trajectories in a Social Democratic Welfare State.” European
Sociological Review.https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/
esr/jcab054/6439179.
Haider, S. J. (2001). Earnings instability and earnings inequality of males in the United
States: 1967-1991. Journal of Labor Economics, 19, 799–836.
Hall, R. E. (1978). Stochastic implications of the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis:
Theory and evidence. Journal of Political Economy, 86, 971–987.
Hamil-Luker, J., Land, K. C., & Blau, J. (2004). Diverse trajectories of cocaine use
through early adulthood among rebellious and socially conforming youth. Social
Science Research, 33, 300–321.
Hatt, P. K. (1950). Occupation and social stratification. American Journal of Sociology, 55,
533–543.
Hauser, R. M. (1980). Some exploratory methods for modeling mobility tables and other
cross-classified data. Sociological Methodology, 11, 413–458.
Hauser, R. M. (1998). Intergenerational economic mobility in the United States measures,
Differentials and trends. Center for demography and ecology. University of Madison-
Wisconsin.
Hauser, R. M., & Featherman, D. L. (1977). The process of stratification: Trends and
analyses. New York: Academic Press.
Hauser, R. M., & Warren, J. R. (1997). Socioeconomic indexes for occupations: A review,
update, and critique. Sociological Methodology, 27, 177–298.
Hauser, R. M., & Warren, J. R. (1997). Socioeconomic indexes for occupations: A review,
update, and critique. Sociological Methodology, 27, 177–298.
14
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713
Heckman, J. J. (1976). A life-cycle model of earnings, learning, and consumption.
Journal of Political Economy, 84, S9–S44.
Hodge, R. W., Siegel, P. M., & Rossi, P. H. (1964). Occupational prestige in the United
States, 1925-63. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 286–302.
Hout, M. (1983). Mobility tables. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications,.
Hout, M., & DiPrete, T. A. (2006). What we have learned: RC28as contributions to
knowledge about social stratification. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility,
24, 1–20.
Jäntti, M., S.P. Jenkins.2013. Income Mobility. IZA Discussion Paper 7730.
Jäntti, Markus, Bernt Bratsberg, Knut Roed, Oddbjorn Raaum, Robin Naylor, Eva
Osterbacka, Anders Bjorklund, and Tor Eriksson (2006). American exceptionalism in
a new light: A comparison of intergenerational earnings mobility in the nordic
countries, the United Kingdom and the United States.Technical report, IZA
discussion paper IZA DP No.1938.
Jarvis, B. F., & Song, X. (2017). Rising intragenerational occupational mobility in the
United States, 1969 to 2011. American Sociological Review, 82, 568–599.
Jenkins, S. (1987). Snapshots versus movies: ‘lifecycle biases’ and the estimation of
intergenerational earnings inheritance. European Economic Review, 31, 1149–1158.
Jonsson, J. O., Grusky, D. B., Carlo, M. D., Pollak, R., & Brinton, M. C. (2009). Microclass
mobility: Social reproduction in four countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114,
977–1036.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in
transition. American Sociological Review, 74, 1–22.
Kendzor, D. E., Caughy, M. O., & Owen, M. T. (2012). Family income trajectory during
childhood is associated with adiposity in adolescence: A latent class growth analysis.
BMC Public Health, 12, 611.
Kim, C., Tamborini, C. R., & Sakamoto, A. (2018). The sources of life chances: Does
education, class category, occupation, or short-term earnings predict 20-year long-
term earnings? Sociological Science, 5, 206–233.
Kopczuk, W., Saez, E., & Song, J. (2007). Uncovering the American dream: Inequality and
mobility in social security earnings data since 1937. Technical report. National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Kopczuk, W., Saez, E., & Song, J. (2010). Earnings inequality and mobility in the United
States: Evidence from social security data since 1937. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 125, 91–128.
Latner, J. P. (2018). Income volatility and mobility: A conceptual exploration of two
frameworks. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 53, 50–63.
Lee, C., & Solon, G. (2009). Trends in intergenerational income mobility. The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 91, 766–772.
Lemieux, T. (2006). Post-secondary education and increasing wage inequality. Technical
report. National Bureau of Economic Research,.
Lin, K., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2013). Financialization and US income inequality,
1970-2008. American Journal of Sociology, 118, 1284–1329.
Lipset, S. M., & Bendix, R. (1959). Social mobility in industrial society. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press,.
Mare, R. D., & Schwartz, C. R. (2006). Educational assortative mating and the family
background of the next generation. Sociological Theory and Methods, 21, 253–278.
Maughan, B. (2005). Developmental trajectory modeling: A view from developmental
psychopathology. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
602, 118–130.
Mayer, K. U. (2009). New directions in life course research. Annual Review of Sociology,
35, 413–433.
Mazumder, B. (2005). Fortunate sons: New estimates of intergenerational mobility in the
United States using social security earnings data. Review of Economics and Statistics,
87, 235–255.
Mazumder, B., et al. (2016). Estimating the intergenerational elasticity and rank
association in the United States: Overcoming the current limitations of tax data.
Research in Labor Economics, 43, 83–129.
Mazumder, B. (2018). Intergenerational mobility in the United States: What we have
learned from the PSID. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 680, 213–234.
Mazumder, Bhashkar, (2008). Upward Intergenerational Economic Mobility in the
United States.Economic Mobility Project, Pew Charitable Trusts Philadelphia, PA.
McCall, L., & Percheski, C. (2010). Income inequality: New trends and research
directions. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 329–347.
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2004). Finite mixture models. New York: John Wiley & Sons,.
Mincer, J. (1958). Investment in human capital and personal income distribution.
Journal of Political Economy, 66, 281–302.
Mitnik, P., Bryant, V., Weber, M., Grusky, D.B. (2015). New estimates of
intergenerational mobility using administrative data.Technical report, SOI Working
Paper, Statistics of Income Division, Internal Revenue Service.
Moen, P., Robison, J., & Dempster-McClain, D. (1995). Caregiving and women’s well-
being: A life course approach. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 259–273.
Moffitt, R. A., & Gottschalk, P. (2012). Trends in the transitory variance of male earnings
methods and evidence. Journal of Human Resources, 47, 204–236.
Morris, R. T., & Murphy, R. J. (1959). The situs dimension in occupational structure.
American Sociological Review, 231–239.
Mustillo, S., Worthman, C., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2003).
Obesity and psychiatric disorder: Developmental trajectories. Pediatrics, 111,
851–859.
Muthén, B. (2004). Latent Variable Analysis: Growth mixture modeling and related
techniques for longitudinal data. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The sage handbook of quantitative
methodology for the social sciences (pp. 345–368). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
X. Song et al.
Nagin, D. S., & Land, K. C. (1993). Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity:
specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed poisson model. Criminology,
31, 327–362.
Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2005). What has been learned from group-based
trajectory modeling? Examples from physical aggression and other problem
behaviors. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602,
82–117.
Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2005a). Developmental trajectory groups: Fact or a
useful statistical fiction? Criminology, 43, 873–904.
Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2005b). Further reflections on modeling and analyzing
developmental trajectories: A response to Maughan and Raudenbush. The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 145–154.
Nakao, K., & Treas, J. (1994). Updating occupational prestige and socioeconomic scores:
How the new measures measure up. Sociological Methodology, 1, 1–72.
Nam, C. B., & Powers, M. G. (1983). The socioeconomic approach to status measurement
(with a guide to occupational and socioeconomic status scores). Houston: Cap and Gown
Press,.
Neckerman, K. M., & Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: Causes and consequences. Annual
Review of Sociology, 33, 335–357.
Nylund, K., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in
latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study.
Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1974). The life-cycle squeeze: The interaction of menas
occupational and family life cycles. Demography, 11, 227–245.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing. American Journal of Sociology,
94, 563–591.
Paynter, L., Koehler, E., Howard, A. G., Herring, A. H., & Gordon-Larsen, P. (2015).
Characterizing long-term patterns of weight change in China using latent class
trajectory modeling. PLOS One, 10, Article e0116190.
Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2003). Income inequality in the United States, 1913-1998. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1–41.
Powers, D., & Xie, Y. (2008). Statistical Methods for Categorical Data Analysis (second ed.).
Emerald Group Publishing.
PSID M. Interview User Manual. (2019). for Social Research, University of Michigan,
February, 2019.
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological
Methodology, 111–163.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2005). How do we study “what happens next”? The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 131–144.
Redbird, B. (2017). The new closed shop? The economic and structural effects of
occupational licensure. American Sociological Review, 82, 600–624.
Sakamoto, A., & Wang, S. X. (2020). The declining significance of occupation in research
on intergenerational mobility. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 70,
Article 100521.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among
delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41, 555–592.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). Seductions of method: Rejoinder to Nagin and
Tremblayas “developments trajectory groups: Fact or fiction. Criminology, 43,
905–913.
Sewell, W. H., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). Education, occupation, and earnings. Achievement in
the early career. New York: Academic Press,.
Solon, G. (1992). Intergenerational income mobility in the United States. The American
Economic Review, 82, 393–408.
Solon, G. (1999). Intergenerational mobility in the labor market. Handbook of Labor
Economics, 3, 1761–1800.
Solon, G. (2017). Intergenerational transmission of income inequality: What do we
know? Focus, 33, 3–5.
15
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 80 (2022) 100713
Sorokin, P. A. (1959). Social and cultural mobility. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Svalastoga, K. (1959). Prestige, class, and mobility. London, UK: Heinemann,.
Thornton, A. (1991). Influence of the marital history of parents on the marital and
cohabitational experiences of children. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 868–894.
Torche, F. (2015). Analyses of intergenerational mobility an interdisciplinary review. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 657, 37–62.
Treiman, D. J. (1977). Occupational prestige in comparative perspective. New York:
Academic Press.
Treiman, D. J., & Hauser, R. M. (1977). Intergenerational transmission of income: An
exercise in theory construction. In R. M. Hauser, & D. L. Featherman (Eds.), The
process of stratification: Trends and analyses (pp. 271–302). New York: Academic
Press.
van, L., Marco, H. D., & Ineke, M. (2011). HISCLASS: A historical international social class
scheme. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.
van, L., Marco, H. D., Ineke, M., & Andrew, M. (2002). HISCO: Historical international
standard classification of occupations. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.
Waldfogel, J. (1997). The effect of children on women’s wages. American Sociological
Review, 62, 209–217.
Warren, J. R., Sheridan, J. T., & Hauser, R. M. (2002). Occupational stratification across
the life course: Evidence from the Wisconsin longitudinal study. American
Sociological Review, 67, 432–455.
Warren, J. R., Luo, L., Halpern-Manners, A., Raymo, J. M., & Palloni, A. (2015). Do
different methods for modeling age-graded trajectories yield consistent and valid
results? American Journal of Sociology, 120, 1809–1856.
Weeden, K. A., & Grusky, D. B. (2005). The case for a new class map. American Journal of
Sociology, 111, 141–212.
Weeden, K. A., & Grusky, D. B. (2012). The three worlds of inequality. American Journal
of Sociology, 117, 1723–1785.
Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2005). Black-white wage inequality, employment rates, and
incarceration. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 553–578.
Western, B., Bloome, D., & Percheski, C. (2008). Inequality among American families
with children, 1975 to 2005. American Sociological Review, 73, 903–920.
Westhoff, L., Bukodi, E., Goldthorpe, J.H. (2021). Social class and earnings trajectories in
14 European Countries. Technical report, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the
Oxford Martin School, University.
Willson, A. E., & Shuey, K. M. (2016). Life course pathways of economic hardship and
mobility and midlife trajectories of health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 57,
407–422.
Winship, C., & Mare, R. D. (1992). Models for sample selection bias. Annual Review of
Sociology, 18, 327–350.
Wodtke, G. T. (2016). Social class and income inequality in the United States:
Ownership, authority, and personal income distribution from 1980 to 2010.
American Journal of Sociology, 121, 1375–1415.
Wright, E. O. (1997). Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Yaish, M., & Gabay-Egozi, L. (2019). Intracohort trends in ethnic earnings gaps: The role
of education. Socius, 5, Article 2378023119845740.
Yaish, M., & Kraus, V. (2020). On class and earnings trajectories: The use of class and
earnings to study intergenerational mobility. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility, 70, Article 100507.
Yaish, M., Shiffer-Sebba, D., Gabay-Egozi, L., & Park, H. (2021). Intergenerational
educational mobility and life-course income trajectories in the United States. Social
Forces, 100, 765–793.
Zimmerman, D. J. (1992). Regression toward mediocrity in economic stature. The
American Economic Review, 82, 409–429.