Studying the impact of U.S. immigration barriers on global knowledge production
privpapers.ssrn.com
privpapers.ssrn.com
For example, I currently live in Germany. Germany is currently importing boatloads of Latino and South East Asian STEM workers. Now if you look at the structure of German companies two things stand out:
1. there is a huge disparity between management and workers and this is reflected also in the salaries 2. all management are German (99.9% ethnic with maybe one 3rd generation ethnic Slav/Turk)
This situation is very likely true for most of Europe, except for maybe the UK.
So of course migrants in the US are more productive. In most countries immigrants are imported to fill a niche and the glass ceiling is held firmly just above that niche. And let's not even talk about entrepreneurial opportunities for immigrants.
I am curious what is source of you information about Polish antisemitism.
[1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/antisemitism-overv...
Yikes. Very Joe Biden: https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/
> "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
I've never gotten a comment like that as a South Asian (Bangladesh) in the United States.
I’ve lived and worked all over Southeast Asia, and just openly being racist is perfectly normal there. Employers will openly tell you that they don’t want to hire foreigners, because they don’t trust them. Local ethnic minorities are consistently discriminated against, especially if there’s a local ethnic Chinese population (who in Indonesia for instance are often referred to as babi which means pig, or mata sipit which means slanted eyes). Contempt for people from neighbouring countries is very common. Working in KL it was very common to hear my colleagues talking about how much they don’t like Thai people. India takes things to a whole different level with their caste system and extreme distaste for dark skin.
Ive never got particularly wound up about it, because I see myself as a guest whenever I go and work in a foreign country, so I’ve just got to play by their rules. But try applying that logic the US and see how long it takes for an outrage mob to come after you.
From talking to other Polish people, my impression is that this is a fairly typical attitude. I think that the reason this doesn't show up as incidents in the news is simply that there are hardly any Jews in Poland because they were virtually completely wiped out in the Holocaust.
An American in Germany would probably knee-jerk to 'racism' for a few reasons, and although there are different kinds of unfairness, I'm not sure if that's quite the right word.
America is an open place, Germany, not so much. America has tons of really high-level aptitude migrants, Germany doesn't quite have that.
With respect to 'glass ceilings' - it's more complicated.
As a resident of Germany for some time, as an outsider ... I would have expected to be promoted well enough if I was materially 'that much better', but frankly, not otherwise.
I actually accepted the fact that 'this is a German company, it's going to be run by Germans'.
I was in France I felt the same way.
I don't believe in the notion that a random person from country XYZ has the 'right' to be an executive for example at a local company.
Definitely treated with respect and not face racism, definitely promoted rank and file based mostly on performance, definitely the same material, legal rights - but beyond that ... I always felt 'it was their country, not really mine'.
Also, there are quite a number of these countries run by foreign nationals anyhow, it's just not quite as common as in the US.
This is taken as further evidence of American racism!
Compared to most european countries, US is very xenophobic. We offer clear path to citizenships, after 5 years you get passport. Not this dreamer BS.
I just hate this smug american BS. "We love XYZ", but will exploit it, and change rules every 4 years.
As far as I can tell, it is eight years of legal residency. You also must not be dependent on welfare, which implies that you're either already wealthy, dependent on someone, or you have permission to work. Very similar to the US.
So effectively you have to apply for a work visa just like in the US, you can't just walk in and expect to be tolerated - unless you're a refugee.
This is literally false in many European countries. I live in one where it is false. Please verify details before posting with specific numbers.
To be fair, the dreamers stuff is about people who came here / were brought here illegally by their parents.
We definitely have work to do on our immigration system but I would imagine if I immigrated to Germany illegally they wouldn't make the process very easy on me either.
As an european who have worked for european and for american companies[1]... no, very much it's the reverse: european companies pay a lot of attention to university, nationality (home culture, really), and social class for matters of promotion; american companies are more results-oriented and much more cosmopolitan.
You might be judging it by what's being broadcasted in popular media - the european "we're enlightened all the way through" versus the american "we still have ways to go".
>All european countries have equal opportunity laws.
Only really useful for bilking the big multinational companies for moderately stingy fines. Nobody gets ahead because of a lawsuit.
--
[1] selection bias caveat applies, obviously
Europe country cultures are massively more different and diverse than US states.
There's only been free pan-EU movement since the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009. 11 years is not enough time to achieve the homogeneity that US citizens have from being single(dual at most) language, single currency & no borders for hundreds of years. Not to mention the similar pan US TV they all shared for decades.
What most of them do instead, (which is smarter than trying to fight a German employer in a German court) is they use Germany as a stepping stone. They come here, get a couple years of experience and move to a more welcoming country afterwards. And German bureaucrats and employers wonder why retention is so low.
> There are 179 people on the management or executive boards of Germany’s 29 Fortune Global 500 companies. Just two of them are not white—both hailing from South Asia—and none is black.
Contrast the US: https://deloitte.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2019/03/12/women-...
> Total minority representation increased to 16.1 percent (912 board seats) from 12.8 percent in 2010, the first year Fortune 500 data were captured.
This whole statistic is worthless without context. Like how Germany's first immigrants after WW2 were low skilled Turkish workers and only recently Germany became more attractive for high-skilled immigrants because the US effectively shut down its visa program for the majority of people.
I'm not saying Germany is perfect but just whipping out some numbers without context doesn't cut it.
Also, it's pretty bold for Americans to lecture other countries on racism while their police is gunning down people simply for the color of their skin and is separating children of refugees from their parents to put them in cages. Meanwhile Germany is providing healthcare and shelter for all refugees but apparently doesn't currently promote a few dozen high-skilled workers that very likely could've made it anywhere to be CEO.
Germany did colonize Africa and committed its fair share of attrocities in Namibia, but the colonies were taken away after WWII - way before the African independence movement took hold (which was immediately followed by an uptick of citizens in those former colonies migrating to colonial powers)
Germans playing the moral superiority card is humorous to me.
Germany today is giving shelter and free healthcare to refugees but apparently not CEO positions.
The US is gunning down blacks and forcefully taking children of refugees away from their parents but some immigrants became CEO of large companies which apparently makes the US more immigration-friendly and less racist than Germany.
Yes, that was a weird point to make in the article because it's not as if there are many Black people in Germany. But you have to admit that having just two non-white people out of 179 (1.1%) on corporate boards is pretty odd. Germany is white, but not 98.9% white. Turks make up over 5% of the population.
I as an ethnic German can echo the GP's point. Non-management can be quite diverse, but management is very much old, white, ethnic Germans as far as the eye can see.
There are still a lot of conscious/unconscious ethnic biases in Germany, especially among the older population.
I suspect that is the only criteria migrants don’t really check, and that is the point.
Yes, you are supposed to think that now for some reason.
Then, you get the fact that the minorities in the US are more qualified than the ones in Germany. Germany doesn't attract the most talented in the world, like the US and due to the lack of two oceans protecting it from the rest of the world, Germany doesn't get to be too picky about its migrants. The biggest attraction to foreigners is its welfare state. So I would hesitate to conclude to much from such a simple comparison.
"Whiteness" is a US concept, which doesn't make much sense in a German context. That sentence only tells me that some South Asians are neither white nor black.
I have no idea how they'd classify e.g. Turks. I think Greeks are considered white in the US, so maybe Turks too.
The other big immigrant group in Germany are Vietnamese, but they're kind of hamstrung by mostly having moved to East Germany. (East Germans in general are economically disadvantaged.)
I think statistics about ethnicity would be more useful if they were based on easily interpretable categories like own country of birth, country of birth of parents, grandparents, etc.
Take what you read with a grain of salt. I'm certainly very skeptical of the implied claim that Germans wouldn't consider Greeks as white.
Note that being considered white doesn't preclude Greeks from being discriminated against, just like some people discriminate against e.g. white Poles.
I find it quite telling that you are surprised Greeks might be considered anything but white, while not showing any surprise about Turks. I don't think there's any difference in skin color, so that confirms my suspicion that "whiteness" isn't just about looks.
There are many more people of Greek descent than of Turkish descent in the USA. It's very possible that the person you replied to is simply not familiar enough with people of Turkish descent to express surprise at your claim.
This is true, unfortunately the supremacy of American culture over the last century means that all of these concepts that do not fit very well into other contexts have been exported, I often run into situations in Denmark that would be horrifyingly racist in the U.S (not to say that Denmark doesn't have it's own racist traditions, but the grafting on of the American viewpoint does not exactly fit).
Of course when the concept is exported it in some way becomes the thing over time, and then people try to import the solutions to the problem.
As a guy from northern England I have been held back in my career when working in the south because of my accent, which is not very strong anyway. For example not being allowed to give presentations, or meet clients, as there was someone who "Would give the right impression".
In the US I just have a weird accent. No cultural baggage, no jokes about being thick etc. If you can get past people trying to get you to say lines from Game of Thrones, you're accent doesn't mean anything.
Questions from someone that knows very little about Germany:
How much of this is the German culture to be educated to a master/PhD level in order to get into management roles? Perhaps that increases the barriers to entry into these levels for immigrants.
How much of this is a language barrier? Immigrants to English-speaking countries have often learned some English before they arrive (often from their schooling) which might put them in a more advantageous position relatively speaking.
My comment was very matter of fact: because of the current lack of diversity in management, immigrants have virtually no opportunities to break into management, and because high compensation is almost entirely reserved for management, this means that immigrants cannot be deemed high-achievers in this business environment.
Seriously, the US is a really fair country. You want to assert that the US is a racist country, do please define what qualifies "systemic racism". Don't be like that URI professor who hates everyone who "asks for data".
It means whatever it needs to mean in a pinch.
Sometimes people use it to describe racism between people, but it's actually supposed to mean the structural racism which exists in a societal system. It doesn't mean that someone designed it that way, but it could have been or it could be an accidental thing.
Discounting a concept because it's used improperly by some of the "other side" is common today but not helpful.
Germany is not US. Europe is not US. How they deal with societal situations will be different from how US deals with societal situations.
Are there lots of German/Europe HN users? I am US centric so I tend to think HN is US thing, specifically tech cities, mainly, San Francisco.
"Critics of the West: From Tacitus to Michael Moore"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bao_YeH14RM
Basically he says we have the luxury of time and leisure to be self-critical and we believe we can achieve a utopian ideal but we fall short in so many ways.
Some people do not like VDH because he's a conservative Trump supporter, but that doesn't make him a bad historian.
Also regarding to GP: “working more” != “being more productive”
What was your point in mentioning that to OP? It seems like a bit of an aphorism that doesn't add much to the conversation except to dull GP's point.
Parent seems be trying to conflate/dull definitions in support of the efficiency decline curve related to fatigue or the inverse efficiency incline curve related to expertise. Most likely in an effort to negate the value of hard work or working more. Which is generally an argument for expert thought workers that want to think less in exchange for the hard work they already did in learning and keep the same compensation. ie elitism
Anecdotally, as an American, I meet many more Americans that are critical of America compared to Americans that regard America as the greatest country in the world.
But, hey, I’m just an ignorant American whose only lived here my whole life and was actually educated in the US so it’s not like I have any insight into what Americans learn/don’t learn and common attitudes of normal Americans.
It's interesting, but the current HN headline ("Migrants to the US are up to 6 times more productive than migrants elsewhere") seems misleading. The paper is taking up < 0.01% of "migrants to the U.S."
I've replaced it with the first sentence of the abstract, which does a slightly more accurate and neutral job of expressing what the article is about than the primary title does.
"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
Or put another way: moving to country with best funded and most prestigious research institutions turns out to be useful if you want a high-profile academic career
Nitpicky, but... this is also only for IMO medalists (from 1980 to 2000) publishing papers in mathematics (up until 2017). It's pretty darned specific, even as it pertains to academics. Even as it pertains to mathematicians, it's a single snapshot of somewhat recent history.
As for the paper, why doesn't it compare US citizen performance? The Team Selection Test is pretty competitive, and I guess there are at least 20 US citizens each year who are of similar skill.
I beat 1/6 members of the US team at my IMO showing, but I'm pretty sure every single USA TST participant has a brighter future ahead than most of the general cohort of "IMO medallists", including me.
Migrating to US is much higher effort than migrating practically anywhere else in the world. You don't expend that effort if you don't plan on making the best of it.
Also US makes it very hard or impossible to migrate if you are not already high earner in your country of origin. Being high earner would normally correlate with being productive, at least when it comes to jobs requiring high level of expertise, ie. practically the only ones that US lets in.
This is a surprising statement to me. Maybe it's true. But my understanding (which might be wrong) is that it's considerably more difficult to receive legal status in most other OECD nations.
Do you mean settled status? Regardless, that is easier as well (see for instance the guy posting about the Blue Card a few comments up).
IMHO the US is more about making money than it is about where you come from or your ethnicity or your nationality. We just want to get paid. I know in the news you see a lot of parts of the US that makes it seem like they do not want immigrants, but I think the truth is that the US welcomes immigrants more than other countries.
World per capita GDP ~= $10000
US/World ~= 6
So, yeah, labor performed in the US is 6x world labor.
These people might be under-paid, relative to silicon valley, but "slave wages" is pushing it. And while they are not a group known for being really on top of their paperwork, few of them cross borders illegally. Unless you mean the ones who escaped the USSR without permission.
Edit: Sorry for being sarcastic and flexing here. I’m friends with many IMO and IOI medalists (per the paper) who are studying/working in the US and I think it’s an amazing opportunity for them. Where I grew up in Singapore, tech salaries are way lower, and as a new grad I think I easily 3xed what I could’ve made back there. I’m not representative of all immigrants but I believe I can represent a class of highly skilled immigrants who appreciate the opportunity. It’s extremely insulting to call people like me exploited, because the next line is - I’m bringing down your wages.
There's significantly more money in the USA than in a lot of other countries.
Even accounting for the ridiculously high taxes and the work-80hrs culture, the high salaries can be worth it for some people.
Additional copays and out of pocket expenses are completely on the employee.
It's a much bigger story for people make closer to the median income.
Context: I am an expat myself.
The US is profoundly different. Very few developed countries have at-will employment.
It puts immigrants at risk of being fired and losing health insurance in any moment and with 0 warning.
This creates a very exploitative environment.
Not to mention how difficult it is to immigrate, or to get a green card or citizenship compared to many other countries.
Compared with which countries?
I think Canada’s express entry is a good example as well.
That's just possible for some markets. If you are talking about your own experience, that's because you are probably software developer.
Canada and Australia are definitely not easier, but more transparent.
It's still a good deal. Non-IT professionals can get a PR status in 4 years.
German education accreditation for Blue Card is rather fickle.
Germany maintains a rather short list of universities per-country which it recognises as institutes of higher learning.
You may have a rather ordinary uni degree in mainstream occupation, but if your uni is not on the list, you can't do anything.
If you passed a university program in a recognised university, but your program is missing from a dropdown list on their website, again, you can't do anything.
And if you have both, but your degree does not state in its title verbatim that it is a bachelor, or masters program regardless of years of study, again, you can't do anything about it.
You're right, that happened to me in 2014. My then-employer had to drive to some government office and ask them to give a go-ahead for my degree. But I've never heard anything like that since that time.
At-will employment has pros and cons. It’s not like citizens have permanent employment contracts and immigrants have at-will arrangements. Employers are more willing to hire if firing someone who doesn’t work out isn’t ruinous for the employer. It’s true that someone who emigrates from a country where they have a permanent employment arrangement is giving something up to come to the US. Presumably, they think it’s worth it.
And no other country than the US has 0 paid vacation days and 0 paid public holydays!
The other day I was checking number of paid vacations per country, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_b..., the US is the only country ns the world with 0 total paid leave.
The vast majority of US states do not even guarantee any paid sick leave.
https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/state-mandated-...
All together this has the effect of increasing employers' leverage over employees, especially in industries with limited jobs and lots of competition for them.
I believe part of the argument is that this is precisely why it’s exploitative. Employers are taking advantage of something the employee has zero control over. I.e., they are essentially being punished for where they were born.
I’m torn on this topic. On one hand, it does seem exploitative. On the other, I don’t know that stopping the exploitation makes the employee better off to if it essentially limits their job prospects. I assume there’s middle ground but I don’t know what it is
Exploit me harder daddy.
There are no "slave wages" because slaves did not get wages. I know it's a bit of rhetoric now, but it's IMO important to remember the distinction between being underpaid, and being literal property.
In the Anglosphere aka US, UK, Can, Au, Nz - migrants do only a little bit worse on standardized test than local kids, but once accommodating for income, migrants to a little better than local kids.
Everywhere else, migrants to far below the regular average.
Everywhere in Europe especially, they are far below.
People don't often make this distinction but the Anglo world tends to be far more 'open'. If you can speak English, that's fine.
In places like Germany and Sweden, irrespective of how educated someone might be, there are larger barriers to integration and migrants are often social outsiders.
This isn't driven mostly by 'hate' or anything deeply nefarious, rather it's by strong association of 'in-group' dynamics.
The Paradox is that in the US and even in the UK (i.e. Brexit) people are lambasted as 'xenophobic' by certain parts of the political spectrum when this is demonstrably false. UK/US are actually much more likely to believe in the economic value of migrants than elsewhere. They are generally welcoming places, however, due to larger rates of migration - much more existential discussions arise.
Of course Anglosphere countries are also much more likley to be aspirational targets for migration in general (though it's clearly not always true: kids Maghreb especially want to got to France, and Germany/Sweden were popular among Syrian refugees).
This is an anecdote but I think it's illustrative. I met a cab driver in Texas who immigrated from Morocco. He was extolling the virtues of Texas. He and his cab driver friends had been able to buy 3BR houses with pools on their cab driver incomes, put their kids in decent schools, etc. If you go to East Texas, you see tons of working class Latinos who work solid jobs in the booming oil and chemical industries there. It's not fancy, but you see brand new strip malls, shiny new pickup trucks, and big families everywhere. Tons of middle class prosperity among the immigrant population.
I'm from Bangladesh, and while my parents immigrated to the U.S. under pretty good circumstances (my dad has a white collar job), not everyone in my family did. And their view of achieving "the American Dream" is very much in line with what this Moroccan cab driver was saying. They want a big house and good schools for their kids. America provides that, including to immigrants. 75% of lawful immigrants have health insurance, mostly through their employer, or through Medicare/Medicaid/ACA. (The rate is over 90% for native-born Americans.) The median size of a new house in the United States is over 2,600 square feet. (Half of Latinos own their own homes, despite a median age of just 30, over 14 years younger than the median age of whites.) The median price of a new car in America is $38,000. This is what most Americans, and most working-class immigrants to America, consider the "American Dream." "Public transportation" is something that only a minority of college-educated elite actually think is a good thing.
And I would certainly argue that this is a gigantic problem that is hamstringing the competitiveness of the United States for no good reason (like Tom Brady playing with one arm tied behind his back). Paying for those trucks (or cars), new highway construction, auto insurance, healthcare for those injured in car crashes, etc. is largely an unnecessary cost. It's clear that most countries can do just fine without.
With that being said, certainly I applaud anyone who is achieving the "American Dream" - I want people to be prosperous, but deriding public transportation and by extension things like sidewalks or bike lanes as though it might be some ivory-tower conversation is in my opinion a bit ridiculous. Everyone should be concerned with the costs and benefits of public transportation as well as buying cars and maintaining the highway infrastructure. It's not free...
You might say "the U.S. is so big!!" but I would just say we should largely be living closer together in medium density mixed-use environments (not skyscrapers, and certainly not suburbs). That doesn't mean you can't have a car or a yard, or a garage, but you should probably be walking to work or riding a bike - or at least some of your family members should be.
Those are a lot of shoulds about how other people should live their life.
For example:
I should pay taxes to support the military to defend the Petrodollar and our allies in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing.
People suggest how you have to live your life all the time. The above is a trivial example. I don’t want all this oil to power all these cars putting carbon in the air? Why should I have to live my life this way?
More productive in "knowledge production" according to "novel survey data" and "hand-curated life-histories of International Math Olympiad (IMO) medalists."
The headline makes this sound like a broad finding, but in fact it’s very narrow.
There are countries where migrants are much more productive than the U.S. in non-STEM areas, but it is essentially accomplished by means of almost-forced-labor, and the working conditions are atrocious[1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25969442
Edit: Original title of this submission was "Migrants to the US are up to 6 times more productive than migrants elsewhere", until dang edited it.
What is not discussed
1. The fact that it happens a to be USA is a minor turn in the history in favor of this particular country
2. Post COVID world could be significantly different
Or just the fact that everything in the US is overpriced?
Or, related to H1-B, their managers feel the need to overstate their contribution so they'll be allowed to import more serfs in the future?
Will disagree, US is all over the place, but it is faaaar from the most expensive countries around.
Any 1st world country with more tightly controlled migration should do better.
When you loose employment you’re also allowed to collect unemployment.
My visa class (basically the equivalent of an H1B) also allowed me to work as a contractor in my field.
Finally, getting the visa transferred to another employer just requires you to show up at the immigration office with an employment contract. Your employer doesn’t have to do anything.
There is also an assumption here that you’re a guest who is trying to do the right thing rather than someone who is trying to game the system or steal a job from Germans.
So, the reality is that it’s hugely different from the experience I’ve heard of people having with the American immigration system.
The systems feel very much like you are being treated as a guest. Yes, there are rules but the rules are fair.
You lost your job? Well, you’ve been paying taxes, so you’re entitled to all the benefits that any other tax payer gets.
You lost your job? Well, you can take contract work in your field until you get a job? You want to change your visa type? You can do that without leaving the country?
You want to visit you family back in the USA for three months? Sure, family is important. So are vacations.
So yeah, it’s really different.
I don't agree with the notion that we must "close off" the country in order to preserve said success.
I would argue our success would significantly decline. A majority of Americans believe they’re entitled to the lifestyle and resources they have. A lot of immigrants from poorer areas understand that’s false.
It’s why you see hard working immigrants being successful and their kids riding their coattails.
True but I do think America has a “dumbing down” privilege effect on the population. A lot of Americans are racist, angry, and think they’re entitled to their way of life.
They don’t realize they need to do well in school because the high paying jobs they’re competing for everyone in the world is also competing for.
If you’re against immigration you’re limiting your competitive edge and someone else in the world will put you of business (probably in China).
Advantages like cleaner air don’t care about how smart someone is, their useful across the bord.
But I think the counter-argument is something like this. Countries with an unlimited pool of low-skill labor have a lot of bad features. One of these is a class gap, between haves and have-nots, who feel they don't share common interests. Another is that the incentive to invent ways to reduce labor input is reduced, why bother if it's cheap? And inventing ways to do more per person is precisely what economic growth is.
The term "migrant" is generally used to refer to unskilled workers entering the country to follow jobs in temporary or seasonal industries. Very often this therefore becomes a euphemism for "illegal immigrant". That's not what this paper is studying.
If not, why not? What is depressing the salary levels at 6x productivity gains? Who are benefiting from gains in productivity and depressed salary?
But also, the rewards for working harder in the US and having the right bit of luck are much higher than other countries. If you're an immigrant and you're looking to move somewhere for a YOLO shot at a good life, the U.S. is still the best game in town.
Before you make money, you need to pay tax?
In countries with corrupt and/or incompetent tax authorities, they try to introduce a fixed tax amount / pay in advance scheme for ... reasons ... where they can.
Usually they squeeze freelancers first. Or random liberal occupations. In Romania freelancers and landlords have to prepay taxes based on last years' income, for example. With the exception of some kinds of freelancers that they just gave up on and make them pay a fixed amount per year. Freelancers prepay taxes in Greece too, as far as i know.
For example, if you lost student renters due to Covid and remote learning.
For the high tech case...in Spain, an employer can’t provide stock options to employees. The Silicon Valley case where the first few dozen employees become millionaires is not an option in Spain.
For low-level employees, many are employed in the black market and enjoy no privileges. Because of this they get no credit, phone lines and numerous other benefits that extend to being legal. They can’t make the jump.
These problems extend to Dominican Republic where they exist but are even worse.
US / UK is better for hard working, and smart people be they employees or employed people. Anecdotally, I know so many stories of Dominicans who move to USA and begin to work so hard because they finally get compensated and rewarded for previously unacknowledged work. You hear this everywhere. Dominicans become hard workers in USA.
And it's not hard to miss, it's quite easy actually.
Plus, despite all the propaganda:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve#/media/File...
The US has much lower intergenerational social mobility than other developed countries. So it's much more likely that if you're born poor, you'll stay poor for the rest of your life.