The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

Haha. Yes. It very much does look like an industrial waste heap. Cultural appropriation much?

[The Minsky Moment]

This study is amazing.

The top earners had names indicating they came from members of shoemakers guilds, which were the elite of that time period.

The very bottom in our modern day came from the rubbish of society in 1427, and are descended from the crap workers of their time: members of shoemakers guilds.

I assume you are aware of the basics of guild structure?

In the 1400s, as today, shoes were a significant fashion accessory and demarcation of status.

A member of the shoemakers guild could be a master in charge of large workshops producing expensive shoes for an elite clientele; they would likely acquire significant official positions as well in city government.  But other members of the guild could be part-time day laborers cobbling together a few cheap shoes for a pittance.

I.e. in modern terms guild membership could encompass the CEO of Versace and some worker on a factory assembly line in Burma getting a few dollars a day.

[alfred russel]

I.e. in modern terms guild membership could encompass the CEO of Versace and some worker on a factory assembly line in Burma getting a few dollars a day.

So what you are saying is, having a name related to guild membership doesn't really say much about your family's status in 1427?   

[The Minsky Moment]

I.e. in modern terms guild membership could encompass the CEO of Versace and some worker on a factory assembly line in Burma getting a few dollars a day.

So what you are saying is, having a name related to guild membership doesn't really say much about your family's status in 1427?   

?  -

The study matches surnames to incomes. For each surname it also discloses the guild they associated with in 1427.

Thus, the family with surname A was in the shoemaker's guild and was in the 97% income bracket.  This family was a master.
The family with surname Z was also in the shoemaker's guild but in the 55% income bracket.  A journeyman.

These are two different families in two different socio-economic positions despite being in the same trade.  It is the difference between someone who today would work in as an experienced production line worker in a shoe factory and someone who owns the factory and a successful brand of shoes.

The better argument would be that family Z was an average earner and thus should not have ended up at the bottom if inequalities endure across time.  That is true but the study isn't claiming that 100% correlation with no exceptions.  Just that taken as a whole across A to Z the effects are statistically significant.

[alfred russel]

Thus, the family with surname A was in the shoemaker's guild and was in the 97% income bracket.  This family was a master.
The family with surname Z was also in the shoemaker's guild but in the 55% income bracket.  A journeyman.

If that is in the study, that isn't in the chart. It just identifies both as a member of the same type of guild.

[The Brain]

Anecdotally it seems obvious that there are family patterns to wealth and earnings that stretch over many generations. It's certainly the case when I look at my own ancestor families.

[grumbler]

Anecdotally it seems obvious that there are family patterns to wealth and earnings that stretch over many generations. It's certainly the case when I look at my own ancestor families.

Sheeplovers all the way back?

[The Brain]

Anecdotally it seems obvious that there are family patterns to wealth and earnings that stretch over many generations. It's certainly the case when I look at my own ancestor families.

Sheeplovers all the way back?

All the way down.

[Sheilbh]

Anecdotally it seems obvious that there are family patterns to wealth and earnings that stretch over many generations. It's certainly the case when I look at my own ancestor families.

Yeah - I am just surprised it survived 600 years with all of the economic cycles in that time, multiple sieges and wars over the city, WW2 etc. I agree with you but thought there would probably be a point at which it was just a wash - except for a few literal aristocrats.

And it may be - as they suggest - that actually it's really fixed and clear until the 20th century and so all of the levelling has been in the last 120 years but I'm not sure.

[grumbler]

All the way down.

I wasn't referring to you, personally.

[Razgovory]

Julian Assange just had his Ecuadorian citizenship revoke.  Apparently he rides around the embassy on a scooter smearing shit on the walls.

[The Minsky Moment]

Thus, the family with surname A was in the shoemaker's guild and was in the 97% income bracket.  This family was a master.
The family with surname Z was also in the shoemaker's guild but in the 55% income bracket.  A journeyman.

If that is in the study, that isn't in the chart. It just identifies both as a member of the same type of guild.

The chart provides the 1427 income levels and wealth levels for each family surname. So the information is there.

As an example, imagine you ran the same exercise in the year 2621 using as the base the income, wealth and employment information of 2021 era surnames and the study gave the following data for 2021:

A ("Bezos")   Amazon.com    99%     99%
. . . .
Z ("Smith") Amazon.com      35%    35%

It would be a mistake to say this data proves the study to be rubbish because the richest and poorest workers both worked at the same company.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah - I am just surprised it survived 600 years with all of the economic cycles in that time, multiple sieges and wars over the city, WW2 etc. I agree with you but thought there would probably be a point at which it was just a wash - except for a few literal aristocrats.

And it may be - as they suggest - that actually it's really fixed and clear until the 20th century and so all of the levelling has been in the last 120 years but I'm not sure.

You do have to consider survivorship bias.  The people in the study by definition consist of families that haven't moved in 600 years.  I would guess that would tend to bias the study in favor of entrenched aristocrats and people too poor or demotivated to leave.  Economically fluid and socially mobile families (either direction) are presumably more likely to move away for one reason or another and thus take themselves out of the study.

[The Brain]

They're Italians. They live at home like forever.

[celedhring]

Yeah - I am just surprised it survived 600 years with all of the economic cycles in that time, multiple sieges and wars over the city, WW2 etc. I agree with you but thought there would probably be a point at which it was just a wash - except for a few literal aristocrats.

And it may be - as they suggest - that actually it's really fixed and clear until the 20th century and so all of the levelling has been in the last 120 years but I'm not sure.

You do have to consider survivorship bias.  The people in the study by definition consist of families that haven't moved in 600 years.  I would guess that would tend to bias the study in favor of entrenched aristocrats and people too poor or demotivated to leave.  Economically fluid and socially mobile families (either direction) are presumably more likely to move away for one reason or another and thus take themselves out of the study.

Focusing on the surname narrows it towards descendants exclusively from the male line too. I can trace my ancestry to families with extremely varied financial situations (but not to any kind of nobility, funny how that works).