Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is the episode summary:

How much of your life’s trajectory was set in motion centuries ago? Gregory Clark has spent decades studying social mobility, and his findings suggest that where you land in society is far more predictable than we like to think. Using historical data, surname analysis, and migration patterns, Clark argues that social mobility rates have remained largely unchanged for 300 years—even across radically different political and economic systems.

He and Tyler discuss why we should care about relative mobility vs growing the size of the pie, how physical mobility does and doesn’t matter, why England was a meritocracy by 1700, how assortative mating affects economic and social progress, why India industrialized so late, a new potential explanation why Britain’s economic performance has been lukewarm since WWI, Malthusian societies then and now, whether a “hereditarian” stance favors large-scale redistribution or a free-market approach, the dynamics of assimilation within Europe and the role of negative selection in certain migrations, the challenge of accurately measuring living standards, the neighborhood-versus-family debate over what drives mobility, whether we need datasets larger than humanity itself to decode the genetics of social outcomes, and much more.

Here is one of many interesting excerpts:

COWEN: How do you think about the social returns to more or less assortative mating? Say in the United States — do we have too much of it, too little of it? If we had more of it, you’d have, say, very smart or determined people marrying those like them, and you might end up with more innovation from their children and grandchildren. But you might also be messing with what you would call the epistemic quality of the median voter. There’s this trade-off. How do you think about that? What side of the margin are we at?

CLARK: Assortative mating turns out to be a fascinating phenomenon, and in this new book, we actually have records of 1.7 million marriages in England from 1837 until now. What is astonishing in England is the degree to which people end up assorting in marriage so that basically, they’re matching with people that are as close to them, essentially genetically, as their siblings in marriage. It’s really interesting because people could mate in any way.

You could think I want the tallest person, the handsomest person, the youngest person, but for some reason, consistently, people seem to want to match to people who are close in social status. Now that doesn’t affect anything about the average level of ability in a society, but if it’s consistently followed over generations, it will widen the distribution of ability.

COWEN: Yes, and are we doing too much of that or too little of it in the United States?

CLARK: It depends what your view is. If you think that the engine of high-tech society now, like the United States, is the top 1 percent or 5 percent of the ability distribution, then you would say the more assortative is mating, the more people will be in that extreme and the greater will be economic growth.

In the new book, I actually speculate about, was assortative mating in Northern Europe a discovery of the late Middle Ages that actually then helped propel things like the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, because as I say, it’s a remarkably constant feature of British society.

We can only trace it back to about 1750, the actual degree of assortativeness. So, in that sense, you can’t have too much if that’s your view about how society operates.

COWEN: At least we could have more of it. There might be some margin where you’d have too much.

CLARK: But it does produce more inequality, so if you’re worried about inequality in society, you don’t want assortative mating. The one way to correct a lot of inequality would just be to have much more random matching.

One of the remarkable things about Denmark is, education is essentially free until you’re age 24. They give you subsidies for your living expenses, for childcare provision — it’s all available. They’ve compressed the income distribution quite sharply.

There is this periodic survey of how well students do, the PISA measures. Nordic countries have not reduced the inequality of PISA measures compared to much more unequal societies like the United States. Again, it’s just interesting that a high degree of inequality is still found within these societies. It turns out that in Nordic societies, people are mating again very strongly assortatively even now. That is the thing that you would worry more about, that there is going to be this trade-off between assortative mating and the degree of inequality in a society.

Stimulating throughout, with lots of debate.