This new NBER working paper has an abstract in which every sentence is interesting:

The extent of and changes in inter-generational mobility of wealth are central to understanding dynamics of wealth inequality but hard to measure.  Using estate tax returns data, we observe that the share of women among the very wealthy (top 0.01%) in the United States peaked in the late 1960s, reaching almost 50%.  Three decades on, women’s share had declined to one third, a return to pre-war levels.  We argue that this pattern mirrors the relative importance of inherited vs. self-made wealth in the economy and thus the gender-composition of the wealthiest may serve as a proxy for inter-generational wealth mobility.  This proxy for "dynastic wealth” suggests that wealth mobility in the past century decreased until the 1970s and rose thereafter, a pattern consistent with technological change driving long term trends in income inequality and mobility.  Greater wealth mobility in recent decades is also consistent with the simultaneous rise in top income shares and relatively stable wealth concentration.

Do note the wealth mobility discussed toward the end might be occurring only among the relatively rich, as described by Pareto’s "circulation of elites."  The pointer is from the "still excellent but why doesn’t he post more?" New Economist blog, which also references related work about the UK.

The researcher is Lena Edlund, here is her home page.  Here is her article "Hermaphroditism: What’s Not to Like?"  If you are in the popular press and are looking for a fascinating, undercovered economist to profile, try Lena Edlund.  Here is her paper on "Sex and the City."  Here is her paper on why "love marriage," as opposed to arranged marriage, is good for the economy.

Why do women’s clothes always button from the left, while men’s clothes always button from the right?

…This is an example in which history really seems to matter.  When buttons first appeared in the seventeenth century, they were seen only on garments of the wealthy.  At that time it was the custom for men to dress themselves and for women to be dressed by servants.  Having women’s shirts button from the left thus made things easier for the mostly right-handed servants who dressed them…

Might there be a continuing rational reason for this difference, namely that the women’s approach looks better (does it?) but is harder, thus scaring off the men?  This sounds like a question for Fashion-Incubator.

In any case that excerpt is from Robert Frank’s new The Economic Naturalist.  Here is Craig Newmark’s review of the book.  Here is Brad DeLong on the book.  Here is my previous post on the book.

Guest workers are also, paradoxically, less likely than illegal immigrants to become permanent residents.  The U.S. already has a number of smaller–and less well-designed–temporary-worker programs, and there’s no evidence that workers in those plans routinely overstay their visas.  Mexican workers, contrary to popular belief, do not, generally, intend to live their entire lives in the U.S.  Instead, as the sociologists Douglas Massey and Jorge Durand concluded after a comprehensive study of immigrant attitudes and behavior, most want to work “for short periods to generate an alternative source of household income . . . or to accumulate savings for a specific purpose,” like buying a house in Mexico.  This is harder to do as an illegal immigrant than as a guest worker, both because illegal workers are paid less and because when an illegal goes home he runs the risk of getting caught.  One remarkable study found that after border enforcement was stepped up in 1993 the chances of an illegal immigrant returning to Mexico to stay fell by a third.

Here is the full piece.  Please leave comments of high quality.  Let’s try two new norms for comments.  First, don’t say anything stronger against another commenter (or blogger) than "I don’t agree with you John."  Second, it is fine if you are commenting on a single thread more than once, but you should be adding new arguments and material, not just debating with another commenter.

Addendum: Megan Non-McArdle makes excellent points about civility.

Here is my latest column, featuring wunderkind Ben Casnocha; it has been titled "The Loose Reins on U.S. Teenagers Can Produce Trouble or Entrepreneurs."  Here is an excerpt:

The longstanding criticism of the American school system is that even
in the better schools, too many students just “get by” rather than
engage in a rigorous curriculum.  This academic leniency is bad for many
average or subpar students, but it also allows some students to
flourish.  Relatively loose family structures have similar effects;
American children are especially likely to be working on their own
projects, rather than being directed by parents and elders.

American philanthropy is also a significant and unheralded factor behind American youth entrepreneurship; many young entrepreneurs used elders as mentors or asked them for financial assistance.  Furthermore "selling to the young" is much derided by critics such as Juliet Schor or Benjamin Barber, but it has its benefits.  Sometimes advertising inspires the young to start marketing themselves, as did Ben Casnocha.

You can read more about Ben, who started his successful company at age 14 (he is now 19), in the article.  Here is Ben’s blog.  Here is the web site for Ben’s new book.  Ben will soon be attending Claremont McKenna college, I am curious to see whether or not it drives him crazy.