Full Twitter thread unrolled -> https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1792267464258048408
This person basically uses a bunch of graphs to argue that status of elite groups persist under even the most extreme cases. For example, the elites targeted in the PRC and the Soviet Union bounced back in elite status after a generation or two, how many elite southern planter families regained their status after the Civil War, how formally interned Japanese Americans reached the same homeownership rate as the non-interned Japanese Americans after a decade, etc.
But then they suggest that
So status persists throughout history even in the most extreme scenarios. What explains this? Genes play a major role. Consider how status persists when the status is accurized purely through chance.
Is this really a reasonable conclusion to draw? I saw one tweet criticizing this, saying
this information is very interesting, but it's nonsense to think this implies genetics/talent/effort causes success. i see this as evidence that social/human capital is persistent and important for economic development, so inequality on this dimension breeds economic inequality https://x.com/leonveliezer/status/1792413175301935124
Which seems like a good objection to me.
What do you all think?
going off completely unsubstantiated folk sayings, it takes around 3 generations of failsons to destroy a family's wealth
i choose to interpret this as an approximation of the half life of personal wealth under about the worst conditions possible (my made up justification being that most social structures are more vulnerable to internal risks rather than external, see: every empire in history), so given this it would make sense that accumulated wealth will not instantly evaporate to baseline when exposed to mere adverse external pressures. also, like, the sheer amount of wealth hoarded by feudal ruling class people probably would take way more than 3 generations of failsons and a cultural revolution to reduce down to pleb level in absolute terms.