On Feb 6, 6:39 pm, tg earthlink.net> wrote:

I concede that the blanket statement that 15%% of millionaires inherit
their wealth is probably not very meaningful.

As to the chances for climbing the socioeconomic ladder, here is a
study I found that contradicts the suppositions above. I haven't
finished reading it, and I'm not sure I understand all of the
statistics behind the study, but here is the summary:

"The key findings relating to intergenerational mobility include the
following:

*
Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance
of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus
children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
*
Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income
($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower
quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a
higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top
five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
*
Education, race, health and state of residence are four key
channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.
*
African American children who are born in the bottom quartile
are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white
children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less
likely to attain the top quartile.
*
The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even
after controlling for a host of parental background factors,
children's education and health, as well as whether the household was
female-headed or receiving public assistance.
*
After controlling for a host of parental background variables,
upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in
percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East
South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South
Central and Mountain regions.
*
By international standards, the United States has an unusually
low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents' income is highly
predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the
United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada,
Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which
comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a
lower rate of mobility than the United States.

Key findings relating to short-run, year-to-year income movements
include the following:

*
The overall volatility of household income increased
significantly between 1990-91 and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04.
*
Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of
households who experienced significant downward short-term mobility.
The share that saw their incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real
terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to
16.6 percent in 2003-04.
*
The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income,
while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04,
the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the
experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510
and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile saw no
increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top
decile ($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large
negative income shocks.
*
For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led
to an increase in the frequency of large negative income shocks, which
may be expected to translate to an increase in financial distress.
*
The median household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04, a
year when GDP grew strongly, than it was it was during the recession
of 1990-91.
*
Upward short-term mobility for those in the bottom quintile has
improved since 1990-91, with no significant offsetting increase in
downward short-term mobility.
*
Households whose adult members all worked more than 40 hours per
week for two years in a row were more upwardly mobile in 1990-91 and
1997-98 than households who worked fewer hours. Yet this was not true
in 2003-04, suggesting that people who work long hours on a consistent
basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for
their families."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html