Assortative mating plus efficient wealth management in Norway, by Fagereng, Guiso & Pistaferri

 Here's a recent NBER working paper that sheds some further light on how assortative mating leads to divergence in family wealth. (Apparently the spouse who managed pre-marital wealth better has more weight in managing the family finances...). Among other things we learn that Norwegian data on income and wealth is really good.

Assortative Mating and Wealth Inequality  by Andreas Fagereng, Luigi Guiso & Luigi Pistaferri, NBER WORKING PAPER 29903 DOI 10.3386/w29903, April 2022

We use population data on capital income and wealth holdings for Norway to measure asset positions and wealth returns before individuals marry and after the household is formed. These data allow us to establish a number of novel facts. First, individuals sort on personal wealth rather than parents' wealth. Assortative mating on own wealth dominates, and in fact renders assortative mating on parental wealth statistically insignificant. Second, people match also on their personal returns to wealth and assortative mating on returns is as strong as that on wealth. Third, post-marriage returns on family wealth are largely explained by the return of the spouse with the highest pre-marriage return. This suggests that family wealth is largely managed by the spouse with the highest potential to grow it. This is particularly true for households at the top of the wealth distribution at marriage. We use a simple analytical example to illustrate how assortative mating on wealth and returns and wealth management task allocation between spouses affect wealth inequality.

The Transplantation Society reaffirms the value of organ donation and transplantation, even for the poor

 You wouldn't think it would be news that TTS, The Transplantation Society, felt that transplantation is valuable for patients who need it, and would "stand against any form of barriers in access, ... particularly that related to gender, race, religion and income."  

But I think their statement yesterday to that effect, below, may be a reversal of the position adopted by some previous presidents of TTS, who, in arguing against black markets run by criminals, also argued that citizens of poor countries should be denied access to kidney exchange, i.e. that kidney exchange is repugnant when offered to poorer patients.

Here is the new statement (and I include links to some history  below it.)

 A Reaffirmation of Organ Donation (The Tribune Pulse, September 23, 2021)*

"Recent events call for a reaffirmation of essential values held by the worldwide community of transplant providers.

"Indeed, in this period when inequities in access to healthcare are stretched and emphasised, we feel compelled to highlight the universal value of organ donation and the immense success achieved by transplantation. Donation implies generosity and solidarity, and should take place daily, routinely and peacefully around the globe regardless of age, gender, race, education or income of donors. This Gift of Life is gratefully accepted by recipients in dire need of an organ to continue to live regardless of their age and gender, among others. International Medical Societies representing Transplantation Professionals across the globe support and nurture diversity and inclusion among their members, fostering education, and stand against any form of barriers in access, knowledge, transition and required training around the "Gift of Life", particularly that related to gender, race, religion and income. We embrace a call of action to support equitable access to transplantation for all patients with end-stage organ diseases, and the value of gender and race equality in access to education and career development in the diverse fields of transplant healthcare professions."

That sounds like a statement we can all support.

But those of you who have been following how Global Kidney Exchange can remove financial barriers to transplantation know that it has met with considerable opposition to allowing citizens of middle and low income countries access kidney exchange. 

Here's the original article on GKE:

Kidney Exchange to Overcome Financial Barriers to Kidney Transplantation
by M. A. Rees, T. B. Dunn, C. S. Kuhr, C. L. Marsh, J. Rogers, S. E. Rees, A. Cicero, L. J. Reece, A. E. Roth, O. Ekwenna, D. E. Fumo, K. D. Krawiec, J. E. Kopke, S. Jain, M. Tan, S. R. Paloyo
American Journal of Transplantation, Volume 17, Issue 3 March 2017, Pages 782–790

And here is a letter from two former TTS presidents saying that GKE is essentially organ trafficking…

Opposition to Irresponsible Global Kidney Exchange

Francis L. Delmonico and Nancy L. Ascher

For a history lesson, see e.g.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Global kidney exchange and repugnance in the AJT: comments and replies

Monday, December 18, 2017

More on the endorsement of Global Kidney Exchange by the ASTS

Monday, December 25, 2017

Three stories of kidney donations (and one of a grinch that wants to limit them)

Monday, January 29, 2018

Italy recommends Global Kidney Exchange to the World Health Organization

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Global kidney exchange celebrated together with the Declaration of Istanbul, in the AJT

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Global Kidney Exchange in the Lancet, by Minerva, Savulescu and Singer

Thursday, January 2, 2020

Global kidney exchange: continued controversies, perhaps moving towards resolution

* It looks like the statement of reaffirmation of organ donation may have originated with the International Liver Transplant Society, which has a Sept. 20th version, endorsed by many sister societies, here: https://ilts.org/news/reaffirmation-of-organ-donation/ 

Do high earners marry each other?

Here's a paper that finds that they do:

Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality

Jeremy Greenwood, Nezih Guner, Georgi Kocharkov, Cezar Santos

NBER Working Paper No. 19829
Issued in January 2014
NBER Program(s):   EFG 

Has there been an increase in positive assortative mating? Does assortative mating contribute to household income inequality? Data from the United States Census Bureau suggests there has been a rise in assortative mating. Additionally, assortative mating affects household income inequality. In particular, if matching in 2005 between husbands and wives had been random, instead of the pattern observed in the data, then the Gini coefficient would have fallen from the observed 0.43 to 0.34, so that income inequality would be smaller. Thus, assortative mating is important for income inequality. The high level of married female labor-force participation in 2005 is important for this result.

Where do you fall on the US income distribution? CBO report

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report today,  Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.  Growth for the top 1% has been disproportionately high.
It includes the following interesting table, among many others:

"In this analysis, CBO presents data on income and taxes for various subgroups of the population, such as the lowest 20 percent or the top 1 percent. In constructing those
subgroups, households are ranked by income that is adjusted for household size. Each subgroup of the population contains an equal number of people, but because households vary in size, subgroups generally contain unequal numbers of households."

Update: the NY Times has an interactive gadget that allows you to click on an iconic percentile and see some data...http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

College admissions and income diversity

In this season of college graduations, David Leonhardt reports on the income distribution of students at selective colleges: Top Colleges, Largely for the Elite

"...a Georgetown University study of the class of 2010 at the country’s 193 most selective colleges. As entering freshmen, only 15 percent of students came from the bottom half of the income distribution. Sixty-seven percent came from the highest-earning fourth of the distribution. These statistics mean that on many campuses affluent students outnumber middle-class students.

“We claim to be part of the American dream and of a system based on merit and opportunity and talent,” Mr. Marx says. “Yet if at the top places, two-thirds of the students come from the top quartile and only 5 percent come from the bottom quartile, then we are actually part of the problem of the growing economic divide rather than part of the solution.”
********

In case you don't know income quartiles off the top of your head, here they are (in much more detail than just quartiles, estimated for 2011) from the Tax Policy Center. The median income for a married couple filing jointly is estimated to be $75,000, and the 75th percentile is $130,000 (the 99th percentile is $762,000).