Sunday, March 9, 2014

Movin' on Up! How George Jefferson Succeeded

The Jeffersons

Remember “The Jeffersons”? The black family that lived next door to Archie Bunker on “All in the Family” became so popular that Norman Lear spun them off to their own show wherein family patriarch George Jefferson, an upwardly mobile entrepreneur, moved up to “a dee-lux apartment in the sky” where they were the only black family.

George was bombastic, quick-tempered and politically incorrect much like Archie Bunker.  The new show exposed the bigotry of the white upper class of the time but also gave voice to the reverse bigotry of Archie’s mirror image. 

Jefferson succeeded by guile, hard work and shrewdness just like his white counterparts. 

Several economic studies of the last 20 years or so would suggest that George Jefferson’s upward mobility is rare, no matter the color of your skin.  A Harvard study published last fall suggests that social mobility in the US hasn’t changed much over time but varies a great deal by geography.  Ranking 50 metro areas by the percent of the population that moves from the bottom 20% to the top 20%, the study concludes that the factors leading to better social mobility are “less segregation, less income inequality, better schools, greater social capital, and more stable families”.  San Jose, CA tops the list and Charlotte, NC is at the bottom.  

In the late 1990’s the US Department of Education undertook an extensive study of 22,000 kindergarten students, examining their performance at an early age and identifying the social factors that contribute to their success or failure.  The study – the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) – attributed success to the level of the mother’s education, the number of books in the household and two parent families, among many other factors.  Black children underperformed all others but if one controls for the other factors, black children performed as well as their white and Asian peers. 

In other words, there was no difference in the performance of white and black children from two parent families with a well-educated mother and a home full of books.

University of California economics professor Gregory Clark took a different approach to examining social mobility.  He studied success based upon surname.  His findings suggest that lineage has more impact on success than all other factors combined. 

This is true in Sweden, a social welfare state; England, where industrial capitalism was born; the United States, one of the most heterogeneous societies in history; and India, a fairly new democracy hobbled by the legacy of caste. Capitalism has not led to pervasive, rapid mobility. Nor have democratization, mass public education, the decline of nepotism, redistributive taxation, the emancipation of women, or even, as in China, socialist revolution,” claims Professor Clark.

Ashkenazi Jews named Katz, Scots named MacDonald and Chinese named Wang are more likely than their peers to be successful.

The idea that genetics play a larger role than all other factors in determining success flies in the face of our instincts as parents.  But, Professor Clark’s conclusions are supported by other studies including the Colorado Adoption Project, which followed the lives of 245 babies put up for adoption.  The conclusion?  (You’re not going to like this.)  The study found no correlation between a child’s personality traits and those of their adoptive parents.  In other words, in the battle of nature vs. nurture, nature wins!

So, parents can do only so much to improve their children’s prospects.  Provide a stable family life, read to them and send them to a better school if you have the choice. Other advantages are an accident of birth.

When I wrote about the topic of increasing the minimum wage a few weeks ago, some respondents slammed me for advocating that the poor just “need to work harder and stop whining”.  But, that was not my intention.

The thrust of my argument is this:  raising the minimum wage will do nothing to address income inequality or social mobility.  An American view of a just society encompasses equality of opportunity and that is the key to improving on both scores.

We need better schools and better families, particularly in racially segregated neighborhoods. Local communities must come together to achieve the needed progress.  To quote Germaine Smith-Baugh, CEO of the Urban League of Broward County (FL), “Give me a family and I’ll give you a block.  Give me a block and I’ll give you a neighborhood.  Give me a neighborhood and I’ll give you a community.”

The federal government has done its part.  Professor Clark’s findings suggest that the civil rights legislation of the 1960’s has helped African-American descendants of slaves achieve more starting in the 1970’s.

Perhaps that explains George Jefferson’s popularity.  But, it doesn’t explain his success.  His success is the result of his guile, hard work and shrewdness.


WHO WILL LEAD?

14 comments:

  1. Larry Litowitz I knew I should have changed my name to Katz! Basically these studies confirm the analysis done in the Bell Curve that came out in the early 90's where you start in life is generally where you will end up. What is interesting is if you remember the Amos and Andy show it showed everyone working and trying to get ahead. It was taken off the air because of controversy surrounding bad stereotypes being portrayed. What is wrong with portrayal of people working and trying to get ahead in life. Much better than gangbanger movies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As I read Who Will Lead? I feel like I am on journey where the ultimate destination is unknown to me. I look forward to reading future issues and following the turns in the road they will bring. If I had to guess, I would guess we will never reach a destination as you continue to refer to your road map and select yet another course. It will be interesting!

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brilliant, John. Your best ever. Can’t wait to hear about the controversial push back you get from readers.

    David Altshuler

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul Byrne

    Uh... do I have to remind everyone that George Jefferson was a fictional character?

    ReplyDelete
  5. And 1984 was a fictional novel, but it doesn't mean we can't see truths in it.
    Jason G. Ramage, MS, MBA, RBP
    Senior Project Manager at BAI Inc - Meeting Client Challenges with Vision and Innovation
    Top Contributor

    ReplyDelete
  6. While we can derive truth from fiction, the article discusses how George Jefferson succeeded at business which was neither germane to the plot of the show, nor was it real. He did not have a successful, business. We don't know if any of the writers had any clue about running a successful business. It was just assumed in the plot of the show that he was.
    Comparing that to Orwell's 1984, which was a deep thought experiment instead of a setting for unending comic relief, seems like a stretch to me. In any case, there are many things we cannot learn from 1984, like, how to run a successful political campaign or how to structure an oppressive bureaucracy.
    The effectiveness of those mechanism were part of the universe created by the author to enhance the story and move it along. There was no requirement that they be real, realistic or even fathomable.
    Successful art helps us reflect or amuses us, it doesn't teach us how things actually work.
    Paul Byrne
    President - Razoyo

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Paul. The use of George Jefferson as a narrative device was simply a way of creating a context for the central theme of the post. I would love to get your comments on: the factors contributing to social mobility, the methods by which we can improve family stability and local schools or the research cited in the post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jason G. Ramage, MS, MBA, RBP
    Senior Project Manager at BAI Inc - Meeting Client Challenges with Vision and Innovation
    Top Contributor

    Lighten up Paul. Nobody is telling you you should go run your life based on a TV show from the 70s.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paul Byrne
    President - Razoyo

    You're right. I'll lighten up. Good advice.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jason G. Ramage, MS, MBA, RBP
    Senior Project Manager at BAI Inc - Meeting Client Challenges with Vision and Innovation
    Top Contributor

    Would you not agree there are useful fictions? John Grisham writes fiction, and nobody is ever going to confuse his works with 1984, but that doesn't mean there isn't something to be learned from them.

    I could list book after book after book if you would like to argue why each is "not a valid comparison" for some reason or another.

    The Jeffersons aired in the 70s, a time when segregation and Jim Crow laws weren't all that distant a memory for some. And here's a show that depicts a black man who, through hard work and perseverance, made a success of himself. Perhaps that is just someone many people wanted, or needed, to see on TV. Is that really such a bad thing?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Paul Byrne
    President - Razoyo

    I agree we can learn from fiction, but, only in the sense of moral and human truth on a broader scale. While there are some fictional works that also provide practical instruction because the author is an authority on the subject (see The Goal : http://www.amazon.com/The-Goal-Process-Ongoing-Improvement/dp/0884270610), the Jeffersons wouldn't fall into that category.
    The concern is that when an author creates a universe, everything works the way they want it to work, not necessarily the way is does in reality. A great example of this are the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches stories. Things worked out for his characters, but, because he created the universe they were in.
    The value of fiction is that it can help us examine our own lives, behaviours, and relationships in a different light, but, we shouldn't expect things to work like they do on TV. I'm amazed how many people actually do expect that, though.
    I hope you don't feel I'm backing out on my lightening up promise... this is light for me! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Paul. I had to chuckle at your last sentence because, as I was reading your comment, I was wondering if you were going to lighten up. :))

    That said, you make a good point or two. I contend that The Jeffersons creates "the universe" in which I was trying to make a point about social mobility. Most people cannot succeed as entrepreneurs. George Jefferson succeeded in his fictional universe because he worked hard and made good choices.

    There are elements within our government -- specifically, the President and his party -- who are attempting to link a raise in the minimum wage. I don't accept their argument and I have used the "fictional universe" of The Jeffersons as a device to make my point.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Paul Byrne
    President - Razoyo

    I'm with you, John. I do believe that we overstate the importance of individual effort and understate the role of luck (sometimes called randomness, though it isn't random at all, it is really just unforeseeable).
    Hard work and good choices can lead to success, but, so can good luck (like not being born in Somalia, or, meeting the right people). There are plenty examples of people who work hard and are not successful, just as there are plenty of people who don't work so hard and make bad choices, but received their success with luck.
    That is the problem with fiction, especially TV. Hard work is almost always rewarded with success when, it is not always the case.
    I'm with you on the other arguments, though, especially minimum wage.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jason G. Ramage, MS, MBA, RBP
    Senior Project Manager at BAI Inc - Meeting Client Challenges with Vision and Innovation
    Top Contributor

    One of Malcolm Gladwell's books (Outliers) touched on that point Paul. If you haven't read it, I recommend it.

    ReplyDelete