I think the breakfast table effect is particularly huge.
When we went to buy a house, we had a real estate agent referred to us. I liked her a lot personally, and she worked in her parents' real estate office.
The only problem was, it seemed like several times we wanted to view a house, she was out of town with her own family. In those cases she offered to have her mother come with us in her place (which is something any coworker could have offered a colleague for).
In some ways I found her tendency to be out of town indicative that she took the job a bit less seriously than I'd like; on the other hand maybe it was just a coincidence of bad timing.
Regardless, on balance I thought she was a really effective agent and did a great job helping us through the deal-making process. Now, I have nobody to compare her to, but I don't doubt that spending decades growing up in a house of agents, and then going to work with them, teaches you in a way that gives you a serious head-start on the profession that would take any other agent decades to catch up on.
Computer programmers have parents who are computer programmers at a rate 6 times the rest of the population. This is higher than most of the jobs on our list.
My mother was a computer programmer. One of the first. She graduated college with a degree in Math in the 50s, and was hired specifically to staff up her company's computer division. I've still got a photo of her climbing a step-stool, and moving jumpers around on a room sized computer.
My first encounter with a computer was at her workplace in the 70s, when I was on a school holiday not observed by her work, and she had no babysitter. By that time, she was programming in FORTRAN and no longer moving jumpers. I remember that she sat me down in front of an old teletype terminal in the computer room and I got to play "Colossal Cave Adventure" all day. I was totally hooked, and I think she had to drag me away.. I still cringe at how much paper my day of exploring the cave must have wasted. After years of begging and pleading, we got our first home computer a few years later (Apple II clone, the Franklin Ace 1000), and I've been programming ever since.
Most people in my town were not exposed to computers outside of limited encounters at school. I think that day in my Mom's office was what got me hooked on computers, and what started me on my career path.
My internal kid voice said "Yeah!". Until I read the other reply, it hadn't occurred to me that your rhetorical question's intended answer might be "No"
I’m actually surprised by that, although based on little more than my own experience of neither parent working in programming or IT or even technology. I would have assumed that, since computing itself is a fairly new field (only a few generations to work with) and presumably a very quickly-growing and -changing field in the last generation or two, the “new recruits” would vastly outnumber the children of programmers.
I am also surprised by it due to the fact that "Farmers and ranchers have parents who are farmers and ranchers at a rate 8 times the rest of the population."
Being a farmer myself, I don't think I have ever met a fellow farmer who didn't also have parents in the business. In my experience, the hurdles of getting into the role (required capital, knowledge, etc.) in this day in age seem insurmountable without family help. While anecdotal, I find it difficult to believe it is that close to computer programmers, where first generation workers appear to be quite common.
My dad was in computers, but more on the sales / it solution design side. Regardless the exposure was there, and when I was about 8 or 9 or so I had saved for a year of diligently doing chores and got my Vic 20 in the early 80s
I was never going to be anything else than a programmer, although it took me a while to realise it. :)
Today I have a son age 7 and he's on Tynker, and Dash & Dot. I reckon programming is going to be more of a skill to have which can then become the basis for other engineering things, we'll see I guess - but he'll have that from an early age at least.
(FWIW, I was so impressed to see Tynker introduce pub sub events in their courses early on. A lot of work places could do well to use such patterns..)
Software developers, applications and systems software have parents who are software developers, applications and systems software at a rate 9 times the rest of the population.
But wouldn't that make it less likely? The first programmers had zero chance of being in the same field as their parents.
The numbers are supposed to based on the child generation. If the numbers were based on the parent generation ("likelihood of passing down job preference") then a growing field should indeed increase the likelihood.
> The numbers are supposed to based on the child generation. If the numbers were based on the parent generation ("likelihood of passing down job preference") then a growing field should indeed increase the likelihood.
If we denote the event "Child is a programmer" by C and the event "A parent is a programmer." by P, then the sentence "Computer programmers have parents who are computer programmers at a rate 6 times the rest of the population." can be expressed in terms of probability as P(P|C)/P(P) = 6. Bayes' rule tells us that P(P|C) = P(C|P)P(P)/P(C), so the sentence is equivalent to P(C|P)/P(C) or "Parents who are computer programmers have children who are computer programmers at a rate 6 times the rest of the population."
It doesn't matter whether you are looking at the child generation or the parent generation, the heritability relative to the general population will come out to the same number. A growing field may increase the P(C|P) part of the ratio, but it will also increase P(C) in general, so it is not clear whether the relative measurement will change at all, and in which direction.
Thought experiment: generation n has 1% fidgeteers, generation n+1 has 100% fidgeteers. All generation n fidgeteers will have passed on their profession (procreation assumed), but few generation n+1 fidgeteers will have followed in their parents' footsteps (assuming non-fidgeteers also procreate).
Anecdotal data point: 3rd generation computer programmer here, and I hope that one of my sons also takes up the mantle, although I haven't seen any evidence that it's likely yet. I took it up because I had computers to play with at home, and my dad had Logo (turtle graphics) on one of them.
I thought the same at first, but it could also be interpreted that if you think your job is dying out (or just not a nice job) then you'll steer your kids away from it, whereas if it's a good job with lots of prospects then you'll use your connections and skills to direct your kids towards the same career.
Kind of undercuts the "self-made" programmer meritocracy that seems to be a prevelant idea though.
Computer programming must be one of the easiest jobs that you can do at home, outside of work, so there's very high visibility of what the job entails (at least, in a very vague sense).
Confounding the hypothesis that this is actual genetic heritability, perhaps, but I don’t think anyone is claiming or predicting that genetics is the dominant effect. I’m sure a study could be done on children not raised by their biological parents, but I doubt there would be a strong correlation except perhaps for rare occupations that are strongly linked to a genetic component, like (and I’m just guessing here) athleticism or intelligence.
Genetics can predispose you into "something that requires good memory" or "something that requires strength" or even "is routine and requires patience". There are usually many that fit your genetics. Whether your love for routine lead you to choose work with horses or plants or something else depends on a lot more factors.
Plus, there are many people in professions that dont fit their genetics perfectly.
Your last sentence makes me wonder: what is the average job satisfaction of people who have the same jobs as a parent versus other people?
Growing up in American public schools I was on several occasions taught something like “the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence means you can do whatever you want with your life rather than just following in the footsteps of your parents.” I suspect that’s an oversimplification or distortion of the author’s intent, but it’s definitely a popular concept.
Along similar lines, I wonder hiw the percentage of children who take the same job as a parent has changed over time. I would guess that it has decreased since the industrial revolution.
I would expect higher hapiness, because you have better idea of what you are going into and parents likely shown you their strategies how to deal with disadvantages of that job.
Unless you was foerced to pick up that job or did it to make parents happy.
Yep, that too. People like you are filtered out before they make that mistake. Which again, raises average happiness of those who pick the job - there would be one more unhappy person to bring average down otherwise.
Most jobs I've tried seem to have a higher than the average 1.7-2.7x chance for the same job. Did anyone find examples of jobs which are (far) less likely? They only provide the cashier example themselves.
This is a fascinating phenomenon to see data for. It’s fun to look at the strongly heritable occupations and speculate on the more direct causes of heritability.
Becoming a lawyer probably generally requires a good education, which is probably strongly correlated with wealth, which is probably strongly correlated to parents’ wealth. Even if every child’s desired career path is chosen randomly, the children who desire to become lawyers whose parents are lawyers will probably be more likely than average to succeed in that path.
I’m sure the actual genetic heritability of traits plays some part, but I doubt it is very significant. I would expect some loose correlation based on things like intelligence and personality traits, but I wouldn’t expect strong correlation except perhaps for rare occupations like professional athletes.
Disclaimer: this is all fun speculation. I don’t even know if the traits I used as examples have been shown to have strong genetic heritability.
In Japan if you are from a priest family, you're pretty much destined to inherit the business (i.e. the temple, which actually generates a ton of revenue that's non taxable, because "religion", seriously...), since it's supposed to stay within the bloodline.
In Poland in some areas of the government owned energy/coal mining sectors there are/were actual 'employment inheritance' clauses in place to let candidates from families of current or past workers get employment before unrelated ones. There were attempts to get rid of them but that caused union protests and strikes and some unions want more of these so I have no idea what's the current situation is. Some analysts say they are dead clauses though (due to national labor laws which forbid any discrimination taking precedence) and only in there to make unions content and not strike or protest.
I wonder if you would see a more clear pattern if you could aggregate to sector or skill set.
My mother is a physiotherapist, her father was a physician and her mother a nurse. I (son) am a software engineer, my father was a civil engineer. None of those jobs are the same but they are definitely similar.
Huh. I wonder how much of these correlations are because an occupation is "the only job in town" or because the children take over the parents' solo business.
"Structural iron and steel workers have parents who are structural iron and steel workers at a rate 155 times the rest of the population. This is higher than most of the jobs on our list." One thing I've noticed about steel workers, is that if you talk to them about their work, they'll start talking to you in an entirely different language, with all of the slang. As far as I can tell, you either know the slang from some sort of family connection or you don't. I think this generational reproduction is perhaps intentional.
Occupational heritability will also be boosted by the "company town" effect. I feel that might be a confounding factor in their analysis for many working class occupations.
If you are raised in a town with a big steel plant or textile mill and you don't leave, you're likely to inherit a parent's job by default...
I grew up in a fishing village - I've got something like 15 generations of ancestors who worked (and quite often died) working at sea. I'm very glad to have a job inside mostly sitting at a desk.
It's confounding in the sense that if a child has the same job as their parent, we assume that parental influence may have had something to do with it. Which it probably does, in a lot of occupations. But when the "company town" effect occurs, it's not necessarily because of parental influence.
It's merely a lack of other options.
I think this happens in every profession. Restaurants have their own DSLs, so do hospitals; many software jobs have their own domain language, especially once you get start talking about actual systems/implementations.
Same with “Ship and boat captains and operators” at 433x, and real estate appraisers / accessors at 118x. Lots of esoteric knowledge in commercial boating + local real estate.
When we went to buy a house, we had a real estate agent referred to us. I liked her a lot personally, and she worked in her parents' real estate office.
The only problem was, it seemed like several times we wanted to view a house, she was out of town with her own family. In those cases she offered to have her mother come with us in her place (which is something any coworker could have offered a colleague for).
In some ways I found her tendency to be out of town indicative that she took the job a bit less seriously than I'd like; on the other hand maybe it was just a coincidence of bad timing.
Regardless, on balance I thought she was a really effective agent and did a great job helping us through the deal-making process. Now, I have nobody to compare her to, but I don't doubt that spending decades growing up in a house of agents, and then going to work with them, teaches you in a way that gives you a serious head-start on the profession that would take any other agent decades to catch up on.