The occupational mobility rates experienced by youths are presented in table 6, calculated based on the mobility tables, and they complement the description of intergenerational changes. The reviewing the rates enables us to affirm that, although around half of the youths experienced upward mobility, nearly 40% inherited their provider’s occupation and the rest move downward on the stratum. When observing the behavior of the analyzed subgroups, the difference between sexes stands out, with higher rates of upward mobility for women, in contrast to a greater immobility by men. But the subgroups with the largest gaps between them are the migrant and non-migrant subgroups; the former of which experience upward mobility in 7 of each 10 cases, while non-migrants experience this in only 4 of each 10 cases, and have high rates of immobility. The comparisons by ethnic backgrounds and treatment intensity show very limited differences.<sup>52</sup>

**Table 6. Intergenerational occupational mobility rates. Youths from 18-35 years of age of ENCEL 2017. Total, by sex, ethnic background, migratory status and treatment intensity.**

|||By|sex|By ethnic b|ackground|By migrat|ory status|<br>By tre<br>inte|atment<br>nsity|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Type of<br>Mobility|Total<br>(n=3,084)|Females<br>(n=1170)|Males<br>(n=1914)|Indigenous<br>(n=830)|Non-<br>indigenous<br>(n=2254)|Migrant<br>(n=702)|Non-<br>migrant<br>(n=2124)|Low<br>intensity<br>(n=1521)|High<br>intensity<br>(n=1,563)|
|Upward<br>Mobility (%)|49.2|66.8|38.5|48.7|49.4|74.2|39.3|47.5|49.3|
|Immobility<br>(%)|37.6|21.6|47.3|41.3|36.2|14.1|46.8|38.5|38.3|
|Downward<br>Mobility (%)|13.2|11.5|14.3|10|14.4|11.7|13.9|14|12.4|

Source: Own elaboration from ENCEL 2017.

An analysis of the output percentages for the entire sample, as shown in chart 7, and in Appendix F for the subgroups, provides additional findings. If we consider the complete sample, we observed that the probability of having a destination at the base of the stratification is greater for all strata of origin (between 17 and 43% of the cases), while the probability of having a destination at the top is low (between 9 and 11% of the cases), except for those who have a NM origin (26% of the cases).

52 An analysis of the average difference for the ISEI of occupations of the provider-youth duo provides complementary results, aligned with those previously described. On average, youths have occupations with 6.8 more points of ISEI than their providers (p<0.001). For women this difference is 10.1 points (in comparison with 4.8 points for men), while migrants present a difference of 10.8 points (in contrast to 5.0 points of non-migrants). In both comparisons (by sex and migratory status), the difference between the compared subgroups is statically significant. Additionally, indigenous and non-indigenous persons have occupations with an ISEI of around 7 points more than their providers, and the difference between both subgroups is not statistically significant. In the case of the subgroups by treatment intensity, youths with high intensity have on average difference of 6.8 points regarding their provider (in comparison to 5.7 points of youths with low intensity); the difference between both subgroups is statistically significant, even if it is only one point. As described in Appendix E, the ISEI has a range of 11.0 to 88.7. The changes described here mean there is an improvement in the youths’ occupational status in relation to their providers, although, on average, the differences are limited and may be considered short-distance movements.

33