and with it the creation of new jobs and expansion of income brackets and levels as concrete signs of improvement. These jobs were occupied not only by those who had just entered the job market, but also by those who were already there and were able to adapt in terms of educational and work experience, improving their performance and, consequently, their productivity.These would be important or even innovative claims if they were not well-known and commonplace. As in any capitalist market situation there are no possibilities of work or employment for everyone, and there are those who can achieve better conditions than others. And in an economic framework defined and conditioned by the market itself, the chances of improving employment and income exist if the economy is expanding, albeit within certain limits. Otherwise, if the economy is moving at a slow pace, the chances decrease.In fact, after all, it is the market that defines the structure of incomes and occupational hierarchy, at least for most workers, who are employees in Brazil, somewhere around three quarters of the economically active population (EAP). Of every four workers who find a position in the labor market, three are employed. For the self-employed and employers, the determinants are usually different, although wage levels paid to employees in certain occupations or functions regulate, or serve as a reference[6] for payment of services provided by the self-employed.The debate between orthodox and heterodox researchers went on for many years, persisting until today, but at a more infrequent and less fierce pace. Neither side is convinced of the arguments given by the opposing group. Each remained with their theoretical convictions, arguments and statistics.2-Tabular View of income inequalityOur methodological position on the issue targeted by the orthodox versus heterodox debate differed from that of both groups. Not that we denied income inequality or social mobility. We simply realized that one dimension was related to the other. One necessarily influenced the other, conferring distinct contours to both.Although we found in the papers implicit considerations of the authors on the interdependence of the two dimensions, income inequality and social mobility, we were unable to verify the interest or intention to question the role of each of them in shaping the final appropriation of income. The two dimensions were always addressed and measured separately and the results, when study objects, were always contrasted with one another.Our original idea, when we took a closer look at the work and arguments of both groups, was to try to achieve a methodology that would address the two dimensions at the same time, so as to distinguish the effects of one and the other in relation to the whole of economic and social transformations or, specifically, to the movement of income distributions.In so doing, precisely due to considering the relationship between the two dimensions present and active, we would be able to determine whether the final framework of income distribution in a given period of time was more affected by movements in income inequality or in social mobility.The initial idea turned into a working hypothesis, developed and presented