to evaluate whether, for the entire referenced population, there was invariant, ascending or descending movement of the recipients in the scales of their incomes. In other words, one can learn whether there was "mobility" of individuals, if it was invariable, ascending or descending, through the income scales in t-1 and t, and of what kind.Thus, the proposed income inequality measure presented in the text cited in footnote 7 and applied in this text - see sections 5 and 6 below - allows one to evaluate the final inequality, the participation of each of its three components (income, frequency and interaction) and verify the movement of frequencies over time. This movement from t-1 to t will show whether individuals are ascending, descending or remaining in the same place on the scale of market incomes and, by extension, of society.In fact, a snapshot is taken of the situation of inequality, the income scale and the grouping of individuals on the income scale in t-1, and another similar snapshot is taken in t; the comparison allows one to see the movement of frequencies. From this perspective, then, the movement or "mobility" of frequencies (individuals) in the social scale of incomes is the dimension that depends on inequality. The greater the mobility, with little variation of the reference income scale, the lower the income inequality.The view of this proposal differs from that of conventional analyses of social mobility in that here it works with the entire population, while the others take selected groups. Here, one can, in fact, speak of the movement of the entire active population in the labor market, but other analyses only consider groups, between or within generations[11], that are active in the labor market. In general, they are composed of small selected samples, compared to the active population.An additional important distinction between the two visions of mobility has to do with their respective approaches. In the conventional classical view, social mobility is interpreted as the movement of individuals, observed in time, in the social scale, which can be approximated by measuring a systemic composite (social position index) between occupation, education and income. In the view presented here, the "mobility" of individuals is measured only and exclusively by variations in incomes earned in the labor market, in connection with their respective occupations.The systemic composite in conventional analysis, represented by a status or social position index, takes into account the importance of education level, hierarchical level of the occupation and amount of income of individuals. The three components of the index are interdependent, mutually reinforcing and influence the final outcome with their weight, depending, of course, on the circumstances present in society at the time of data collection. Thecurrentness (importance) of occupations, educational preference and valuation of the income scales may vary.It is clear that the social status index was designed to represent as closely as possible the social weight of occupations, education and income, as these dimensions are considered important for labor qualification in the market. The sounder and more lasting the social conventions, supported as much as possible by technological advances, the