the labor market and therefore in society.The second conclusion, however, stands out objectively, strikingly and surprisingly. Age groups, by far, have a much more decisive and visible effect on individuals mobility than years of schooling. Work experience is the variable that matters most in improving the income gains of individuals in their occupations in the labor market.This result is consistent with the answers of human resource professionals in the questionnaire mentioned above, confirming them. The percentages calculated in Table 8 exceed[33] those calculated in Table 6 in the proportionately higher income brackets along the income scale and reference groups. This means that the effect of work experience[34], as measured by age, has a much greater influence than years of schooling in the determination of better incomes for individuals in the labor market.The differences between the percentages of years of schooling and years of work are so large and the trends presented so evident that, first, they leave no doubt as to the result found, and second, they absorb and minimize any comparison errors, as reported above.Finally, the fact that the income from years of work refers only to the main job and the income from years of schooling refers to all jobs strengthens the evidence of the results found, in the sense that the distribution of incomes from a single job throughout years of work of individuals still surpasses the distribution of incomes from all jobs throughout the years of schooling of individuals.6.1.6 Personal, family and household income distributions: the first decade of 2000Moving on now to the analysis of income distribution specifically, data from 2001 to 2011 PNAD on individuals, families and households will be recovered, the P inequality measure will be calculated and the results of the income and frequency effects of all of them will be compared.The idea is to see if changes in type of income distribution affect the results significantly, given that the incomes of individuals, after average incomes are added up and calculated, are computed for the family nucleuses to which they belong, and also for the households where different sets of families and individuals coexist in various combinations.The hypothesis is that the profile of income inequality in the labor market, and by extension in society, is the result of the prevailing relative rigidity in income scales and occupational structures. Although differentiated according to activity sectors, regions and urban and rural populations, economic relations established between them end up defining the possibilities and solutions for remuneration of workers and jobs or occupations.The economic subordination between smaller and larger companies and the interdependence between them in productive and commercial transactions, from the simplest to the most complex, provide objective conditions for them to define, according to the economic potential and investment projects of each one, the remuneration of workers and their occupations to carry out their production.Yet it is precisely economic subordination and production and commercial interdependence that group together, select and arrange the forms of economic relations. In so doing, the income distribution profile is already outlined from the beginning of the systems operation. Hence an