The Australian dream is over We've managed to stifle social mobility to almost on par with our British forebears.
I n F.Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel, Jay Gatsby is the son of "shiftless and unsuccessful farm people" who pulls himself up by his bootstraps to reinvent himself as the millionaire dandy of the Jazz Age.
He's the embodiment of the "American dream" - the idea that if you work hard enough, you can overcome the circumstances of your birth and achieve wealth - even if it doesn't end particularly well for him. 
But a relatively new field of international research on "intergenerational mobility" confirms Gatsby's story as the exception, not the rule.
In reality, economists are discovering your parents' income matters a lot for your future income.
Sadly, the answer to the question "Who's your daddy?" has never been more important.
Australians have our own version of the American dream. We like to think of ourselves as an egalitarian nation of ex-convicts and pioneering settlers.
But a new Australian survey has found that over our two centuries of settlement, we've managed to stifle social mobility to almost on par with our stuffy British forebears.But first, some context. Rising income inequality has seized the global stage recently as one of the most pressing social issues of our time. But not everyone thinks inequality is the main problem.
Indeed, some inequality in economic outcomes should be expected as the legitimate product of differing levels of effort, talent and preference for doing work versus leisure activities.
It is inequality of opportunities, and a person's ability to climb the social ladder to enjoy the increased spoils for the top end, that we should worry most about.
Unfortunately, economists have uncovered a problematic link between rising income inequality and lesser mobility between the generations.
You could worry less about increasing inequality if there was higher mobility.
But the reverse is true, according to the former chairman of Barack Obama's council of economic advisers, Alan Krueger, who in 2012 coined the term the "Great Gatsby Curve". It shows that nations that have higher levels of inequality also have lower levels of social mobility. As the rungs of the ladder get further apart, it seems to gets higher to climb.
Good thing Australia is nothing like America, right?
Wrong.
A study by University of Wollongong economists Silvia Mendolia and Peter Siminski titled New Estimates of Intergenerational Mobility in Australia has discovered that the link between a father's earnings and his son's is much stronger than we previously thought.
The only previous study on the issue was done in 2007 by academic economist, Andrew Leigh, who is now a Labor MP.
Leigh's analysis found that a 10per cent rise in father's earnings was associated with a 2.6 per cent rise in son's earnings.
According to the new analysis, which draws on a richer data set from the HILDA survey, the boost to son's earnings is more like 3.5per cent.
A quick note for those dismayed by the emphasis on fathers and sons, not mothers and daughters.
Due to an absence of data on actual earnings of fathers and sons, the researchers used occupation as a proxy for income. The higher participation by mothers in part- time work complicates the picture, and so, until the data improves, they focused on father's earnings.
Overall, "we conclude that Australia is not particularly mobile in an international context," the paper finds.
Indeed, Australia leapfrogs Sweden, New Zealand, Germany and Japan on the new analysis to enjoy lower levels of social mobility than all those countries.
We're now much closer to American and British levels of social immobility.For comparing countries, the researchers use the technical lingo of "intergenerational earnings elasticity" . Australia's number on this measure is now 0.35. The higher the number, the less socially mobile a country is.
America, the imagined land of the free, in fact has an intergenerational earnings elasticity of 0.47.
The notoriously stuffy class system of Britain has an elasticity of 0.50. China, where the "princeling" offspring of Communist Party cadre enjoy a privileged lifestyle, has an even higher 0.60 elasticity.
By contrast, Finland, Norway and Denmark, with their strong redistributive welfare states, all have correlations of less than 0.20.
It's important to note we are talking about earnings here, not wealth.
Enjoying inherited wealth is one thing, but why should the sons of high income earners go on to earn high incomes too?
Conversely, why can't the sons of poor dads, while missing out on the inheritance, not go on to secure as highly paid jobs?
It turns out money imparts many advantages. High-income dads are more able to invest in their son's education. They're also more likely to be able to use their networks to get their son good jobs or to impart the financial wisdom necessary to get ahead.
Depressing. So, what should be done about it?
We can debate the appropriate levels of income inequality, but there is little moral justification for inequality of opportunity. The circumstances of your birth should not determine your future.
Public policies that level the playing field for all kids become crucial here; an emphasis on early learning and schooling for disadvantaged children; adequate and affordable healthcare; properly targeted family assistance and the provision of affordable housing near job centres.
If our national polity is, as many instinctively feel, missing a moral compass, let this be it.
That every Australian kid deserves a shot at a rags to riches story. And hopefully a happier ending than Gatsby.