 There's some questions. Chico, yeah. So to see if you've got two kinds. So yeah, that's different from what you're doing. No, it's true. Actually, if you go with the light, you're always moving the slides. Previous. Ah, para frente, adelante una mas. Ah, adelante. Ah, this one. Es... To yendo para atrás, no. Esa. So, the red line is that we say, okay, we're going to give the value of the opportunity set. So you've got this blue distribution where everybody has to come up here. Right, because this is the between, when you use the composable measure, that's the way that... Yeah. In this case, in the genie case, that's not the case. That's my true question. Why not use that? I mean, why... So if you use the genie, okay, it's not... The other thing, the rest, the difference between this and the other, is not the within group, the genie. But I don't care. I care is what the inequality is in this blue distribution. So the conceptual question is, why try to use the between genie, which is then not the inequality in this blue distribution. That's the question. And question two, which is on a pretty positive light, so my understanding was that the composition of the genie is just always positive. If that residue is always positive, if I do some shabby composition of that, your purple line should be above the red. So I don't understand how to follow up. Well, I'm glad we had the same discussion with Victor just before lunch, so that helped me now to answer the question, because otherwise it would have been more difficult to think it in this part. Basically, when we use the composition, even when we use the genie, and then what we are doing here, even if we are not interested in the... within group inequality, but we are using the between groups in equality. That's our measure of inequality. So we are saying that we have the whole genie, and we are using a part of this genie, because we are applying this genie to a partial income distribution. So basically we're assuming that the rest is within group inequality. So that's kind of like what we are doing. In the genie, total genie, within groups plus a residual, we are extracting the residual from the between and within. What this measure is doing is we don't know where is the residual. We don't know if it's part of the... between part of the within. So we sort of like... We have to finish. That's the only way to sum one, because you're assuming... how can you sum the total genie if you have a between and within as a positive? So exactly, so you are sort of like including in one or in the other. You don't know where it is. Can I suggest to this... because I have exactly the same... When we discussed, I didn't know this graph. So it's exactly the same. Because when you do the within over the total inequality, you are underestimating inequality. Because we are attributing, so to speak, the residual to the effort. If you do the other way around, so you do total inequality minus between, you are overestimated. So that could be down. So I agree with you. Yeah, it cannot be. Yeah, it cannot be. So I will... I will be able to discuss it later among the three of us or someone else. It's very interesting. Because it's kind of like the way we are measuring. Yeah, so take a position. I will see if there are some other questions and then if there are other questions. Yeah. So how can you capture that? And I actually made some robust mistakes for that. So that's one of my two questions. And also for your exercise, which as Joseph was mentioning, about the replication of changes, I actually have kind of an argument for that. You are assuming that everyone who is not moving is your control, right? The person, the people that are not moving, the non-movers are your control. They're comparing non-movers versus movers. I'm just wondering if you have done this exercise where you compare the movers versus people who are aligned to those who move. Because I think there is a self-selection in immigration for sure. I mean, there are certain characteristics that these people have to... I don't know if you might have a way to control for that or compare those. That's it. And lastly, for Gavietta, Gavietta just have one question. Something that was kind of interesting for me that I saw a large proportion of male population in your sample. I just wonder what is that the case and thank you all for your great presentations. Okay, thank you for the questions. We take the last question. And then we... If there are no, then we'll ask. You want to start? Okay, so the first one is the one of Patricia. So the decision to move, I mean, the assumption is no. Of course there is selection and you are very aware of the age in which you are moving. And that's why one of the validations is the sibling comparisons. Because it's less likely that you were aware but you probably were not trying to benefit one of your kids if you have more than one. So that's kind of less likely, you know, like we're going to move to a better place with better schools but I'm going to just privilege one of them. Yes, but it's... Then the other thing is that the selection, the assumption of the selection is that it doesn't change with age but it's identified kind of passing the age of schooling, right? It's like... It's kind of flat, something that is flat over the ages but then you identify when you move later than, you know, you move when the kid is old to complete school. And of course with income it was... It's a better assumption than in education because sometimes in education some people go back to school but that is what it is, I think. And the other thing is I did... I closed the regions. I don't have a good argument really. It's just I pulled them. I have done the analysis for Brazil only and you find the same pattern. And of course Brazil drives these results because it's a much bigger country in terms of population. Then if you do without Brazil, I see something similar but less, more noisy. I'm currently trying to get the full consensus for particular countries to try to perhaps uncover some of the... What are the characteristics of the regions? Instead of describing the region with the level of mobility of the nonmovers but with some other characteristics. But if you have all the... That's more difficult to do if you pull the countries. It's easier if it's for one country but for that you need the full consensus and I have only 10% samples. The other thing about comparing movers to nonmovers, the approach actually compares movers to movers. You're comparing people who move one place to another place in ages. Do nonmovers are used just to predict what should be the level of the movers or whether they convert to the level of... Yes. But thank you for the questions. My answer is very short. One of the possible answers is that in years you have more women as head of household so in 2017 because I don't know the social patterns people divorce more. There is a divorce law that it wasn't approved in 2006 but it was in 2017. So there is a kind of likelihood that there are more women household heads in 2017. But the other one is that this is self-reported so is the household head that in the survey said, I am. So social norms also change. So in the past it's not a long-distance past. It's 2006. But still you see an evolution that is more recent, that is more likely that women said, I am the household head in 2017 than in 2006. So this can be... But I'm imagining it because I'm basically not changing my problem is I use household heads because in 2017 the circumstance questions like parental education and the place where you were born only ask to the household head. Not in 2006 but in 2017 that was the case. So I couldn't sort of... because I could also say, I'm going to choose the higher income as household head but I cannot do it because I don't have the circumstance characteristic in 2017. So it's more like a practice. I wanted to use a full sample but that was a problem. Okay, thanks for the questions. So the question on the location of individuals, we deal with that issue. And first of all we show what are the statistics on the migrations from the regions and we do some robustness checks. I mean they are not so dramatic the migrations between the regions. The migrations between the sub regions are very strong but between the regions that we have are that strong. So I mean we deal with that in the paper. We discuss it, we do some more checks. Now as for the relationship between inequality and inequality opportunity. Now this was a graph firstly proposed by Miles Skorak in which he plotted inequality and income mobility of the countries. And it came like a good surprise to see that the countries with high inequality are also the countries with high persistence in mobility. Why it was a good surprise? Because the rhetoric in general in defense of inequality says that the inequality is the price you have to pay to have an open society in which opportunities are open. So the inequality. And the data said something different. Now we did the same with inequality opportunity which is if you want a generalization of income mobility because we have other circumstances. Now there are not mechanical reasons that explain why the countries with high inequality are also the countries with high inequality opportunity because there we plot the relative inequality opportunity. So the portion. There are not any mechanical reasons one could think why it should be like that. So that's the first question. So when we have a positive relationship we don't have. We can argue that the positive relationship can be explained on the one side or on the other side of the causality. In a sense that if there is a big inequality in outcomes today this means that for the next generation there will be inequality in opportunities. On the other hand, inequality opportunities today will bring inequality on outcome tomorrow. So the relationship can be in both directions. But again, there is no specific reason I would identify in the literature why that should be the case. These are macro indicators, very aggregate indicators in equity and income. So any mechanism can be behind that. We should face the fact that it's not always true. And for some countries and for some cases this positive relationship is not respected. But what I want to say, we should not expect that there should be a clear relationship. I mean there is nothing, you know, no clear mechanism why it should be like that. That's at least my reading. I don't know if someone else here in the room would add some reflection on this point. But if there are some other questions we have I think a few minutes left. It is one last question. Otherwise, thanks for the attention and thanks for participating in the session. Thanks a lot.