Anti-Parris Mobility:
1690-1695
| 10% Change | Total |
| Down | 5 |
| No Change | 18 |
| Up | 10 |
| Grand Total | 33 |
Thirty-three anti-Parris persisters appeared on both the 1690 and 1695 tax lists. Their mobility can be hand counted or found by means of a pivot table, using the Data menu. The results can be displayed in a pie chart.
In contrast with the ministry group, many anti-Parris persisters improved their percentile standing in Salem Village; those who rose outnumbered those who declined two-to-one. At the same time, advancement was not universal. Seventy percent of this anti-Parris group remained stable or actually declined in economic standing.
Users can determine how specific categories of anti-Parris persisters fared in this period by sorting the group in descending order of wealth in the "1690 Percent" column. The sorted list reveals that half of the upward movement among anti-Parris petitioners was concentrated among its poorer member, those ranked at or below the bottom quartile of village taxpayers in 1690. Middling anti-Paris members in 1690, those between the top and bottom quartiles, showed almost as many declines as advances, and two members in the top quartile of taxpayers in 1690 also dropped in ranking by 1695.
Sorting the data in descending order using the "1695 Percent" column confirms the reality of anti-Parris upward mobility after 1690, especially compared to their adversaries. Four of the twelve anti-Parris members in Salem Village's top quartile in 1695 had ascended from the middle two quartiles of taxpayers in 1690. Yet the results show limits as well. No member of the anti-Parris faction rose from the lower three quartiles into the top ten percent of village taxpayers in 1695 and two newcomers to the village's bottom quartile in 1695 had been middling taxpayers five years earlier.
How would the economic standing of Salem Village's factions look if we examine it over the period from 1681 until 1695? Click Next.