4 ms·

I find the conclusion of the article to be surprising. In modern times, we understand that access to markets is the determining factor in income. It is why tho

I find the conclusion of the article to be surprising. In modern times, we understand that access to markets is the determining factor in income. It is why those who live in cities can typically make more than those who live in rural areas, and why – as you alluded to – those with family connections to business find themselves making more than those who don't have an "in." It is even why people strongly advocate for limiting competition (through unions, for example) in a marketplace in order to increase incomes (or other benefits) of those who are in the inner circle. One would naturally conclude that missions were correlated with access to markets, perhaps due to springing up where markets were already strong, but the article seems to have determined that education caused the higher incomes back then. Something that hasn't proven true in modern times, where incomes have held stagnant over the years for groups that have seen an increase in college attainment.

ineedasername 8y ago
"access to markets" is not "the" determining factors, it is "a" determining factor. Have all the access you want via physical proximity, you also need to be able to offer something to that market, and an education is one of the factors in that. And it wasn't just missions that were the factor cited in the article, but a Jesuit one in particular: Jesuits are known for their strong push for education over the centuries. When the researcher here looked at non Jesuit missions in the same area, and therefore likely to have very similar "access to market", their outcomes were lower. I take your point about market access, and I think it is a good point, but education is one of the factors that gives a person access to a market.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"access to markets is the determining factor in income" No, it's one small item of 'determining factors'. Yes, the richest zip codes are in cities, but most impoverished areas in the USA are actually generally in cities. The former drags the average way up. Have a look here, Postal Code map of Canada [1] Scroll over to to Toronto: You notice 'super rich area' uptown. Then downtown and environs and immediate burbs are poor, some very poor. Then the 'extraburbs' are wealthy, then then countryside in the middle. If you account for cost of living - the countryside people are doing very well. It costs $120K for a nice big house in my hometown, and electricians earn $80K. In the us - the rural areas in the US that don't have a history of slavery (like the Dakotas, even Texas) actually have high levels of income and low levels of unemployment, low levels of crime ... but as you point out, not quite the same as the 'professional class' within cities. So the 'banker class' and 'professional class' will be in cities, and make the most money. But many of the rest in economic zones actually don't fare very well. [1] https://globalnews.ca/news/370804/income-by-postal-code/ https://globalnews.ca/news/370804/income-by-postal-code/

ineedasername 8y ago

"access to markets" is not "the" determining factors, it is "a" determining factor. Have all the access you want via physical proximity, you also need to be able to offer something to that market, and an education is one of the factors in that. And it wasn't just missions that were the factor cited in the article, but a Jesuit one in particular: Jesuits are known for their strong push for education over the centuries. When the researcher here looked at non Jesuit missions in the same area, and therefore likely to have very similar "access to market", their outcomes were lower. I take your point about market access, and I think it is a good point, but education is one of the factors that gives a person access to a market.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"access to markets is the determining factor in income" No, it's one small item of 'determining factors'. Yes, the richest zip codes are in cities, but most impoverished areas in the USA are actually generally in cities. The former drags the average way up. Have a look here, Postal Code map of Canada [1] Scroll over to to Toronto: You notice 'super rich area' uptown. Then downtown and environs and immediate burbs are poor, some very poor. Then the 'extraburbs' are wealthy, then then countryside in the middle. If you account for cost of living - the countryside people are doing very well. It costs $120K for a nice big house in my hometown, and electricians earn $80K. In the us - the rural areas in the US that don't have a history of slavery (like the Dakotas, even Texas) actually have high levels of income and low levels of unemployment, low levels of crime ... but as you point out, not quite the same as the 'professional class' within cities. So the 'banker class' and 'professional class' will be in cities, and make the most money. But many of the rest in economic zones actually don't fare very well. [1] https://globalnews.ca/news/370804/income-by-postal-code/ https://globalnews.ca/news/370804/income-by-postal-code/