8 ms·

The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local

53 points by pitzahoy 8y ago

arcanus 8y ago
This all speaks to a calcification of opportunity in the USA where coming from a good family background (with strong educational opportunities) means opportunities abound. If you come from a disadvantaged background, you are likely to stay there. This is essentially meritocratic feudalism.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  How did you get that from the article?
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoarding-of-the-american-dream/530481/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoa... > They then pass those advantages onto their children, with parents placing a “glass floor” under their kids. They ensure they grow up in nice zip codes, provide social connections that make a difference when entering the labor force, help with internships, aid with tuition and home-buying, and schmooze with college admissions officers. All the while, they support policies and practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals.
  - hash872 8y ago
    The belief system here makes me incredulous. How exactly does the average upper middle class worker support 'occupational licensing' and 'restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals'? Can you outline the exact steps that they've taken to, say, support occupational licensing? When did a pro-occupational licensing candidate run for office? The latter is especially ironic because so many people believe the opposite, that the US has supported the H1B and other visa programs to drive down programmer wages. While I agree that superior education etc. absolutely helps the children of the upper middle class, the 'social connections' part is pure fantasy. The vast majority of regular people secure employment based on actual credentials and not 'connections', especially in tech
    - usaar333 8y ago
      All of this is covered in Dream Horders (the linked book). Occupational licensing is a weaker argument (it's not covered in Reeve's original nytimes article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/stop-pretending-youre-not-rich.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/stop-prete...), but there's something to be said for how expensive it is to get through medical or law school (in part due to licensing requirements). I haven't read the book, but I imagine immigration and licensing connect. It's known to be difficult for foreign-trained doctors to ramp up in the US (https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-03-26/highly-trained-and-educated-some-foreign-born-doctors-still-can-t-practice https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-03-26/highly-trained-and-ed...) and lawyers have difficulties just changing states due to state-level bar exams.
    - ForHackernews 8y ago
      > The vast majority of regular people secure employment based on actual credentials and not 'connections', especially in tech Is that really true? Anecdotally, I have been far, far more likely (perhaps 95% of the time vs <25% of the time) to secure an interview at a company when I get a referral from a current employee who I know socially than when I apply blind through some web application form. I'd be very surprised to hear if you've had a different experience.
DataWorker 8y ago
This seems like an obvious consequence of globalism and the nature of the labor market. Also seems consistent with Picketty’s thesis about capital growth. The days when being a US citizen gauranteed affluence are coming to a close. To see the future look at California; refugees from Guatemala living amongst young millionaires, mostly immigrants also. A global community, sliced into ever narrower tranches by the invisible hand. It’s the future we choose.
- hash872 8y ago
  Much of Piketty's work has been widely debunked, especially r > g, so I'm not sure why one would start with his thesis. Top 1% income earners are typically business founder-owners, and reams of evidence from the Forbes 400 to tax data show that the wealthiest in US society are entrepreneurs who again created their own business- not rentiers living off of inherited wealth. (Anecdotally, children of inherited wealth they didn't earn burn through cash so fast that r < g, not the other way around). I have no idea what 'globalism' means in this context, or what type of alternate reality could exist where foreigners would be polite enough to not, like, turn a wrench or run an assembly line for cheaper than Americans did in the 50s. We as a country don't have the option of 'choosing' an alternate economic reality where developing country wages aren't cheaper than ours
  - therealforsen 8y ago
    i think by globalism he means that free trade brings with it the free movement of labor across countries >what type of alternate reality could exist where foreigners would be polite enough to not, like, turn a wrench or run an assembly line for cheaper than Americans did in the 50s. We as a country don't have the option of 'choosing' an alternate economic reality where developing country wages aren't cheaper than ours the illusion of non-choice on this issue began when bill buckley reformed the right wing into free-traders. we could vote to not let foreigners in to our country and to establish high tariffs on foreign goods. we choose not to. not saying whether that's right or wrong. just saying it is a choice.
    - 8y ago
burlesona 8y ago
I’m amazed the article didn’t mention the political correlation between the “big metros” and everywhere else. We know that increasingly “Blue America” is exclusively these major metros and “Red America” is everywhere else. But all these better outcomes are correlated to living in Red America, which they say is mostly due to affordable housing. I don’t really know what to make of that, but it’s interesting to me.
- sct202 8y ago
  The current city = Blue and rural = Red division is a relatively recent one; so across the timescale of people born in the 80s to now you'd have a lot of political shifts that would be hard to account for. Just look at the 1996 election results by county seems unimaginable now, but it wasn't that long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election#/media/File:1996nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
  - burlesona 8y ago
    That’s a good point I hadn’t really considered. You can still see the beginning of the trend toward today’s polarized map, but you’re right, over the span of time the article is covering that dichotomy is more recent.
  - inscionent 8y ago
    If you are going to use the 1996 county map you need to factor out Perot. Louisiana for example is much bluer Parish by Parish in 1996 than any of the elections going back to 1980.
    - mc32 8y ago
      I think Perot was ‘92, no? There, yes, like Nader after him was a “spoiler” as the losers like to call them.
      - mdorazio 8y ago
Bucephalus355 8y ago
I’m not sure what the motive is of this piece. Are we going to tax more the most opioid ravaged parts of Ohio to pay for the poor in New York City? Poverty today is closely linked with housing prices. If your housing is too expensive, it’s up to fix it (looking at you California).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
vivism 8y ago
"Within the same state or metropolitan area, inequality today is large and extreme, in part because of the continuing effects of racial discrimination" What is the ratio of discrimination to starting from a historically disadvantaged (i.e. non-recompensed) position? This article reads like a narrated census rather than a true insight into the problem.

53 points by pitzahoy 8y ago

This all speaks to a calcification of opportunity in the USA where coming from a good family background (with strong educational opportunities) means opportunities abound. If you come from a disadvantaged background, you are likely to stay there. This is essentially meritocratic feudalism.

jeffdavis 8y ago
How did you get that from the article?
ForHackernews 8y ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoarding-of-the-american-dream/530481/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoa... > They then pass those advantages onto their children, with parents placing a “glass floor” under their kids. They ensure they grow up in nice zip codes, provide social connections that make a difference when entering the labor force, help with internships, aid with tuition and home-buying, and schmooze with college admissions officers. All the while, they support policies and practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals.
- hash872 8y ago
  The belief system here makes me incredulous. How exactly does the average upper middle class worker support 'occupational licensing' and 'restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals'? Can you outline the exact steps that they've taken to, say, support occupational licensing? When did a pro-occupational licensing candidate run for office? The latter is especially ironic because so many people believe the opposite, that the US has supported the H1B and other visa programs to drive down programmer wages. While I agree that superior education etc. absolutely helps the children of the upper middle class, the 'social connections' part is pure fantasy. The vast majority of regular people secure employment based on actual credentials and not 'connections', especially in tech
  - usaar333 8y ago
    All of this is covered in Dream Horders (the linked book). Occupational licensing is a weaker argument (it's not covered in Reeve's original nytimes article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/stop-pretending-youre-not-rich.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/stop-prete...), but there's something to be said for how expensive it is to get through medical or law school (in part due to licensing requirements). I haven't read the book, but I imagine immigration and licensing connect. It's known to be difficult for foreign-trained doctors to ramp up in the US (https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-03-26/highly-trained-and-educated-some-foreign-born-doctors-still-can-t-practice https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-03-26/highly-trained-and-ed...) and lawyers have difficulties just changing states due to state-level bar exams.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    > The vast majority of regular people secure employment based on actual credentials and not 'connections', especially in tech Is that really true? Anecdotally, I have been far, far more likely (perhaps 95% of the time vs <25% of the time) to secure an interview at a company when I get a referral from a current employee who I know socially than when I apply blind through some web application form. I'd be very surprised to hear if you've had a different experience.

DataWorker 8y ago

This seems like an obvious consequence of globalism and the nature of the labor market. Also seems consistent with Picketty’s thesis about capital growth. The days when being a US citizen gauranteed affluence are coming to a close. To see the future look at California; refugees from Guatemala living amongst young millionaires, mostly immigrants also. A global community, sliced into ever narrower tranches by the invisible hand. It’s the future we choose.

hash872 8y ago
Much of Piketty's work has been widely debunked, especially r > g, so I'm not sure why one would start with his thesis. Top 1% income earners are typically business founder-owners, and reams of evidence from the Forbes 400 to tax data show that the wealthiest in US society are entrepreneurs who again created their own business- not rentiers living off of inherited wealth. (Anecdotally, children of inherited wealth they didn't earn burn through cash so fast that r < g, not the other way around). I have no idea what 'globalism' means in this context, or what type of alternate reality could exist where foreigners would be polite enough to not, like, turn a wrench or run an assembly line for cheaper than Americans did in the 50s. We as a country don't have the option of 'choosing' an alternate economic reality where developing country wages aren't cheaper than ours
- therealforsen 8y ago
  i think by globalism he means that free trade brings with it the free movement of labor across countries >what type of alternate reality could exist where foreigners would be polite enough to not, like, turn a wrench or run an assembly line for cheaper than Americans did in the 50s. We as a country don't have the option of 'choosing' an alternate economic reality where developing country wages aren't cheaper than ours the illusion of non-choice on this issue began when bill buckley reformed the right wing into free-traders. we could vote to not let foreigners in to our country and to establish high tariffs on foreign goods. we choose not to. not saying whether that's right or wrong. just saying it is a choice.
  - 8y ago

burlesona 8y ago

I’m amazed the article didn’t mention the political correlation between the “big metros” and everywhere else. We know that increasingly “Blue America” is exclusively these major metros and “Red America” is everywhere else. But all these better outcomes are correlated to living in Red America, which they say is mostly due to affordable housing. I don’t really know what to make of that, but it’s interesting to me.

sct202 8y ago
The current city = Blue and rural = Red division is a relatively recent one; so across the timescale of people born in the 80s to now you'd have a lot of political shifts that would be hard to account for. Just look at the 1996 election results by county seems unimaginable now, but it wasn't that long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election#/media/File:1996nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
- burlesona 8y ago
  That’s a good point I hadn’t really considered. You can still see the beginning of the trend toward today’s polarized map, but you’re right, over the span of time the article is covering that dichotomy is more recent.
- inscionent 8y ago
  If you are going to use the 1996 county map you need to factor out Perot. Louisiana for example is much bluer Parish by Parish in 1996 than any of the elections going back to 1980.
  - mc32 8y ago
    I think Perot was ‘92, no? There, yes, like Nader after him was a “spoiler” as the losers like to call them.
    - mdorazio 8y ago

Bucephalus355 8y ago

I’m not sure what the motive is of this piece. Are we going to tax more the most opioid ravaged parts of Ohio to pay for the poor in New York City? Poverty today is closely linked with housing prices. If your housing is too expensive, it’s up to fix it (looking at you California).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

vivism 8y ago

"Within the same state or metropolitan area, inequality today is large and extreme, in part because of the continuing effects of racial discrimination" What is the ratio of discrimination to starting from a historically disadvantaged (i.e. non-recompensed) position? This article reads like a narrated census rather than a true insight into the problem.