10 ms·

Brain Drain Across the United States

133 points by js2 8y ago

js2 8y ago
Conclusion States which retain and attract highly-educated adults stand to reap substantial economic benefits. At the same time, those that bleed much of their homegrown talent will see their economic fortunes decline if they fail to replace the leavers with highly-educated out-of-staters. Yet even if they do manage to offset their losses, these states are still losing a vital source of social capital. What is more, the outmigration of highly-educated adults has almost certainly played a role in the deterioration of civil society in struggling communities across the country. And to the extent that the geographic mobility of the highly-educated has increased social bifurcation, it has likely exacerbated distrust of and intolerance toward people who hold different beliefs. One need only glance at today’s polarized political environment to see these attitudes on display. Our research finds that states that are doing the best—low gross brain drain and net brain gain—generally cluster along the Boston-Washington corridor and on the West Coast: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Oregon, and Washington. Other brain gain states are regional hubs—Hawaii, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Illinois. Several of these states experienced high gross brain drain and net brain drain in 1970, but have reversed course; others have seen continued good prospects or improvements on one or both measures. For the most part, these states are home to what Richard Florida would describe as “winner-take-all cities.” On the other hand, states in the Southeast, in the Rust Belt, and in other parts of the country tend to fare much worse when it comes to retaining and attracting the highly-educated. Several states in the Southeast—West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana—had low gross brain drain and net brain gain in 1970, but today generally experience high gross brain drain as well as net brain drain. Most Rust Belt states—Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri—have done poorly on these measures in both 1970 and 2017. Perhaps unsurprisingly, states that defy these regional trends (for example, Illinois in the Rust Belt, and Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia in the Southeast) seem to be attracting highly-educated out-of-staters to their dynamic metropolitan hubs. Brain drain has significant consequences—economic, yes, but also political and cultural. By increasing social segregation, it limits opportunities for disparate groups to connect. And by siphoning a source of economic innovation from emptying communities, brain drain can also lead to crumbling institutions of civil society. As those natives who have more resources leave, those left behind may struggle to support churches, police athletic leagues, parent-teacher associations, and local businesses. State and local policymakers are understandably focused on the economic consequences of brain drain. But anyone concerned about the health of associational life in America should worry that what this report has mapped out, to some extent, is the geography of social capital drain.
- Rafuino 8y ago
  "As those natives who have more resources leave, those left behind may struggle to support churches, police athletic leagues, parent-teacher associations, and local businesses." Huh... churches are the first thing that come to mind. Yep, this was definitely written by a Utah senate staff.
  - burfog 8y ago
    I was out driving in rural Kentucky one day, along a long narrow gravel road with sparse houses, and came across a church. The church had a sign advertising a get-together with shotguns. I think it was skeet shooting, possibly as a fundraiser. I don't even go to church or have a shotgun, but I suddenly wanted to live there and be a part of that community. I guess you could say that that sort of genuine community made me envious.
  - jeffbax 8y ago
    Churches provide a lot of charity and communal support in most places where they are still relevant. Community masters, one of the reasons that SLC has the highest income mobility in the country
threatofrain 8y ago
I'm sure the parents want the kids getting out of brain-drain regions too. Why ought kids stay?
- burfog 8y ago
  Some may. I certainly don't agree. Those "brain-drain regions" are the places where kids can afford to raise grandkids. Aside from weather, they are generally nicer places to live.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - gshdg 8y ago
    Only if there are well paying jobs there for their skills. And if they’re satisfied with the school systems. And different people have different ideas of what a “nice” place is to live.
  - solveit 8y ago
    Young people certainly know this. And they're making the free, informed decision to forego raising children in return for living somewhere where they can both maximize their career potential and socialize with people more compatible with themselves.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  By that logic, we should all be aspiring to live in Upper E. side Manhatten, because, 'why stay anywhere else'. Education is only one factor, there are many others. FYI - 'Worker mobility' in the US is actually declining, and has been for some time. This could possibly mean that regular workers are moving around less, relative to educated one's. It also could mean as communications and transportation become easier, the 'big city' advantages are just compounding. So the major metro areas are just sucking up everything around them. Texas, Colorado, Illinois have a sea of purple around them.
  - threatofrain 8y ago
expressrunning 8y ago
What’s interesting is the world has a brain drain.....and the highly educated adults are going to US. From places like India and China. Don’t believe me? Check this out: Chinese students got beaten down by university securities, for protesting against fake degrees given to them. Happened today https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/bhxgng/chinas_student_geting_beats_by_police/ https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/bhxgng/chinas_studen...
- badosu 8y ago
  I'd say there's brain drain even if the workers stay at their country, working remotely for US companies. The most qualified people around me on previous jobs moved to US, Europe or are working remotely (myself included). It's sad because it increases the difficulty of local companies to grow a good team, continuing the cycle.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  You’re 100% correct and it is why I’m generally very bullish on America despite the gloom and doom on the right and late stage capitalists on the left. It’s the competitive advantage of being a nation bound by ideas and common purpose than a monarch or ethnicity or religion.
  - cinquemb 8y ago
    As someone who grew up in Ohio, went to an Ivy, and left the US (but working remotely when I come across interesting projects for companies), I want to offer a different perspective. >It’s the competitive advantage of being a nation bound by ideas and common purpose than a monarch or ethnicity or religion. I think the US has become very ossified in this belief (which people fool themselves that the nature of this belief is any different from any other belief), you can see global capital flight to (parts of) the US and brain drain into the US, but in market speak, its a crowded trade, driven out of fear of the current downsides and not future upsides. However the nature of crowded trades is that they have the most tail risk, that some people (like me) cannot stomach. I'm of the mind that things will get more complicated soon within the next year (well at least for those who have been oblivious all along despite the warning signs), and that people will start to realize that value can be found anywhere if those are willing to seek it out, though it may not be as simple as what we are used to and have come to expect.
yasp 8y ago
I'm sure I will be downvoted for even mentioning his name, but Charles Murray has been writing about this for decades.
- vcavallo 8y ago
  bummer that just mentioning someone’s name requires this kind of prefacing
  - Guthur 8y ago
    Hardly surprising. As has been mentioned else where unless you follow a particular political dogma then you are anti intellectual and therefore to be excluded. It's amusingly ironic how exclusive the politics of inclusion can be.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      Jesus Christ. Sometimes you get downvoted. Sometimes you get upvoted. Either describe the damned concept or stop wasting our time lamenting how much we'll express our dislike.
  - acjohnson55 8y ago
    It doesn't. And it would be helpful if the commentary on Murray's thoughts exceeded the meta-commentary on mentioning Murray's name.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  This would be far more positive a contribution if you focused on how and what the author has said rather than anticipating HN's reaction. Maybe edit or reframe your comment.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  And saying what in those writings?
- scarejunba 8y ago
  I googled this and it was a complete waste of time. Charles Murray essentially argues that heritability plus assortative mating makes it so that the gap between the smart and the not so will grow larger. The smart will come from the upper middle class who are already going to college because they're going to marry other upper middle class people who go to college and make kids who will be upper middle class and go to college. He also strongly argues that your ability to succeed is a measure of your innate intelligence. (perhaps this is the part that user/yasp thought would be considered abhorrent?) and that combines with the earlier parts to say that there will be increased stratification and it will be on intelligence as well as on money. This whole thing is a waste of time because I gained nothing novel from having chased this vague-ass comment. Ugh. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102202873_2.html?sid=ST2010102204725&noredirect=on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10...
Mirioron 8y ago
Imagine what the effect of this is in the EU, where average income can differ up to 5-10 times between the poor and rich countries. Freedom of movement means they can still work in any of the EU countries.
- T-A 8y ago
  That seems like an exaggeration. Sorting on the net PPP column at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_... the lowest EU member is Bulgaria (1475), the highest is Luxembourg (3843); that's a factor 2.6. The EU also has much larger cultural barriers to movement than the US (different languages, just to mention the most obvious one).
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    Just take a look at Bulgaria's population graph: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bulgaria#/media/File%3ABulgaria-demography.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bulgaria#/me... I very much question the validity of PPP in this case. Things are no doubt cheaper in Bulgaria, but I'm fairly certain that electronics, cars etc are going to cost roughly the same, because there's a free flow of goods. People just make do with less. Also keep in mind that people might move abroad to work there, but still come back home once in a while. The effect on the economy is still going to be similar. The median equivalised net income is just too different inside the EU: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_di04&lang=en http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_...
  - MandieD 8y ago
    PPP only fully matters if you a) insist on living a local-typical lifestyle and b) intend to live there forever. Immigrants to Germany do not run out and get nearly-new Golfs and rent townhouses; they tend to be content with somewhat nicer than where they came from for at least the first few years, presumably saving up the difference, often with plans to head home someday. German is also widely taught in Eastern European schools, so the language barrier isn’t as high as Americans think it is. (Sample: Romanians, Poles and Croatians I know through work)
briandear 8y ago
I wonder why we consider “highly educated” to mean “college educated.” I know plenty of college educated people unfit to manage a lemonade stand and plenty of “lesser educated” people that own successful companies. Using a degree as a proxy for intelligence is a mistake.
- crushcrashcrush 8y ago
  Agreed 1000% Oh, you have an MBA? Guess I’ll have to show you how this works.
  - michelpp 8y ago
    It could be a learning experience for you both. For example, they could teach you about percentages.
    - crushcrashcrush 8y ago
      The autism is strong with you.
      - sctb 8y ago
        Since you keep breaking the guidelines after we've asked you to stop we've banned the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Level of education is a decent proxy for intelligence, in anything resembling an academic context. More education is usually better. It's why companies prefer hiring people with more education. That said, I think many roles should not require a college degree for application. That one single thing might make a big difference - because as you hint there are tons of otherwise great people who don't specifically have the education.
  - 8y ago
taurath 8y ago
Brain drain within the US is just as frequently about cultural rather than economic issues. The culture wars the republicans have been running on since the 80s turns off thoughtful people - anti-intellectualism is killing these states. That said, it’s incredibly underserved and there’s tons of very capable and friendly people. Edit: maybe I didn’t get the intended point across - I’d ask though, how many people do you know that moved for cultural reasons, especially from hometowns? I’m in the LGBT community where almost every single person I meet has moved for cultural reasons.
- myko 8y ago
  This is what I saw growing up in rural Ohio. Many HS classmates moved out of state and others moved into the major urban centers of Ohio.
  - smashingfiasco 8y ago
    I left Toledo last year and moved to the east coast. I was one of maybe three of my friends who was left at that point. It could be a really great state, but the dying lake and dying industrial economy really wrecked the place. The area needs serious investment, but I'm nowhere in the position to contribute back like that, so I made the jump. A thing I like to say is that I am proud that I am from Ohio, but I'm also happy I'm not there now.
    - js2 8y ago
      How can you be proud of where you are from? You had no choice in being born there, and as you said it’s a state without a lot of opportunity, and in any case, you didn’t personally contribute to anything to make the place better. So why be proud of that? I’m from Florida but it’s not something I’m proud or not proud of. I’m proud of my kids. I’m proud of my work. I’m proud of my multi decade relationship with my wife. Those are things to be proud of. When a class I belong to does something great, I feel I can only be proud to be a member of that class to the extent that I contributed to the great thing and that we worked together to achieve something greater than ourselves. Even then I’m proud that “we did that thing” not that “I’m a member of that group.” Just a thought. I know many people are proud of where they are from but it’s irrational to me.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Trias11 8y ago
The article overthinks this. I been brain drained by being offered higher pay. You want to stop brain drain? PAY! Solved.
- warent 8y ago
  This is an oversimplification of a more nuanced issue. For example, perhaps the places that need it most can't afford it, and the places that can afford it can only do so because they already have the existing market for it.
  - Trias11 8y ago
    "Can't affordness" comes as a result of a lack of a resources/budget. Which means decision makers or ultimately state/federal government think that funding of certain things at certain geographies is not important. (Or alternatively not offering any stimulus such as reducing taxes). Article misleads reader by claiming "what is" without explaining the driving force behind the dynamics of skilled market.
  - threwawasy1228 8y ago
    At the same time when a company in my home state, offers pay at 55k for something that pays the equivalent of over double that on the coast there is something wrong. Software companies don't magically have smaller margins based on their geolocation if their user-base and contracts are global. In essence their offer of half what is reasonable is pure greed because they know they can get away with it in many cases. There are lots of companies doing exactly this and driving costs lower in areas where they can get away with it. I think a non-trivial amount of brain-drain is simply paying people what they are worth regardless of how nuanced the issue actually is.
loo9283 8y ago
Asia is the future IMO. If you're smart and motivated there will be dozens of "Silicon Valleys" there in 5-10 years.
crazygringo 8y ago
Interesting... I've only ever heard of brain drain used in an international context. Which is where the US comes out as a winner, as we're gaining from all the highly educated Chinese and Indians who come here to work and start companies. I actually find the concept rather odd to use domestically, because it's generally used to show a contrast between a country paying for your college education, and then you reaping the benefits in a different, richer country -- which can seem unfair. But in the US, students 1) generally pay for their own college education, and 2) often go to college in a state different from where they grew up and different from where they'll settle down later. So it doesn't seem to have any "unfair" aspect. I mean, complaining about brain drain domestically feels like complaining about free trade domestically... it doesn't make sense to me. People have the freedom to move to areas of better economic opportunity and that's a good thing in a dynamic, ever-changing country like America. Complaining about brain drain domestically really just sounds like wishing more people lived in the country instead of in big cities... no thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight#United_St...
- btrettel 8y ago
  Tuition for in-state residents is often subsidized and can be considerably lower than tuition for residents of other US states.
  - greeneggs 8y ago
    For example, in California, UC tuition is ~$14,000/year and the state subsidizes $12,098/year per student. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/21/report-asks-whether-university-california-funding-nearing-tipping-point https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/21/report-asks-w...
- durkie 8y ago
  Georgia is an interesting outlier here: they introduced the HOPE scholarship in the 1990s to allow any in-state (already lived there for at least a year) student free tuition at a state school as long as they maintained a 3.0 GPA, all funded by the state lottery. And you have some pretty good schools to choose from here: University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, and Georgia State (which has improved a lot in the past 10 years). There are plenty of fair criticisms that can be leveled against the HOPE scholarship, but it seemed clear to me that it would reduce brain drain in the state, simply because students could get a high quality education at almost no cost. But these data show that the drain ratio increased from 1990 to 2010. So this is a situation where students aren't paying for their education, are going to school in the state where they likely grew up, and then are still leaving.
michelpp 8y ago
For the non-US and/or non-political here is Sen. Lee's govtrack record: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/mike_lee/412495 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/mike_lee/412495 Here are some links on his proposed education reforms: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/education-reform https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/education-reform https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/higher-education-reform-and-college-opportunity https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/higher-education... Some choice quotes: "Whereas conservatives promote policies that empower parents with the freedom and resources to choose what works best for them and their families, harnessing the power and problem-solving capacity of civil society and the free-enterprise economy, Democrats prefer government-run, one-size-fits-all programs." "Conservatives do not claim to have all the answers when it comes to early education policy. But the available research and the lessons of experience teach us that massive government investments to scale up early education programs into a single formula that applies to everybody simply don’t work. At best, they are a waste of money. At worst, they are harmful to our children, families, and communities." "The EEOA would expand school choice to all parents, regardless of socio-economic status or zip code, by allowing federal “Title I” K-12 support funds to follow low-income students to any public or private school of their choice." "The HERO Act would accomplish this by changing the way schools are accredited. The HERO Act would enable each state to accredit any institution that provides post-secondary education. With this new accreditation power, states would be able to authorize innovative new education options (for example, massive online open courses, competency-based offerings, and certification exams) for students in any learning situation." But please do read it all yourself, read the lines, between the lines, make up your own mind about where you think Senator Lee truely stands on this issue.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  If you’re wondering where the downvotes are coming from, it’s probably because ad hominem attacks (attacking the person making the argument, rather than directly refuting their arguments; what you’re doing here, basically) are generally considered a logical fallacy.
  - michelpp 8y ago
js2 8y ago
A couple related pieces by Richard Florida, referenced in this study: "The Roots of the New Urban Crisis" https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/04/the-roots-of-the-new-urban-crisis/521028/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/04/the-roots-of-the-new-... "Why America’s Richest Cities Keep Getting Richer" https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/richard-florida-winner-take-all-new-urban-crisis/522630/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/richard...
zdmc 8y ago
Brain Drain is about networking. Why would most give up the opportunity to relocate around the top thinkers in their field? Inhibiting this movement would arguably slow down progress, while making the country more robust (much like the pros/cons associated with most centralization vs. de-centralization topics). People from my hometown (pop. ~7500 in Midwest), do not realize that they are falling behind at an almost exponential rate. Many are working jobs that require common training, they do not continue their education, and they spend far too much time behind screens in the form of entertainment. And, even for those who want to continue to learn, they do not have access to a nearby tech meeting hosted by a top firm speaking on the state of the art. If you're not in SF or NY, then you do miss out on a lot of opportunities per people and shared information. * I am personally ashamed to say that I only realized the power and advantage of networking in recent years.
- vinayan3 8y ago
  > Inhibiting this movement would arguably slow down progress. Don't think the lawmakers want to inhibit movement rather, probably they want to use these conclusions to encourage people to stay. The prosperity brought by progress can be spread across many regions. > People from my hometown (pop. ~7500 in Midwest), do not realize that they are falling behind at an almost exponential rate. Many are working jobs that require common training, they do not continue their education Do you think it's caused by the lack of other people who are moving ahead aka role models or are there other factors(quality education etc...)? I do feel and have seen despite being in the right place some people don't get same opportunities for upward mobility despite being literally next door.
  - Pokepokalypse 8y ago
    Education, and lack of opportunity for those who are educated and talented. (They will go where they can reap the most benefits for themselves). That top talent - will also educate their co-workers. Not just the people they work closely with, but everyone in their organization will receive great benefits from collaborating with the people who collaborate with that top talent. But most people working in the tech industry; (which is very highly stovepiped) - will never experience that, and may only read about it. When you're not fortunate enough to be employed in one of the top tech industry companies, or in one of the hotspots where the industry is focused (Silicon Valley, New York, Boston, Austin, Virginia, maybe Provo, Seattle) - then you have to do all you can to use the internet to constantly learn and grow your skills; but also, you have to try to constantly evangelize the same attitude to your co-workers, and management. It is an exhausting job.
throwaway713 8y ago
Interesting how the South appears to have totally reversed course. In 1970, it appears it was attracting talent. Now, it's losing talent quickly. That's unfortunate.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  I'm wondering how much of that might have been the Great Migration: of (mostly poorer, less educated) blacks leaving the South specifically because of institutional oppression directly causing that lack of education and poverty.
  - loeg 8y ago
    Great Migration as a concept mostly predates 1970.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      The data extend to the 1940s, as does the trend of (net|gross[1]) positive brain migration. Industrial decline accellerated hugely in the 1970s. 1. The terms and implications are still confusing me, but the effect remains: the former CSA states scored positively 1940-1970 and in cases later.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      Checking; Wikipedia gives dates as 1916 to 1970, peaking 1950-1970, so precicsely within the data period mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_Ame...
opportune 8y ago
I’m from Kentucky, live on the west coast, and I cannot at all sympathize with those from there and similar states if they complain about brain drain. If you boast stupid, backwards policies and only give economic opportunities to the well connected, don’t be surprised when the intelligent but not well connected people leave the state. Maybe I’ll retire to my backwards hometown but I make more than double on the west coast than I could (as an employee) there, so not moving back anytime soon.
- mattcaldwell 8y ago
  Fellow Kentuckian here, now living in DC. Yep.
- Pokepokalypse 8y ago
  Having moved from a rust-belt blue state; who had liberal policies (but. . . just failed to nurture their tech industry like other states did), I moved to California; for a richer employment opportunity. In terms of skills I could learn on the job, there's no way I could have gone nearly as far in my career if I limited myself to the set of employers that were available to me in my hometown. Now, I've moved to a red state, (for family reasons), and I have interviewed at about 20 different companies. The "tech industry" is very different from California. There's a little bit of a software startup industry growing, most of the jobs are in healthcare and financial IT. Nobody wants to pay people what they could earn elsewhere. And in terms of career paths there's not a lot out there that offers much of a future. (or at least it appears that way). None of these companies seem like they have any kind of vision other than general business continuity. It's a completely different experience than I had interviewing with tech companies in California. Even worse: the company I did take a job at can't seem to retain talent. And when we look for it, we can't find it. (And when we find it - I implore them to make it worth the candidate's time. . . and HR simply responds about what the "market rate" is. - which is why I keep interviewing elsewhere. . . ). In a nutshell; the main difference seems to be - technology companies in California are in the business to innovate, and create new technology, and to become industry leaders. Where, in my new state; they're in the business to just be in business.
  - 8y ago
defen 8y ago
Now, consider the "meta-brain-drain" of 1) increased assortative mating (people are increasingly more likely to marry someone of similar educational and professional achievement) and 2) college-educated women delaying childbirth and having fewer children than non-college-educated women. The net result is that more educated people tend to have fewer children than the less educated. If we assume educational attainment is correlated with intelligence, and children's intelligence is correlated to parental intelligence, this doesn't bode well for future generations. It seems like we as a society need to figure out a way to make "have children at a reasonable age" not be a low-status move for highly educated / driven / intelligent women. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/fertility/cb11-83.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/fertility/...
- neilv 8y ago
  I think you have some good points, but I don't think the following is a safe assumption, and it can be very counterproductive: > If we assume educational attainment is correlated with intelligence, and children's intelligence is correlated to parental intelligence, [...] You could imagine how this idea can discourage people of modest origins, and can also encourage people of advantage to see themselves as innately superior.
- chrischattin 8y ago
  An interesting way to look at this is that nature (from an evolutionary perspective) is selecting away from what the popular sentiment of this board considers intelligent.
- drb91 8y ago
  I don’t see any reason to assume that intelligence is strongly correlated with parent intelligence. Weakly, sure, but nurture factors contribute immensely. I attribute my own success not to genetics, though my parents are successful, but to reading a LOT as a kid and an upbringing encouraging curiosity, and then nepotism. The knack I have for puzzles that I share with my family seems to contribute less to my place in the world and more the roles I choose in this place—that is, I don’t think it has significantly impacted my material position—much more due to the earthly explanations of privilege.
md224 8y ago
Whenever I see this topic come up, I think back to the climactic speech in the movie Good Will Hunting, the one where Chuckie excoriates Will for wanting to put down roots in the community he grew up in. He concludes: "It'd be an insult to us if you're still here in 20 years. Hangin' around here is a fuckin' waste of your time." This was framed as an inspirational moment that finally pushed Will to achieve his potential. This idea -- that self-actualization requires abandoning your small-town roots -- is ingrained in our cultural DNA.
- Mindless2112 8y ago
  Sounds more like it's an idea that's been fed to the culture by Hollywood.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  An early memory of mine is when my mother told me that there was no future for me in Southern Illinois, and when I grew up, I’d have to move far away. She was right. I did, right to the Bay Area. When I go back and visit, the area has gotten more economically depressed, and frankly more stereotypical. And to put a cherry on top, I am completely unemployable there.
cletus 8y ago
I'm not sure I can make sense of the "Gross" figures. The "Net" figures are easy to understand: people have generally moved to key urban areas, being CA, NY, IL, TX, VA/MD, GA and CO. Compare that to the Net figures from 1940 through 1990, which show a clear migration to the Southern states. But I'm not even sure this is showing what it suggests. Is it simply a proxy for population growth? Or is this thing just a symptom that people in general have a much lower chance of staying in the same state for 31-40 years? I find the notion that people "self-select" into like-minded communities as some sort of "social segregation" baseless, even laughable. The South still has the echoes of slavery and (real) segregation that many have sought to escape. The implication here is that people are abandoning their communities. Are they though? What do they owe these states where they grew up? And are they abandoning such states or essentially being chased away because they simply don't conform to whatever cultural or religious norms dominate there? This seems particular relevant to the smaller and more rural states. Bear in mind that education seems to be a partial antidote to religious dogma [1] in that people with more education tend to express religion less (although this is complicated and Christians seem to somewhat buck this trend). But given the cultural importance of religion in some communities, it seems like your more educated citizens are also more likely to leave, no? 19th century America was one of small, rural towns. With the railroad and homesteading these spread West. What probably began with the Industrial Revolution seemed to turn into a tidal wave of urbanization following the Second World War. Cities are just more efficient at delivering work opportunities. [1] https://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-education-equal-less-religion/ https://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-edu...
kadendogthing 8y ago
So. You, as a Representative in this case, have most of your power based on geographic concepts. Not related to anyone you actually govern in comparison to the rest of the country. You then are completely surprised that the party governing your state/city that has largely engaged in sycophancy isn't attracting actually intelligent people. This is the most least surprising outcome and it these areas need to continue to be absolutely economically devastated until the populace learns the consequences of supporting really dumb government policies. At least then people spouting off "party politic" lines will realize there is a fundamental, realistic, constructive difference of parties int the U.S. and what it means for society as a whole.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Brain drain is one of numerous dynamics highly similar to Gresham's law, though with subtle implications. Goods movements, where mobile, follows direct reward. Brain-drain may be for economic, technological, social, and cultural reasons. It's not uncommon for talent flows to be at least nominally bidirectional, though with different and distinct motivating factors. The flight of intellectual (and especially Jewish) European talent to the US before, during, and after WWII contrasts with black American's migration from the US, particularly though not just the South, to Europe. Contrast Fermi and Einstein against James Baldwin and Nina Simone. Both oppression (negative driver) and economic opportunity (positive) existed for each. Within the British Commonwealth, substantial migratoon supported by some cultural and political commonality (even where other strong differences existed) facilitated vast human flows, generlly toward London, thpugh also other centres. Similar dynamics exist within countries as well, often (per Jane Jacobs) at the urban regional level, particularly contrasted with rural regions. And hub formation / centres of excellence tend to accelerate such consolidation (a point Edward Glaeser argues relatively well, though with flaws). Economic goods tend to move toward reward, and away from punishment or restraint, though the dynamic once in flow tends to be self-sustaining, at least for a time. There's much focus on positive network effects and growth, less on decline. But the immigration surces of migration toward first the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, and later the Western US, came from what had been earlier. priods' dynamic hubs. Why those declined should be instructive study.
uneasy-sausage 8y ago
So Ive got to ask, and I've failed to find answer through research for this question, where the hell are all the educated young people at? I'm 28 and relocated to Tampa Bay and I have no idea where my cohorts are here or in this state.
- opportune 8y ago
  There are tons in the Bay Area, Seattle, Dc area, NYC area, Chicago, and Boston. Not so sure about Tampa though it’s up there on my list of nice retirement destinations
- burfog 8y ago
  Tampa is old retired people and the US Navy. You want the other side of the state, near the middle of Brevard county. It's a bunch of engineers working for DoD and NASA contractors.
Yhippa 8y ago
I think the article hints at this but I wonder if civil political discourse is over for people even despite the fact that people of differing beliefs don't live next to each other and intermingle. It seems that enough people spend a lot of time online and can hang out virtually in their circles anyway and get caught up in groupthink.
tomohawk 8y ago
Living in one of the high rent areas, it's amazing how many people move here for the work, and then leave once they've achieved their goals. Quality of life and good pay don't seem to be collocated.
axaxs 8y ago
This applies to me, I guess. I've tolerated Kentucky long enough. They keep increasing taxes to pay for pensions they've looted in the past, while nixing services. I feel no benefit at all from my taxes that keep going up. Paired with low wages and a low educated populace, I'm outta here.
michelpp 8y ago
Don't be fooled by the dissembling nature of this article. It would be nice to think of this as just another data-fetish bauble, but this article is part of a complex multi-dimensional game of politics. Who stands to gain? What senators sit on the majority of the Joint Economic Committee and why would they be selflessly taking their own states down a peg? Woe is the drain... of their own making perhaps? Maybe there is some major upcoming decision, say, one by the Supreme Court, that will greatly effect how many, many billions of education dollars will be dispersed by the federal government and to what "accredited" educational institutions will be newly eligible for it?
mixedmath 8y ago
I think there are interesting things to say about brain drain, and I'm certainly under the impression that there is a tendency for people to move away from the middle of the country and towards the coastal cities (and apparently Texas, Colorado, and Illinois). But I find the choices of units for these statistics to be very odd. For example, I look at Massachusetts Net difference in Absolute terms in 2017 (where stars indicate an option on the graph) and I see -16.41. The article doesn't seem to say directly what -16.41 is, other than that it's the "excess of highly-educated share of movers over highly-educated share of entrants". So what is it? Looking at the data they provide, I believe that they are subtracting two different percentages of two separate numbers. It appears they examine all the people who left and take the percentage of highly educated people in that group (call this X); and they examine all the people who entered the state and take the percentage of highly educated people (call this Y); and they return X - Y. This appears to me to be a terrible statistic in practice, especially if the population of a state is either growing or shrinking. For an example of an unbelievably misleading scenario, consider the fictional state Hackernewsyork, with a population of 100 people (30 of whom are highly educated). Say Hackernewsyork had exactly 1 person move away and she was highly educated (so X = 100) and 10 people move in but only 5 were highly educated (so Y = 50). Then they would report that X - Y = 50, a sign of massive brain drain per the article --- when in fact both the number of highly educated people in the state and the percentage of people in the state who are highly educated went up.
- theoh 8y ago
  I'm not sure about the justification for the X-Y figure, but it seems like larger numbers would tend to make this kind of effect unlikely. If you assume that in- and out-migration are not in equilibrium, but that the probability of migrating is uniformly distributed over people of all levels of education, then X-Y should be zero. Obviously, it would be better to use net numbers (arrivals of highly educated – departures of highly educated) and not attempt to normalise the numbers.
kchoudhu 8y ago
Educated people with prospects by and large don't want to live in places where they aren't respected or valued, news at 10.
tomkat0789 8y ago
My brain drain story: I got a nice engineering degree in the South, even had a phd project supported by the local chemical plant. Why I left: 1. GF/now wife had advanced degrees, and there were no advanced opportunities for her in my area. She'd also have to leave the great opportunity she had in her big northern city. 2. The industry was randomly down when I graduated, so it didn't even make much sense to stay even without my wife's situation. I found a job in my wife's city where we're producing lots of tax income for one of the big gainers on this map. I think a key lesson from my case is to not have the local economy dependent on one industry. The Gulf Coast is married to oil/chemicals, the Midwest was in heavy manufacturing, WV in coal. A more diverse local economy means all the married, educated couples can have an easier time finding careers for themselves without one side having to sacrifice and feel like they've wasted their huge educational investments.
neilv 8y ago
There's a related drain on big university cities/towns. I stayed in Boston after CS-ish grad school, but pretty much all the other students left immediately/shortly after finishing. If they didn't go to professorships (the minority), it was usually SF or NYC. The reasons, besides job opportunities, were young nightlife (e.g., dating pool are frumpy nerds, bars/clubs/restaurants close up early by big city standards, subway stops before last call), and quality of life for cost of living (young STEM/med/law new-grads who want to be in-town often pay out the nose to rent with roommates in a run-down old tinderbox apartment with lead paint that was built 100 years ago as cheap housing for poor people), and weather. And, thinking forward a couple years, a house/apartment big&nice enough to start a family is outside the means of most people.
- solatic 8y ago
  And affordable family housing close to work is suddenly in abundant supply in SF and NYC?
- jeffbax 8y ago
  I don't see how moving from Boston to NYC or SF solves anything you're referring to. Boston is younger than both and while expensive to live still cheaper. NYC is full of tinder box apartments. The dating pool in SF is way more lopsided than the east coast. Uber made the subway thing less relevant (though as someone who moved here and got older, the late hours also mean less to me now than earlier) Also MA is allegedly top ranked for millennials https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/04/09/best-states-millennials-massachusetts-worst-wallethub/ https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/04/09/best-states-millennia... Homes are expensive in MA but not cheaper in either SF or NY. Boston also one of three US cities outside SV expected to be top 10 globally in tech for the foreseeable future https://boston.curbed.com/2019/2/26/18240310/boston-technology-silicon-valley https://boston.curbed.com/2019/2/26/18240310/boston-technolo... As for families, I don't see how either NY or CA is better off for education. There's plenty of reasons to leave Boston for either of those cities, but the ones you cite really don't make a whole lot of sense.
  - neilv 8y ago
    You could be right; I'm saying what people said. Jobs seems to be valid to me (unless you're in biotech, rather than established dotcoms or doing a startup). No one I know thinks nightlife anywhere compares to NYC, and the people I know who moved from Boston to SF reported having a much better time (and weather). I actually liked the Boston dating scene, before Tinder, but I'm very much cafe and a walk.

133 points by js2 8y ago

js2 8y ago

Conclusion States which retain and attract highly-educated adults stand to reap substantial economic benefits. At the same time, those that bleed much of their homegrown talent will see their economic fortunes decline if they fail to replace the leavers with highly-educated out-of-staters. Yet even if they do manage to offset their losses, these states are still losing a vital source of social capital. What is more, the outmigration of highly-educated adults has almost certainly played a role in the deterioration of civil society in struggling communities across the country. And to the extent that the geographic mobility of the highly-educated has increased social bifurcation, it has likely exacerbated distrust of and intolerance toward people who hold different beliefs. One need only glance at today’s polarized political environment to see these attitudes on display. Our research finds that states that are doing the best—low gross brain drain and net brain gain—generally cluster along the Boston-Washington corridor and on the West Coast: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Oregon, and Washington. Other brain gain states are regional hubs—Hawaii, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Illinois. Several of these states experienced high gross brain drain and net brain drain in 1970, but have reversed course; others have seen continued good prospects or improvements on one or both measures. For the most part, these states are home to what Richard Florida would describe as “winner-take-all cities.” On the other hand, states in the Southeast, in the Rust Belt, and in other parts of the country tend to fare much worse when it comes to retaining and attracting the highly-educated. Several states in the Southeast—West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana—had low gross brain drain and net brain gain in 1970, but today generally experience high gross brain drain as well as net brain drain. Most Rust Belt states—Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri—have done poorly on these measures in both 1970 and 2017. Perhaps unsurprisingly, states that defy these regional trends (for example, Illinois in the Rust Belt, and Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia in the Southeast) seem to be attracting highly-educated out-of-staters to their dynamic metropolitan hubs. Brain drain has significant consequences—economic, yes, but also political and cultural. By increasing social segregation, it limits opportunities for disparate groups to connect. And by siphoning a source of economic innovation from emptying communities, brain drain can also lead to crumbling institutions of civil society. As those natives who have more resources leave, those left behind may struggle to support churches, police athletic leagues, parent-teacher associations, and local businesses. State and local policymakers are understandably focused on the economic consequences of brain drain. But anyone concerned about the health of associational life in America should worry that what this report has mapped out, to some extent, is the geography of social capital drain.

Rafuino 8y ago
"As those natives who have more resources leave, those left behind may struggle to support churches, police athletic leagues, parent-teacher associations, and local businesses." Huh... churches are the first thing that come to mind. Yep, this was definitely written by a Utah senate staff.
- burfog 8y ago
  I was out driving in rural Kentucky one day, along a long narrow gravel road with sparse houses, and came across a church. The church had a sign advertising a get-together with shotguns. I think it was skeet shooting, possibly as a fundraiser. I don't even go to church or have a shotgun, but I suddenly wanted to live there and be a part of that community. I guess you could say that that sort of genuine community made me envious.
- jeffbax 8y ago
  Churches provide a lot of charity and communal support in most places where they are still relevant. Community masters, one of the reasons that SLC has the highest income mobility in the country

threatofrain 8y ago

I'm sure the parents want the kids getting out of brain-drain regions too. Why ought kids stay?

burfog 8y ago
Some may. I certainly don't agree. Those "brain-drain regions" are the places where kids can afford to raise grandkids. Aside from weather, they are generally nicer places to live.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gshdg 8y ago
  Only if there are well paying jobs there for their skills. And if they’re satisfied with the school systems. And different people have different ideas of what a “nice” place is to live.
- solveit 8y ago
  Young people certainly know this. And they're making the free, informed decision to forego raising children in return for living somewhere where they can both maximize their career potential and socialize with people more compatible with themselves.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
By that logic, we should all be aspiring to live in Upper E. side Manhatten, because, 'why stay anywhere else'. Education is only one factor, there are many others. FYI - 'Worker mobility' in the US is actually declining, and has been for some time. This could possibly mean that regular workers are moving around less, relative to educated one's. It also could mean as communications and transportation become easier, the 'big city' advantages are just compounding. So the major metro areas are just sucking up everything around them. Texas, Colorado, Illinois have a sea of purple around them.
- threatofrain 8y ago

expressrunning 8y ago

What’s interesting is the world has a brain drain.....and the highly educated adults are going to US. From places like India and China. Don’t believe me? Check this out: Chinese students got beaten down by university securities, for protesting against fake degrees given to them. Happened today https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/bhxgng/chinas_student_geting_beats_by_police/ https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/bhxgng/chinas_studen...

badosu 8y ago
I'd say there's brain drain even if the workers stay at their country, working remotely for US companies. The most qualified people around me on previous jobs moved to US, Europe or are working remotely (myself included). It's sad because it increases the difficulty of local companies to grow a good team, continuing the cycle.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
akhilcacharya 8y ago
You’re 100% correct and it is why I’m generally very bullish on America despite the gloom and doom on the right and late stage capitalists on the left. It’s the competitive advantage of being a nation bound by ideas and common purpose than a monarch or ethnicity or religion.
- cinquemb 8y ago
  As someone who grew up in Ohio, went to an Ivy, and left the US (but working remotely when I come across interesting projects for companies), I want to offer a different perspective. >It’s the competitive advantage of being a nation bound by ideas and common purpose than a monarch or ethnicity or religion. I think the US has become very ossified in this belief (which people fool themselves that the nature of this belief is any different from any other belief), you can see global capital flight to (parts of) the US and brain drain into the US, but in market speak, its a crowded trade, driven out of fear of the current downsides and not future upsides. However the nature of crowded trades is that they have the most tail risk, that some people (like me) cannot stomach. I'm of the mind that things will get more complicated soon within the next year (well at least for those who have been oblivious all along despite the warning signs), and that people will start to realize that value can be found anywhere if those are willing to seek it out, though it may not be as simple as what we are used to and have come to expect.

yasp 8y ago

I'm sure I will be downvoted for even mentioning his name, but Charles Murray has been writing about this for decades.

vcavallo 8y ago
bummer that just mentioning someone’s name requires this kind of prefacing
- Guthur 8y ago
  Hardly surprising. As has been mentioned else where unless you follow a particular political dogma then you are anti intellectual and therefore to be excluded. It's amusingly ironic how exclusive the politics of inclusion can be.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Jesus Christ. Sometimes you get downvoted. Sometimes you get upvoted. Either describe the damned concept or stop wasting our time lamenting how much we'll express our dislike.
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  It doesn't. And it would be helpful if the commentary on Murray's thoughts exceeded the meta-commentary on mentioning Murray's name.
dredmorbius 8y ago
This would be far more positive a contribution if you focused on how and what the author has said rather than anticipating HN's reaction. Maybe edit or reframe your comment.
sanderjd 8y ago
And saying what in those writings?
scarejunba 8y ago
I googled this and it was a complete waste of time. Charles Murray essentially argues that heritability plus assortative mating makes it so that the gap between the smart and the not so will grow larger. The smart will come from the upper middle class who are already going to college because they're going to marry other upper middle class people who go to college and make kids who will be upper middle class and go to college. He also strongly argues that your ability to succeed is a measure of your innate intelligence. (perhaps this is the part that user/yasp thought would be considered abhorrent?) and that combines with the earlier parts to say that there will be increased stratification and it will be on intelligence as well as on money. This whole thing is a waste of time because I gained nothing novel from having chased this vague-ass comment. Ugh. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102202873_2.html?sid=ST2010102204725&noredirect=on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10...

Mirioron 8y ago

Imagine what the effect of this is in the EU, where average income can differ up to 5-10 times between the poor and rich countries. Freedom of movement means they can still work in any of the EU countries.

T-A 8y ago
That seems like an exaggeration. Sorting on the net PPP column at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_... the lowest EU member is Bulgaria (1475), the highest is Luxembourg (3843); that's a factor 2.6. The EU also has much larger cultural barriers to movement than the US (different languages, just to mention the most obvious one).
- Mirioron 8y ago
  Just take a look at Bulgaria's population graph: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bulgaria#/media/File%3ABulgaria-demography.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bulgaria#/me... I very much question the validity of PPP in this case. Things are no doubt cheaper in Bulgaria, but I'm fairly certain that electronics, cars etc are going to cost roughly the same, because there's a free flow of goods. People just make do with less. Also keep in mind that people might move abroad to work there, but still come back home once in a while. The effect on the economy is still going to be similar. The median equivalised net income is just too different inside the EU: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_di04&lang=en http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_...
- MandieD 8y ago
  PPP only fully matters if you a) insist on living a local-typical lifestyle and b) intend to live there forever. Immigrants to Germany do not run out and get nearly-new Golfs and rent townhouses; they tend to be content with somewhat nicer than where they came from for at least the first few years, presumably saving up the difference, often with plans to head home someday. German is also widely taught in Eastern European schools, so the language barrier isn’t as high as Americans think it is. (Sample: Romanians, Poles and Croatians I know through work)

briandear 8y ago

I wonder why we consider “highly educated” to mean “college educated.” I know plenty of college educated people unfit to manage a lemonade stand and plenty of “lesser educated” people that own successful companies. Using a degree as a proxy for intelligence is a mistake.

crushcrashcrush 8y ago
Agreed 1000% Oh, you have an MBA? Guess I’ll have to show you how this works.
- michelpp 8y ago
  It could be a learning experience for you both. For example, they could teach you about percentages.
  - crushcrashcrush 8y ago
    The autism is strong with you.
    - sctb 8y ago
      Since you keep breaking the guidelines after we've asked you to stop we've banned the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Level of education is a decent proxy for intelligence, in anything resembling an academic context. More education is usually better. It's why companies prefer hiring people with more education. That said, I think many roles should not require a college degree for application. That one single thing might make a big difference - because as you hint there are tons of otherwise great people who don't specifically have the education.
- 8y ago

taurath 8y ago

Brain drain within the US is just as frequently about cultural rather than economic issues. The culture wars the republicans have been running on since the 80s turns off thoughtful people - anti-intellectualism is killing these states. That said, it’s incredibly underserved and there’s tons of very capable and friendly people. Edit: maybe I didn’t get the intended point across - I’d ask though, how many people do you know that moved for cultural reasons, especially from hometowns? I’m in the LGBT community where almost every single person I meet has moved for cultural reasons.

myko 8y ago
This is what I saw growing up in rural Ohio. Many HS classmates moved out of state and others moved into the major urban centers of Ohio.
- smashingfiasco 8y ago
  I left Toledo last year and moved to the east coast. I was one of maybe three of my friends who was left at that point. It could be a really great state, but the dying lake and dying industrial economy really wrecked the place. The area needs serious investment, but I'm nowhere in the position to contribute back like that, so I made the jump. A thing I like to say is that I am proud that I am from Ohio, but I'm also happy I'm not there now.
  - js2 8y ago
    How can you be proud of where you are from? You had no choice in being born there, and as you said it’s a state without a lot of opportunity, and in any case, you didn’t personally contribute to anything to make the place better. So why be proud of that? I’m from Florida but it’s not something I’m proud or not proud of. I’m proud of my kids. I’m proud of my work. I’m proud of my multi decade relationship with my wife. Those are things to be proud of. When a class I belong to does something great, I feel I can only be proud to be a member of that class to the extent that I contributed to the great thing and that we worked together to achieve something greater than ourselves. Even then I’m proud that “we did that thing” not that “I’m a member of that group.” Just a thought. I know many people are proud of where they are from but it’s irrational to me.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Trias11 8y ago

The article overthinks this. I been brain drained by being offered higher pay. You want to stop brain drain? PAY! Solved.

warent 8y ago
This is an oversimplification of a more nuanced issue. For example, perhaps the places that need it most can't afford it, and the places that can afford it can only do so because they already have the existing market for it.
- Trias11 8y ago
  "Can't affordness" comes as a result of a lack of a resources/budget. Which means decision makers or ultimately state/federal government think that funding of certain things at certain geographies is not important. (Or alternatively not offering any stimulus such as reducing taxes). Article misleads reader by claiming "what is" without explaining the driving force behind the dynamics of skilled market.
- threwawasy1228 8y ago
  At the same time when a company in my home state, offers pay at 55k for something that pays the equivalent of over double that on the coast there is something wrong. Software companies don't magically have smaller margins based on their geolocation if their user-base and contracts are global. In essence their offer of half what is reasonable is pure greed because they know they can get away with it in many cases. There are lots of companies doing exactly this and driving costs lower in areas where they can get away with it. I think a non-trivial amount of brain-drain is simply paying people what they are worth regardless of how nuanced the issue actually is.

loo9283 8y ago

Asia is the future IMO. If you're smart and motivated there will be dozens of "Silicon Valleys" there in 5-10 years.

crazygringo 8y ago

Interesting... I've only ever heard of brain drain used in an international context. Which is where the US comes out as a winner, as we're gaining from all the highly educated Chinese and Indians who come here to work and start companies. I actually find the concept rather odd to use domestically, because it's generally used to show a contrast between a country paying for your college education, and then you reaping the benefits in a different, richer country -- which can seem unfair. But in the US, students 1) generally pay for their own college education, and 2) often go to college in a state different from where they grew up and different from where they'll settle down later. So it doesn't seem to have any "unfair" aspect. I mean, complaining about brain drain domestically feels like complaining about free trade domestically... it doesn't make sense to me. People have the freedom to move to areas of better economic opportunity and that's a good thing in a dynamic, ever-changing country like America. Complaining about brain drain domestically really just sounds like wishing more people lived in the country instead of in big cities... no thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight#United_St...

btrettel 8y ago
Tuition for in-state residents is often subsidized and can be considerably lower than tuition for residents of other US states.
- greeneggs 8y ago
  For example, in California, UC tuition is ~$14,000/year and the state subsidizes $12,098/year per student. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/21/report-asks-whether-university-california-funding-nearing-tipping-point https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/21/report-asks-w...
durkie 8y ago
Georgia is an interesting outlier here: they introduced the HOPE scholarship in the 1990s to allow any in-state (already lived there for at least a year) student free tuition at a state school as long as they maintained a 3.0 GPA, all funded by the state lottery. And you have some pretty good schools to choose from here: University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, and Georgia State (which has improved a lot in the past 10 years). There are plenty of fair criticisms that can be leveled against the HOPE scholarship, but it seemed clear to me that it would reduce brain drain in the state, simply because students could get a high quality education at almost no cost. But these data show that the drain ratio increased from 1990 to 2010. So this is a situation where students aren't paying for their education, are going to school in the state where they likely grew up, and then are still leaving.

michelpp 8y ago

For the non-US and/or non-political here is Sen. Lee's govtrack record: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/mike_lee/412495 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/mike_lee/412495 Here are some links on his proposed education reforms: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/education-reform https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/education-reform https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/higher-education-reform-and-college-opportunity https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/higher-education... Some choice quotes: "Whereas conservatives promote policies that empower parents with the freedom and resources to choose what works best for them and their families, harnessing the power and problem-solving capacity of civil society and the free-enterprise economy, Democrats prefer government-run, one-size-fits-all programs." "Conservatives do not claim to have all the answers when it comes to early education policy. But the available research and the lessons of experience teach us that massive government investments to scale up early education programs into a single formula that applies to everybody simply don’t work. At best, they are a waste of money. At worst, they are harmful to our children, families, and communities." "The EEOA would expand school choice to all parents, regardless of socio-economic status or zip code, by allowing federal “Title I” K-12 support funds to follow low-income students to any public or private school of their choice." "The HERO Act would accomplish this by changing the way schools are accredited. The HERO Act would enable each state to accredit any institution that provides post-secondary education. With this new accreditation power, states would be able to authorize innovative new education options (for example, massive online open courses, competency-based offerings, and certification exams) for students in any learning situation." But please do read it all yourself, read the lines, between the lines, make up your own mind about where you think Senator Lee truely stands on this issue.

toasterlovin 8y ago
If you’re wondering where the downvotes are coming from, it’s probably because ad hominem attacks (attacking the person making the argument, rather than directly refuting their arguments; what you’re doing here, basically) are generally considered a logical fallacy.
- michelpp 8y ago

js2 8y ago

A couple related pieces by Richard Florida, referenced in this study: "The Roots of the New Urban Crisis" https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/04/the-roots-of-the-new-urban-crisis/521028/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/04/the-roots-of-the-new-... "Why America’s Richest Cities Keep Getting Richer" https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/richard-florida-winner-take-all-new-urban-crisis/522630/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/richard...

zdmc 8y ago

Brain Drain is about networking. Why would most give up the opportunity to relocate around the top thinkers in their field? Inhibiting this movement would arguably slow down progress, while making the country more robust (much like the pros/cons associated with most centralization vs. de-centralization topics). People from my hometown (pop. ~7500 in Midwest), do not realize that they are falling behind at an almost exponential rate. Many are working jobs that require common training, they do not continue their education, and they spend far too much time behind screens in the form of entertainment. And, even for those who want to continue to learn, they do not have access to a nearby tech meeting hosted by a top firm speaking on the state of the art. If you're not in SF or NY, then you do miss out on a lot of opportunities per people and shared information. * I am personally ashamed to say that I only realized the power and advantage of networking in recent years.

vinayan3 8y ago
> Inhibiting this movement would arguably slow down progress. Don't think the lawmakers want to inhibit movement rather, probably they want to use these conclusions to encourage people to stay. The prosperity brought by progress can be spread across many regions. > People from my hometown (pop. ~7500 in Midwest), do not realize that they are falling behind at an almost exponential rate. Many are working jobs that require common training, they do not continue their education Do you think it's caused by the lack of other people who are moving ahead aka role models or are there other factors(quality education etc...)? I do feel and have seen despite being in the right place some people don't get same opportunities for upward mobility despite being literally next door.
- Pokepokalypse 8y ago
  Education, and lack of opportunity for those who are educated and talented. (They will go where they can reap the most benefits for themselves). That top talent - will also educate their co-workers. Not just the people they work closely with, but everyone in their organization will receive great benefits from collaborating with the people who collaborate with that top talent. But most people working in the tech industry; (which is very highly stovepiped) - will never experience that, and may only read about it. When you're not fortunate enough to be employed in one of the top tech industry companies, or in one of the hotspots where the industry is focused (Silicon Valley, New York, Boston, Austin, Virginia, maybe Provo, Seattle) - then you have to do all you can to use the internet to constantly learn and grow your skills; but also, you have to try to constantly evangelize the same attitude to your co-workers, and management. It is an exhausting job.

throwaway713 8y ago

Interesting how the South appears to have totally reversed course. In 1970, it appears it was attracting talent. Now, it's losing talent quickly. That's unfortunate.

dredmorbius 8y ago
I'm wondering how much of that might have been the Great Migration: of (mostly poorer, less educated) blacks leaving the South specifically because of institutional oppression directly causing that lack of education and poverty.
- loeg 8y ago
  Great Migration as a concept mostly predates 1970.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    The data extend to the 1940s, as does the trend of (net|gross[1]) positive brain migration. Industrial decline accellerated hugely in the 1970s. 1. The terms and implications are still confusing me, but the effect remains: the former CSA states scored positively 1940-1970 and in cases later.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Checking; Wikipedia gives dates as 1916 to 1970, peaking 1950-1970, so precicsely within the data period mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_Ame...

opportune 8y ago

I’m from Kentucky, live on the west coast, and I cannot at all sympathize with those from there and similar states if they complain about brain drain. If you boast stupid, backwards policies and only give economic opportunities to the well connected, don’t be surprised when the intelligent but not well connected people leave the state. Maybe I’ll retire to my backwards hometown but I make more than double on the west coast than I could (as an employee) there, so not moving back anytime soon.

mattcaldwell 8y ago
Fellow Kentuckian here, now living in DC. Yep.
Pokepokalypse 8y ago
Having moved from a rust-belt blue state; who had liberal policies (but. . . just failed to nurture their tech industry like other states did), I moved to California; for a richer employment opportunity. In terms of skills I could learn on the job, there's no way I could have gone nearly as far in my career if I limited myself to the set of employers that were available to me in my hometown. Now, I've moved to a red state, (for family reasons), and I have interviewed at about 20 different companies. The "tech industry" is very different from California. There's a little bit of a software startup industry growing, most of the jobs are in healthcare and financial IT. Nobody wants to pay people what they could earn elsewhere. And in terms of career paths there's not a lot out there that offers much of a future. (or at least it appears that way). None of these companies seem like they have any kind of vision other than general business continuity. It's a completely different experience than I had interviewing with tech companies in California. Even worse: the company I did take a job at can't seem to retain talent. And when we look for it, we can't find it. (And when we find it - I implore them to make it worth the candidate's time. . . and HR simply responds about what the "market rate" is. - which is why I keep interviewing elsewhere. . . ). In a nutshell; the main difference seems to be - technology companies in California are in the business to innovate, and create new technology, and to become industry leaders. Where, in my new state; they're in the business to just be in business.
- 8y ago

defen 8y ago

Now, consider the "meta-brain-drain" of 1) increased assortative mating (people are increasingly more likely to marry someone of similar educational and professional achievement) and 2) college-educated women delaying childbirth and having fewer children than non-college-educated women. The net result is that more educated people tend to have fewer children than the less educated. If we assume educational attainment is correlated with intelligence, and children's intelligence is correlated to parental intelligence, this doesn't bode well for future generations. It seems like we as a society need to figure out a way to make "have children at a reasonable age" not be a low-status move for highly educated / driven / intelligent women. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/fertility/cb11-83.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/fertility/...

neilv 8y ago
I think you have some good points, but I don't think the following is a safe assumption, and it can be very counterproductive: > If we assume educational attainment is correlated with intelligence, and children's intelligence is correlated to parental intelligence, [...] You could imagine how this idea can discourage people of modest origins, and can also encourage people of advantage to see themselves as innately superior.
chrischattin 8y ago
An interesting way to look at this is that nature (from an evolutionary perspective) is selecting away from what the popular sentiment of this board considers intelligent.
drb91 8y ago
I don’t see any reason to assume that intelligence is strongly correlated with parent intelligence. Weakly, sure, but nurture factors contribute immensely. I attribute my own success not to genetics, though my parents are successful, but to reading a LOT as a kid and an upbringing encouraging curiosity, and then nepotism. The knack I have for puzzles that I share with my family seems to contribute less to my place in the world and more the roles I choose in this place—that is, I don’t think it has significantly impacted my material position—much more due to the earthly explanations of privilege.

md224 8y ago

Whenever I see this topic come up, I think back to the climactic speech in the movie Good Will Hunting, the one where Chuckie excoriates Will for wanting to put down roots in the community he grew up in. He concludes: "It'd be an insult to us if you're still here in 20 years. Hangin' around here is a fuckin' waste of your time." This was framed as an inspirational moment that finally pushed Will to achieve his potential. This idea -- that self-actualization requires abandoning your small-town roots -- is ingrained in our cultural DNA.

Mindless2112 8y ago
Sounds more like it's an idea that's been fed to the culture by Hollywood.
jonathankoren 8y ago
An early memory of mine is when my mother told me that there was no future for me in Southern Illinois, and when I grew up, I’d have to move far away. She was right. I did, right to the Bay Area. When I go back and visit, the area has gotten more economically depressed, and frankly more stereotypical. And to put a cherry on top, I am completely unemployable there.

cletus 8y ago

I'm not sure I can make sense of the "Gross" figures. The "Net" figures are easy to understand: people have generally moved to key urban areas, being CA, NY, IL, TX, VA/MD, GA and CO. Compare that to the Net figures from 1940 through 1990, which show a clear migration to the Southern states. But I'm not even sure this is showing what it suggests. Is it simply a proxy for population growth? Or is this thing just a symptom that people in general have a much lower chance of staying in the same state for 31-40 years? I find the notion that people "self-select" into like-minded communities as some sort of "social segregation" baseless, even laughable. The South still has the echoes of slavery and (real) segregation that many have sought to escape. The implication here is that people are abandoning their communities. Are they though? What do they owe these states where they grew up? And are they abandoning such states or essentially being chased away because they simply don't conform to whatever cultural or religious norms dominate there? This seems particular relevant to the smaller and more rural states. Bear in mind that education seems to be a partial antidote to religious dogma [1] in that people with more education tend to express religion less (although this is complicated and Christians seem to somewhat buck this trend). But given the cultural importance of religion in some communities, it seems like your more educated citizens are also more likely to leave, no? 19th century America was one of small, rural towns. With the railroad and homesteading these spread West. What probably began with the Industrial Revolution seemed to turn into a tidal wave of urbanization following the Second World War. Cities are just more efficient at delivering work opportunities. [1] https://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-education-equal-less-religion/ https://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-edu...

kadendogthing 8y ago

So. You, as a Representative in this case, have most of your power based on geographic concepts. Not related to anyone you actually govern in comparison to the rest of the country. You then are completely surprised that the party governing your state/city that has largely engaged in sycophancy isn't attracting actually intelligent people. This is the most least surprising outcome and it these areas need to continue to be absolutely economically devastated until the populace learns the consequences of supporting really dumb government policies. At least then people spouting off "party politic" lines will realize there is a fundamental, realistic, constructive difference of parties int the U.S. and what it means for society as a whole.

dredmorbius 8y ago

Brain drain is one of numerous dynamics highly similar to Gresham's law, though with subtle implications. Goods movements, where mobile, follows direct reward. Brain-drain may be for economic, technological, social, and cultural reasons. It's not uncommon for talent flows to be at least nominally bidirectional, though with different and distinct motivating factors. The flight of intellectual (and especially Jewish) European talent to the US before, during, and after WWII contrasts with black American's migration from the US, particularly though not just the South, to Europe. Contrast Fermi and Einstein against James Baldwin and Nina Simone. Both oppression (negative driver) and economic opportunity (positive) existed for each. Within the British Commonwealth, substantial migratoon supported by some cultural and political commonality (even where other strong differences existed) facilitated vast human flows, generlly toward London, thpugh also other centres. Similar dynamics exist within countries as well, often (per Jane Jacobs) at the urban regional level, particularly contrasted with rural regions. And hub formation / centres of excellence tend to accelerate such consolidation (a point Edward Glaeser argues relatively well, though with flaws). Economic goods tend to move toward reward, and away from punishment or restraint, though the dynamic once in flow tends to be self-sustaining, at least for a time. There's much focus on positive network effects and growth, less on decline. But the immigration surces of migration toward first the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, and later the Western US, came from what had been earlier. priods' dynamic hubs. Why those declined should be instructive study.

uneasy-sausage 8y ago

So Ive got to ask, and I've failed to find answer through research for this question, where the hell are all the educated young people at? I'm 28 and relocated to Tampa Bay and I have no idea where my cohorts are here or in this state.

opportune 8y ago
There are tons in the Bay Area, Seattle, Dc area, NYC area, Chicago, and Boston. Not so sure about Tampa though it’s up there on my list of nice retirement destinations
burfog 8y ago
Tampa is old retired people and the US Navy. You want the other side of the state, near the middle of Brevard county. It's a bunch of engineers working for DoD and NASA contractors.

Yhippa 8y ago

I think the article hints at this but I wonder if civil political discourse is over for people even despite the fact that people of differing beliefs don't live next to each other and intermingle. It seems that enough people spend a lot of time online and can hang out virtually in their circles anyway and get caught up in groupthink.

tomohawk 8y ago

Living in one of the high rent areas, it's amazing how many people move here for the work, and then leave once they've achieved their goals. Quality of life and good pay don't seem to be collocated.

axaxs 8y ago

This applies to me, I guess. I've tolerated Kentucky long enough. They keep increasing taxes to pay for pensions they've looted in the past, while nixing services. I feel no benefit at all from my taxes that keep going up. Paired with low wages and a low educated populace, I'm outta here.

michelpp 8y ago

Don't be fooled by the dissembling nature of this article. It would be nice to think of this as just another data-fetish bauble, but this article is part of a complex multi-dimensional game of politics. Who stands to gain? What senators sit on the majority of the Joint Economic Committee and why would they be selflessly taking their own states down a peg? Woe is the drain... of their own making perhaps? Maybe there is some major upcoming decision, say, one by the Supreme Court, that will greatly effect how many, many billions of education dollars will be dispersed by the federal government and to what "accredited" educational institutions will be newly eligible for it?

mixedmath 8y ago

I think there are interesting things to say about brain drain, and I'm certainly under the impression that there is a tendency for people to move away from the middle of the country and towards the coastal cities (and apparently Texas, Colorado, and Illinois). But I find the choices of units for these statistics to be very odd. For example, I look at Massachusetts Net difference in Absolute terms in 2017 (where stars indicate an option on the graph) and I see -16.41. The article doesn't seem to say directly what -16.41 is, other than that it's the "excess of highly-educated share of movers over highly-educated share of entrants". So what is it? Looking at the data they provide, I believe that they are subtracting two different percentages of two separate numbers. It appears they examine all the people who left and take the percentage of highly educated people in that group (call this X); and they examine all the people who entered the state and take the percentage of highly educated people (call this Y); and they return X - Y. This appears to me to be a terrible statistic in practice, especially if the population of a state is either growing or shrinking. For an example of an unbelievably misleading scenario, consider the fictional state Hackernewsyork, with a population of 100 people (30 of whom are highly educated). Say Hackernewsyork had exactly 1 person move away and she was highly educated (so X = 100) and 10 people move in but only 5 were highly educated (so Y = 50). Then they would report that X - Y = 50, a sign of massive brain drain per the article --- when in fact both the number of highly educated people in the state and the percentage of people in the state who are highly educated went up.

theoh 8y ago
I'm not sure about the justification for the X-Y figure, but it seems like larger numbers would tend to make this kind of effect unlikely. If you assume that in- and out-migration are not in equilibrium, but that the probability of migrating is uniformly distributed over people of all levels of education, then X-Y should be zero. Obviously, it would be better to use net numbers (arrivals of highly educated – departures of highly educated) and not attempt to normalise the numbers.

kchoudhu 8y ago

Educated people with prospects by and large don't want to live in places where they aren't respected or valued, news at 10.

tomkat0789 8y ago

My brain drain story: I got a nice engineering degree in the South, even had a phd project supported by the local chemical plant. Why I left: 1. GF/now wife had advanced degrees, and there were no advanced opportunities for her in my area. She'd also have to leave the great opportunity she had in her big northern city. 2. The industry was randomly down when I graduated, so it didn't even make much sense to stay even without my wife's situation. I found a job in my wife's city where we're producing lots of tax income for one of the big gainers on this map. I think a key lesson from my case is to not have the local economy dependent on one industry. The Gulf Coast is married to oil/chemicals, the Midwest was in heavy manufacturing, WV in coal. A more diverse local economy means all the married, educated couples can have an easier time finding careers for themselves without one side having to sacrifice and feel like they've wasted their huge educational investments.

neilv 8y ago

There's a related drain on big university cities/towns. I stayed in Boston after CS-ish grad school, but pretty much all the other students left immediately/shortly after finishing. If they didn't go to professorships (the minority), it was usually SF or NYC. The reasons, besides job opportunities, were young nightlife (e.g., dating pool are frumpy nerds, bars/clubs/restaurants close up early by big city standards, subway stops before last call), and quality of life for cost of living (young STEM/med/law new-grads who want to be in-town often pay out the nose to rent with roommates in a run-down old tinderbox apartment with lead paint that was built 100 years ago as cheap housing for poor people), and weather. And, thinking forward a couple years, a house/apartment big&nice enough to start a family is outside the means of most people.

solatic 8y ago
And affordable family housing close to work is suddenly in abundant supply in SF and NYC?
jeffbax 8y ago
I don't see how moving from Boston to NYC or SF solves anything you're referring to. Boston is younger than both and while expensive to live still cheaper. NYC is full of tinder box apartments. The dating pool in SF is way more lopsided than the east coast. Uber made the subway thing less relevant (though as someone who moved here and got older, the late hours also mean less to me now than earlier) Also MA is allegedly top ranked for millennials https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/04/09/best-states-millennials-massachusetts-worst-wallethub/ https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/04/09/best-states-millennia... Homes are expensive in MA but not cheaper in either SF or NY. Boston also one of three US cities outside SV expected to be top 10 globally in tech for the foreseeable future https://boston.curbed.com/2019/2/26/18240310/boston-technology-silicon-valley https://boston.curbed.com/2019/2/26/18240310/boston-technolo... As for families, I don't see how either NY or CA is better off for education. There's plenty of reasons to leave Boston for either of those cities, but the ones you cite really don't make a whole lot of sense.
- neilv 8y ago
  You could be right; I'm saying what people said. Jobs seems to be valid to me (unless you're in biotech, rather than established dotcoms or doing a startup). No one I know thinks nightlife anywhere compares to NYC, and the people I know who moved from Boston to SF reported having a much better time (and weather). I actually liked the Boston dating scene, before Tinder, but I'm very much cafe and a walk.