3 ms·

I'm sure some of you saw it because it's on page two (and linked in the article)-- but the New York Times has imo a much better article on this: http://www.nyti

by wf 13y ago

I'm sure some of you saw it because it's on page two (and linked in the article)-- but the New York Times has imo a much better article on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-ladder-location-matters.html?hp&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-incom...

anishkothari 13y ago
Thanks for linking to the NYT article, much better than the Slate one. IMO access to efficient public transportation has an outsized impact on people's ability to move up the economic ladder.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  How does that theory jibe with some of the best mobility results being concentrated in places like Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and North Texas?
  - wf 13y ago
    I'm not an economist but I do wonder if the reasons some of those places have higher mobility is because the previous generation in those areas have relatively low income jobs (i.e. mostly agriculture) and many of the current generation have a "gotta get out of here" mentality leading them to better paying opportunities elsewhere. I know I felt that way living in the mid-west in early high school. I'd like to see a map of how many of these income reporters moved away from their locales and to where and also what professions they picked up.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      The mobility those regions demonstrate is better than average for all income classes, and those income classes are defined nationally, not locally. Of course, that "gotta get out of here" feeling isn't limited to lower income kids, so it could be a factor. Certainly it's typically good for your earnings if you're willing to move where you can make more money. But then why isn't upstate New York dark blue? (Sorry, upstate New York!)
    - mturmon 13y ago
      I like your theory. I think the schools in those regions are generally pretty good, and due to agricultural consolidation and general urbanization, most kids in those areas see the writing on the wall.
    - pitt1980 13y ago
      those areas have/ or are near to natural resources that provide well paying blue collar work which I think explains the results you see almost entirely
  - anishkothari 13y ago
    I should have said public transportation in cities. In more rural areas, this would be less of an issue because of the otherwise low cost of living. There is less of an opportunity cost there.
twoodfin 13y ago
The interactive map is an amazing "infographic". What's interesting to me is the big band stretching from Duluth, MN to Midland, TX that's the most "upwardly mobile" for essentially all income classes. An important note, though: While this data is useful for relative measurements, the absolute gain or loss in income % is less meaningful. For one thing, they're comparing ~30-yo's today to their parents in the "late '90s". Let's say I was 32 in 2012, and we compare my income with my parents' in 1998. In 1998, I would have been 18, which would mean my parents were likely at least 38, and had a few more prime years of earnings growth racked up. Relatedly, my understanding is that there is a long-term trend towards later earnings years, tied to more professional and graduate education. Today's 30-yo just graduating from medical or business school might be primed to make great money later even if their parents were making more at age 30. Just fascinating data.
Goosey 13y ago
What I found fascinating was when I zoomed in on my hometown area (Canton, OH area) the interactive "... With Parents in the X Percentile, ends up on average in the Y Percentile" flattens out as I raised the parent's percentile and then started to decrease. So on average children born into rich families decline by this metric (at least in this one area).
wtvanhest 13y ago
The areas on that map which demonstrate the highest gain in rising income between generations are almost exclusively in areas with either high natural gas reserves or high oil reserves. The middle tier is mainly made up of areas where moving from a suburb to a major city does not involve getting on a plane to visit relatives. (Chicago being the exception, not sure why, maybe its proximity to Michigan?). The lowest areas are primarily the deed south without access to oil/nat gas reserves. The deep south has a triple challenge of low income to reinvest in to school systems, limited opportunities or areas near Detroit which have seen a complete collapse of jobs. This map is basically a heat map of areas which saw rapid changes to their underlying economies because of forces they could not control.

by wf 13y ago

anishkothari 13y ago

Thanks for linking to the NYT article, much better than the Slate one. IMO access to efficient public transportation has an outsized impact on people's ability to move up the economic ladder.

twoodfin 13y ago
How does that theory jibe with some of the best mobility results being concentrated in places like Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and North Texas?
- wf 13y ago
  I'm not an economist but I do wonder if the reasons some of those places have higher mobility is because the previous generation in those areas have relatively low income jobs (i.e. mostly agriculture) and many of the current generation have a "gotta get out of here" mentality leading them to better paying opportunities elsewhere. I know I felt that way living in the mid-west in early high school. I'd like to see a map of how many of these income reporters moved away from their locales and to where and also what professions they picked up.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    The mobility those regions demonstrate is better than average for all income classes, and those income classes are defined nationally, not locally. Of course, that "gotta get out of here" feeling isn't limited to lower income kids, so it could be a factor. Certainly it's typically good for your earnings if you're willing to move where you can make more money. But then why isn't upstate New York dark blue? (Sorry, upstate New York!)
  - mturmon 13y ago
    I like your theory. I think the schools in those regions are generally pretty good, and due to agricultural consolidation and general urbanization, most kids in those areas see the writing on the wall.
  - pitt1980 13y ago
    those areas have/ or are near to natural resources that provide well paying blue collar work which I think explains the results you see almost entirely
- anishkothari 13y ago
  I should have said public transportation in cities. In more rural areas, this would be less of an issue because of the otherwise low cost of living. There is less of an opportunity cost there.

twoodfin 13y ago

The interactive map is an amazing "infographic". What's interesting to me is the big band stretching from Duluth, MN to Midland, TX that's the most "upwardly mobile" for essentially all income classes. An important note, though: While this data is useful for relative measurements, the absolute gain or loss in income % is less meaningful. For one thing, they're comparing ~30-yo's today to their parents in the "late '90s". Let's say I was 32 in 2012, and we compare my income with my parents' in 1998. In 1998, I would have been 18, which would mean my parents were likely at least 38, and had a few more prime years of earnings growth racked up. Relatedly, my understanding is that there is a long-term trend towards later earnings years, tied to more professional and graduate education. Today's 30-yo just graduating from medical or business school might be primed to make great money later even if their parents were making more at age 30. Just fascinating data.

Goosey 13y ago

What I found fascinating was when I zoomed in on my hometown area (Canton, OH area) the interactive "... With Parents in the X Percentile, ends up on average in the Y Percentile" flattens out as I raised the parent's percentile and then started to decrease. So on average children born into rich families decline by this metric (at least in this one area).

wtvanhest 13y ago

The areas on that map which demonstrate the highest gain in rising income between generations are almost exclusively in areas with either high natural gas reserves or high oil reserves. The middle tier is mainly made up of areas where moving from a suburb to a major city does not involve getting on a plane to visit relatives. (Chicago being the exception, not sure why, maybe its proximity to Michigan?). The lowest areas are primarily the deed south without access to oil/nat gas reserves. The deep south has a triple challenge of low income to reinvest in to school systems, limited opportunities or areas near Detroit which have seen a complete collapse of jobs. This map is basically a heat map of areas which saw rapid changes to their underlying economies because of forces they could not control.