For years, I’ve said that measuring relative incomes is a lousy way to gauging a society’s economic success; it’d be much more useful to try to gauge, on an individual level, upward and downward lifetime income mobility.
And voila – the NYTimes has released what it terms as a “ground-breaking” study on income and social mobility in America…
…and promptly turned it into a plea for more government intervention in the economy.
Climbing the income ladder occurs less often in the Southeast and industrial Midwest, the data shows, with the odds notably low in Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, Raleigh, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Columbus. By contrast, some of the highest rates occur in the Northeast, Great Plains and West, including in New York, Boston, Salt Lake City, Pittsburgh, Seattle and large swaths of California and Minnesota.
“Where you grow up matters,” said Nathaniel Hendren, a Harvard economist and one of the study’s authors. “There is tremendous variation across the U.S. in the extent to which kids can rise out of poverty.”
I’ll take a break from the conclusions for a moment to show this pretty slick map from the Times piece:
It measures the probability that a child born into the bottom fifth of incomes would rise to the top fifth, which is noted in the graphic’s fine print as $70K by age 30 or $100K by age 45.
The “study” shows correlation and doesn’t attempt to find causations – although plenty of lefty commentators have tried to do it for them.
My native North Dakota shines, of course – the western parts of the state used to be relatively poor, and are now explosively wealthy. But even the oil-free parts of the state, like my native Stutsman County, are solidly in the 20% range.
As, for that matter, are the more Republican-leaning parts of Minnesota. And no, I’m not ascribing causation. Merely noting a correlation.
Back to the Times:
That variation does not stem simply from the fact that some areas have higher average incomes: upward mobility rates, Mr. Hendren added, often differ sharply in areas where average income is similar, like Atlanta and Seattle.
The gaps can be stark. On average, fairly poor children in Seattle — those who grew up in the 25th percentile of the national income distribution — do as well financially when they grow up as middle-class children — those who grew up at the 50th percentile — from Atlanta.
The article ascribes a few conclusions to the study; mainly, location matters, as does the proximity of wealth to poverty. Which might seem to make sense – if a poor kid can see the consquences of applying oneself, they may well stand a better chance to improve their lot in life, maybe, hopefully.
But as in the quote above, the article focuses on Atlanta (go ahead, read it) and juxtaposes it with Seattle, by way of noting that the Deep South is the biggest blotch of low income-mobility in the country.
I’m going to suggest (and it’s only a suggestion, since I have neither the time nor money to conduct a full-fledged study elaborating on these results) that the cause of it all ties back to local society’s valueing upward mobility. Big swathes of this country are descended fron pioneers and immigrants who saw upward mobility as an unalloyed good. But for much of antebellum (and a good chunk of post-bellum) southern society, upward mobility was historically either a serious risk (for slaves, getting “uppity” could have life-altering consequences) or irrelevant (for “white trash”, who were a peasant class in every way but name, upward mobility was just not part of the vocabulary).
So I’d say upward mobility is as much a matter of the part of society you were born into as it is geographical location (and the arrangement of “rich” and “poor” zip codes and the density of mass transit that goes along with it).
Again, just an opinion.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: I’m wondering – why can’t we do the same sort of analysis on schools? Specifically, instead of analyzing school test scores, look at the progress (or lack of it) by individual student. Especially when comparing traditional public school students with charter school students.
You can spot a lot of the reservation counties, for what it’s worth. Very low mobility. And yes, marking improvement is great, both societally and statistically. A-B forms a paired T test which is statistically far more powerful with a much smaller sample. The key is that you’ve got to link it to the actual causative factor.
Also, growing of grains seems to correlate pretty well to mobility. Maybe because anyone growing up there knows that making a living is a matter of either (a) inheriting a boatload of land or (b) going to college and moving away.
The red areas are predominantly African-American, First Nation and Native American. Any conclusions drawn about the lack of desire of those Persons of Color to escape poverty would be disrespectful of their culture and history. The study is racisssssss.
I was looking at Google’s satellite imagery for Detroit.
Property values are near zero, and blocks and blocks of empty lots.
Seemed like a great opportunity for some enterprising homesteaders, and then I remembered what sort of government they’d be living under.
It’s hard enough dealing with the thugs and the gangs. When the kleptocrats are running the government, well, it’s easier to just go somewhere else. (Until, at least, we elect the kleptocrats into control of the federal government, instead of just state and local.)
If the Koch bros. buy Detroit and discover oil under it I am going to start believing all those crazy left-wing kochspiracy theories.
Powhatan; wouldn’t that just be sweet irony? The Dimocrats that ran the city for years were sitting on a were sitting on a windfall, but their leftist mantra prevented them from finding it! Of course, ranting Oberfuhrer Ed Schulz is trying to convince all six people that listen to his drivel, that the evil Republicans ruined Detroit and caused them to go bankrupt.
well the Republicans might be responsible – the Dems said “we want Detroit” and the Republicans said “OK, here, its yours, don’t break it”
interesting article here:http://washingtonexaminer.com/exography-19-u.s.-cities-have-proportionately-bigger-workforces-than-bankrupted-detroit/article/2533338
Minneapolis:
Residents per employee 74
Population: 382,578
Employees: 5,111
Annual payroll: $310,851,072
Average compensation: $60,820
St Paul:
Residents per employee 96
Population: 285,068
Employees: 2,959
Annual payroll: $395,166,072
Average compensation: $133,547
Looks like the folks in Mpls need a raise.
The upwardly mobile map largely reflects the coincidence of high school graduation rates, North Dakota being right at the top with Montana and Minnesota right behind. And the deep South’s low HS graduation rates are reflected in their deep red coloration on the map of mobility status as well. It should be noted that until a few years ago, there was no requirement to stay in school in Georgia until 16 even, much less until graduation. A culture that expects education and achievement, whether within the home or in the community at large, is more likely to see upward mobility happen.
On the other hand it’s pretty obvious: to be upwardly mobile it’s best to be engaged in natural gas exploration.
Emery, high school graduation rates, lack of cross generational income mobility, and (in all probability) out of wedlock birth, alcoholism, and cigarette smoking are epiphenomenon. All of these are caused by the reluctance to sacrifice short term pleasure for long term gain.
In my lifetime (I’m 53) I’ve seen the social consequences of ‘irresponsible behavior’ dramatically reduced. For a man or women, having a child outside of marriage, or drug or alcohol addiction, will no longer make you a social pariah. Yet we still have an underclass that is associated with the same racial and ethnic communities that were identified with these social pathologies a century ago.
So what is the solution? it can be argued that current policies of giving relative advantage to people in these communities is merely the flip side inflicting relative disadvantages on these same communities a century ago. Neither policy worked.
A policy that promotes free enterprise and economic growth at least has the advantage of disturbing the tendency for societies to stratify into ruling classes and ruled classes.
The article seems to say that when lower income people are dispersed into places of at least moderate incomes the chances become better. I wonder how this map would look overlaid with a map of unemployment statistics for the same period? How would it look overlaid with employment sector statistics (i.e. % of jobs available in the regions by type of job). And then combine with transportation and education data in the regions, household statistics such as # of parents in the home, education level, marital status/number of children of both generations. It’s the only way to know if some or all of these factors correlate.
The problem with social science isn’t a lack of statistics or people to study them, Emery.
If one looks closely at where charter schools have been successful in poor and otherwise underprivileged neighborhoods, there is always a stress on a cultural shift. Many of the successful charter schools in poor neighborhoods are successful because they attempt to overcome habits established in homes and earlier schools, habits of language, dress, respect, and discipline. They attempt to be an island of the best of middle class morality and ambition in the midst of a poor neighborhood that lacks both. In short, children are removed from the bad influence of their parents and their local peers.
Most lower income parents don’t accept that for their children to be successful they must reject their parents’ cultural milieu in favor of one that emphasizes success and achievement, but that is in fact what must happen.
I lived in Seattle a long time ago and my impression is that for some reason liberal identity politics wasn’t a big deal there, even though it was liberal. The different classes, sexual orientations, and races got along and associated quite a bit more than anywhere else I’ve lived. It was good for opportunity and everyones’ pocketbook. On the other hand, third world immigrants weren’t assimilating and I could see all of the grief from this that was on the way.
I think all of the identity politics of today just just creates frictional costs that retard opportunity.
I swear all of our prosperity comes from the rule of law and fossil fuels, and the stupid political process just wastes capital via rent seeking.
There is a self-selection problem, Emery. And political issues as well. I suspect that Obama personally believes in charter schools, but he won’t go against the teachers unions. Political realities trump everything, and if they don’t, it’s because you aren’t a democracy.
I imagine the following conversation between a sociologist and a politician.
politician: So how can we solve this trans-generational dysfunction?
sociologist: We’ve proven that the core problem is single parenthood. We need to take children away from single parents and put them in stable, two parent homes. Or in orphanages. Or raise them in creches like farm animals, really, anything would be better than . . .
politician: Stop right there! That’s not going to happen! What’s our next best option?
Sociologist: Put a live-in social worker in the home of every single parent. That might help.
politician: I can’t ask government employees to do that! They’ve got a union! What else you got?
sociologist: Well, there is some research — it’s pretty weak, though — that if you give a kid from a dysfunctional family a free breakfast high in carbs, it marginally improves their 3rd grade reading skills. The effect doesn’t last past elementary schools, though. And you have to give free breakfast to all the kids, or the stigma makes things actually get worse.
politician: Free breakfast? For everyone? Using food produced by American food oligopolies? That’s pure genius! I’ll have a bill signing ceremony this afternoon!
LBJ’s Great Society destroys human and financial capital.
The best department of Health and Human Services is The Family.
The quality and quantity of human and financial capital is what makes or breaks a tax base.
We are doomed.
Don’t be so gloomy, TheFedSucks! In the long run we’re all heaven bound!
Even Emery.
“In the long run we’re all heaven bound!”
If you read the bible you know that the status system of the world is held to be backwards, the real status system is reversed. The poor are more noble, the rich have trouble or are at least challenged by more things.
I’m not sure what your point is, Emery. I can defend Christian universalism, if that is what you’d like, though it’s way off topic.
When I compare the wisdom contained in any of the great religious tomes vs. the nonsense presented on a daily basis by our politicians, our news media, and our entertainment media, I lean towards the religious sources. People who go to church once a week receive a weekly dose of philosophy about how to lead their lives, mostly very sound philosophy. They are encouraged to be modest, to help the poor, to respect their fellow citizen. Relative to the guy who watched an hour of cable news instead, I think the guy who goes to church is more likely to sustain a free society. And don’t tell me that he could be reading an hour of Voltaire instead — he could, but he isn’t.