US Becoming Segregated by Geography and Education?

[unokitty]

Interesting work on "economic well being inequality" (PDF format) from a Stanford Economist.

Census data suggests that in 1980 a college graduate could expect to earn about 38 percent more than a worker with only a high-school diploma... By 2000, that number was about 57 percent. By 2011: 73 percent.

As the returns to education have increased, according to Stanford economist Rebecca Diamond, the geographic segregation of the most educated workers has, too — and not by neighborhood, but by entire city.

... "But then on top of that, college graduates also live in the nicest cities in the country. They’re getting more benefits, even net of fact that they’re paying higher housing costs."

... College graduates have flooded in, drawn by both jobs and amenities. Yet more amenities have followed to cater to them (luring yet more college graduates). Housing costs have increased as a result, pushing low-wage and low-skilled workers out.

"New York, San Francisco, Boston — those places are the ones that get the most press ... but it’s everywhere: Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta," she says. "It’s an across-the-board phenomenon."

... as cities increased their share of college graduates between 1980 and 2000, they also increased their bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, museums and art galleries per capita. And they experienced larger decreases in pollution and property crime...

... the problem isn't simply that the wage gap between high school and college graduates increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 2000. The economic well-being gap — including access to places with a better quality of life — grew even wider.

It also comes at the expense of other cities that may lose their college grads. What happens to Toledo and Baton Rouge without them?

Agree that this gentrification is a national trend? If so, do you think that is this a positive, or not so positive, trend?

Live in one of these gentrified cities? If so, do you see more pubs, restaurants, and museums?

Live in one of the ungentrified cities? If so, do you think that adolescents have a more difficult time finding a job and/or affording rent?

Other comments?

Uno

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

This just in, people who already have money are more successful than those who do not. The dividing line isn't education, it's having the disposable income to acquire an education and the family connections to capitalize on it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The problem is that a great many people with higher education, including even those with STEM degrees, often can't find jobs that pay that alleged premium for having a higher education simply because we have a large oversupply of college graduates. Many skilled trades people who only have high school educations are doing better than many college graduates.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The problem is that a great many people with higher education, including even those with STEM degrees, often can't find jobs that pay that alleged premium for having a higher education simply because we have a large oversupply of college graduates. Many skilled trades people who only have high school educations are doing better than many college graduates.

And yet parents, peers, schools and, society STILL push a college degree as the only way to "get ahead." When will we wake up and realize the version of the American Dream we grew up with is dead and buried?

 

[brianmanahan]

this article is pushing NYC and SF as good cities? "better schools, less crime, even cleaner air"?

LOLOL

lost all credibility right there

 

[DrPizza]

And yet parents, peers, schools and, society STILL push a college degree as the only way to "get ahead." When will we wake up and realize the version of the American Dream we grew up with is dead and buried?

I'm convinced that part of this is that the 38% more pay for college graduates figure is lost on some of those in education - guidance counselors, etc. They don't understand that it's an average; or at the very least, they certainly do not convey to students that it's an average. Those college graduates include all those engineers making a lot of money, and some of those in business who are making oodles of money. That doesn't mean someone with a bachelor's degree in sociology or psychology is going to make 38% more money than a plumber or electrician. There are a lot of Walmart employees, stock boys, etc., all lumped into the high school graduate category.

It would be great to see an honest analysis that compared those college degrees based on major, rather than lumping all the college degrees together.

 

[Greenman]

I'm convinced that part of this is that the 38% more pay for college graduates figure is lost on some of those in education - guidance counselors, etc. They don't understand that it's an average; or at the very least, they certainly do not convey to students that it's an average. Those college graduates include all those engineers making a lot of money, and some of those in business who are making oodles of money. That doesn't mean someone with a bachelor's degree in sociology or psychology is going to make 38% more money than a plumber or electrician. There are a lot of Walmart employees, stock boys, etc., all lumped into the high school graduate category.

It would be great to see an honest analysis that compared those college degrees based on major, rather than lumping all the college degrees together.

I don't think anyone really wants to see that analysis, certainly not the education system. I know a lot of people with kids in collage, sociology seems to be the most popular degree among them, what would happen if they discovered that it was nearly useless? The logic I keep hearing is that what the is degree is in doesn't really matter, as long as you have a degree in something. At the same time, I keep seeing statics that would indicate that a degree in finance, science, or math are what you really need to succeed.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

While everyone is ultimately responsible for their own education, I primarily blame the education system themselves. They have the knowledge and analysis of the importance /impact of the degrees offered and opportunities in the State and elsewhere. They behave as a business while hanging on to relics like tenure. Merely providing access to knowledge and education (although I'd argue the second) is not good enough. Like the 'open door policies ' of many companies, they simply don't work. Far too many academics have chosen to abandon the reasons they chose to teach in the first place in order to keep their jobs. While they're certainly not alone in that behavior, I do hold them to a higher standard.

 

[Sunburn74]

This just in, people who already have money are more successful than those who do not. The dividing line isn't education, it's having the disposable income to acquire an education and the family connections to capitalize on it.

I disagree with two points:
1) debt in college has been rising suggesting a growing gap between the price of a college education and the financial ability of the families seeking them
2) many low to middle class income americans DO see a college education as a means to escape their low income status, meaning they are willing to accept those debts in a calculated gamble. College today is not for the rich but rather for those who either have the immediate talent to succeed in it (those on scholarship) or those willing to take the calculated gamble (those not on scholarships, and adults who go back to school to earn higher degrees). I think the population of silver spoon fed college students is actually a very slim one at least in my experience.

My third point is unrelated to the above quote but is as follows: I would wonder how much that cited statistic is thrown off by the upper one percent. Its already a known fact that the 400 richest individuals in the US make more money than the bottom 150 million combined. Even if only 1/2 of those top 400 richest individuals have college degrees, it would significantly sway that statistic in their favor.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I disagree with two points:
1) debt in college has been rising suggesting a growing gap between the price of a college education and the financial ability of the families seeking them
2) many low to middle class income americans DO see a college education as a means to escape their low income status, meaning they are willing to accept those debts in a calculated gamble. College today is not for the rich but rather for those who either have the immediate talent to succeed in it (those on scholarship) or those willing to take the calculated gamble (those not on scholarships, and adults who go back to school to earn higher degrees). I think the population of silver spoon fed college students is actually a very slim one at least in my experience.

My third point is unrelated to the above quote but is as follows: I would wonder how much that cited statistic is thrown off by the upper one percent. Its already a known fact that the 400 richest individuals in the US make more money than the bottom 150 million combined. Even if only 1/2 of those top 400 richest individuals have college degrees, it would significantly sway that statistic in their favor.

I'm missing any conflict between what I said and what you said. The rising college debt in no way alters the greater success rate of those who already have money. My point was not that many people take the gamble but, that few calculate it due to lack of knowledge, academia not being forthcoming and, society refusing to acknowledge the loss of value in a college education.

 

[senseamp]

SF is becoming unlivable for normal people.
What we need is distributed urbanization, not everyone moving to existing urban centers.

 

[Sunburn74]

I'm missing any conflict between what I said and what you said. The rising college debt in no way alters the greater success rate of those who already have money. My point was not that many people take the gamble but, that few calculate it due to lack of knowledge, academia not being forthcoming and, society refusing to acknowledge the loss of value in a college education.

If college debt is rising, it means the percentage of people who were simply able to pay out of pocket for a college education is decreasing. In truth, the fact that the average college debt is only about $30,000 dollars suggests that on average, most people aren't going to school on mom and dad's dime (parents that don't have $7,500 per year x4 years to spend on their kids education are probably parents that don't have a lot of financial flexibility in general). I interpret this data as being suggestive that most people who go to college are taking a calculated gamble. As they are leaving college with considerable self-incurred debt, I can only put their success/failure as a matter of their own doing rather than being dependent on the success of mother/father (ie those who already have money in your post). The OP's article states that people who go to college (ie people who incur this debt and come from families with limited financial flexibility) on average make more than people who don't (who likely also come from families with limited financial flexibility). The key word here is average.

 

[Zebo]

you guys are so negatiive. just think all the travel costs you can save not having to visit brazil to see favelas. america will truley have it all

 

[Nebor]

you guys are so negatiive. just think all the travel costs you can save not having to visit brazil to see favelas. america will truley have it all

Can we paint them red, white and blue?! :awe:

 

[Zorkorist]

This is Government's unlimited spending, and they are spending it on keeping people quiet, as they work for them.

It's so destructive to America to have an entity that can and does pay anything for what they want.

-John

 

[Zorba]

I'd be very interesting to see the how much college pays numbers as a median, or at least with the top 0.1% or 1% removed.

I currently live in the most economically/education segregated city I've ever seen. I work for a major engineering company and currently live 28 miles from work. At least half the people I work with live in the same area as me. On my street of 11 houses, 5 are owned be other people who work at my company, all engineers, and at least 3 of the other houses are owned by engineers.

In the whole city/area (I define it by the school district, which is fairly large) there is very little what I would consider lower-middle class areas and there are no poor areas. Even the majority of apartments are fairly high end. The area does get more than its fair share of new restaurants, pubs, stores, etc. Huge chunks of the rest of the city are very poor.

I think one of the biggest drivers for the economic segregation is the way public schools are funded. As an area increases its property value, its schools get nicer, which drives further increases in property value, which makes the schools nicer still. For example, the schools in my area are the top rated in the state and there isn't a single poor performing school in the district.

On the other hand, reurbanization is making a big come back and may counter act the economic segregation trend. I know ten years ago I wouldn't have wanted to walk around downtown Kansas City during the daytime on a weekend, but now it has a cool night life and people are moving into lofts/condos in droves. Same thing is happening in Tulsa and OKC. The money moving back into the urban areas is money that 15 years ago would've gone to the nicest suburbs.