
The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local - pitzahoy
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/upshot/the-biggest-economic-divides-arent-regional-theyre-local-just-ask-parents.html
======
DataWorker
This seems like an obvious consequence of globalism and the nature of the
labor market. Also seems consistent with Picketty’s thesis about capital
growth. The days when being a US citizen gauranteed affluence are coming to a
close. To see the future look at California; refugees from Guatemala living
amongst young millionaires, mostly immigrants also. A global community, sliced
into ever narrower tranches by the invisible hand. It’s the future we choose.

~~~
hash872
Much of Piketty's work has been widely debunked, especially r > g, so I'm not
sure why one would start with his thesis. Top 1% income earners are typically
business founder-owners, and reams of evidence from the Forbes 400 to tax data
show that the wealthiest in US society are entrepreneurs who again created
their own business- not rentiers living off of inherited wealth. (Anecdotally,
children of inherited wealth they didn't earn burn through cash so fast that r
< g, not the other way around).

I have no idea what 'globalism' means in this context, or what type of
alternate reality could exist where foreigners would be polite enough to not,
like, turn a wrench or run an assembly line for cheaper than Americans did in
the 50s. We as a country don't have the option of 'choosing' an alternate
economic reality where developing country wages aren't cheaper than ours

~~~
danharaj
> Much of Piketty's work has been widely debunked, especially r > g

Big claim.

~~~
peterhadlaw
This book was a great read and I highly recommend it for anyone who wants a
little more perspective on Piketty's work:
[https://campus.aynrand.org/works/2015/10/09/equal-is-
unfair](https://campus.aynrand.org/works/2015/10/09/equal-is-unfair)

~~~
matthewowen
Published by the Ayn Rand institute.

~~~
peterhadlaw
Publisher: St. Martin's Press (March 29, 2016) ISBN-10: 125008444X ISBN-13:
978-1250084446

Actually, no, that's just an article diving into the contents of the book. I
figured might be helpful in case people didn't want to read the full book.

------
vivism
"Within the same state or metropolitan area, inequality today is large and
extreme, in part because of the continuing effects of racial discrimination"

What is the ratio of discrimination to starting from a historically
disadvantaged (i.e. non-recompensed) position?

This article reads like a narrated census rather than a true insight into the
problem.

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

I don’t really know what to make of that, but it’s interesting to me.

~~~
sct202
The current city = Blue and rural = Red division is a relatively recent one;
so across the timescale of people born in the 80s to now you'd have a lot of
political shifts that would be hard to account for. Just look at the 1996
election results by county seems unimaginable now, but it wasn't that long
ago.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election#/media/File:1996nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg)

~~~
inscionent
If you are going to use the 1996 county map you need to factor out Perot.
Louisiana for example is much bluer Parish by Parish in 1996 than any of the
elections going back to 1980.

~~~
mc32
I think Perot was ‘92, no? There, yes, like Nader after him was a “spoiler” as
the losers like to call them.

~~~
mdorazio
He was actually both (he ran again in '96). The second time around he still
managed to get over 8% of the popular vote, which is pretty impressive [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election)

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

This is essentially meritocratic feudalism.

~~~
ForHackernews
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-
hoa...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoarding-of-
the-american-dream/530481/)

> They then pass those advantages onto their children, with parents placing a
> “glass floor” under their kids. They ensure they grow up in nice zip codes,
> provide social connections that make a difference when entering the labor
> force, help with internships, aid with tuition and home-buying, and schmooze
> with college admissions officers. All the while, they support policies and
> practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from
> climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax
> treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary
> zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of
> white-collar professionals.

~~~
hash872
The belief system here makes me incredulous. How exactly does the average
upper middle class worker support 'occupational licensing' and 'restrictions
on the immigration of white-collar professionals'? Can you outline the exact
steps that they've taken to, say, support occupational licensing? When did a
pro-occupational licensing candidate run for office? The latter is especially
ironic because so many people believe the opposite, that the US has supported
the H1B and other visa programs to drive down programmer wages.

While I agree that superior education etc. absolutely helps the children of
the upper middle class, the 'social connections' part is pure fantasy. The
vast majority of regular people secure employment based on actual credentials
and not 'connections', especially in tech

~~~
ForHackernews
> The vast majority of regular people secure employment based on actual
> credentials and not 'connections', especially in tech

Is that really true? Anecdotally, I have been far, far more likely (perhaps
95% of the time vs <25% of the time) to secure an interview at a company when
I get a referral from a current employee who I know socially than when I apply
blind through some web application form.

I'd be very surprised to hear if you've had a different experience.

------
Bucephalus355
I’m not sure what the motive is of this piece. Are we going to tax more the
most opioid ravaged parts of Ohio to pay for the poor in New York City?

Poverty today is closely linked with housing prices. If your housing is too
expensive, it’s up to fix it (looking at you California).

