Slashdot Mirror


Why Some Cities Get All the Good Jobs (chicagotribune.com)

New submitter Ericmesrr writes with a link to a Bloomberg story (as carried by the ChicagoTribune) about geographic trends in job creation in the U.S, from which he excerpts this quote from U.C Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti: "A handful of cities with the 'right' industries and a solid base of human capital keep attracting good employers and offering high wages, while those at the other extreme, cities with the 'wrong' industries and a limited human capital base, are stuck with dead-end jobs and low average wages. This divide I will call it the Great Divergence has its origins in the 1980s, when American cities started to be increasingly defined by their residents' levels of education. Cities with many college-educated workers started attracting even more, and cities with a less educated workforce started losing ground."

5 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Technology Paradox by monkeyxpress · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find this trend quite strange as well. In the late 90s everyone was going on about how technology would allow us to work from anywhere so we could spread out around the country. Things like cramming into an urban area, and flying to conferences were going to become unnecessary.

    Instead what I've observed is that the rise of 'thinking' jobs, which only require a desk, have made it more and more viable for people to live in concentrated urban centres. Contrast this with industrial jobs where you needed large amounts of land for a factory which naturally led to suburban developments. Similarly the rise of cheap air travel has raised the expectation that you'll just turn up at a conference, so I find I have to attend more now.

    I think this trend will continue until driverless cars are ubiquitous. These will open up huge amounts of land around urban centres (it will be like adding tube lines everywhere), and will probably cause a significant decline in central city density as people are freed from existing rent/transport monopolies.

    1. Re:Technology Paradox by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Those people in Cali make considerably more but they have to as their rent/mortgage, food, utilities, and everything else cost so much more than it does in Texas (or those rural areas especially.)

      I live and work in Silicon Valley, making $50,000+ a year. This is only possible by living a modest lifestyle that doesn't include a big house, brand new cars, and designer jeans. I gave up on the American Dream of having it all and learned how to be content with what I have. Some people consider me to be "poor" because I'm not spending money on the outward appearance of wealth.

    2. Re:Technology Paradox by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I can have a pretty good life in San Antonio making 50 +

      I make a good life in Silicon Valley on $50,000 per year. But some people consider me "poor" because I'm not competing with them for outward wealth. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning that neighbors of a lottery jackpot winner are more likely to go bankrupt because they're going into debt to keep up outward appearances.

      http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/02/16/why-you-might-go-bankrupt-if-your-next-door-neighbor-wins-the-lottery/

  2. Local resources by nycsubway · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most American cities were established based on a local resource: mining, hydro-power, farming, railroad junctions, or a harbor. So many northeast cities declined when the manufacturing tied to those resources moved on. The same thing with the midwest steel towns, and the further midwest railroad towns. Look at some of the boomtowns of the last 30 years. What local resources do most cities in Texas have, or Las Vegas, or Silicon Valley? They basically have nice climates, and the ability to quickly support a new population of people.

    The American economy is much less based on manufacturing now, so the jobs can go anywhere. Even a large manufacturer no longer needs 5000 people working in one valley because the river provided the power, the mines provided the ore, and the railroad provided the transportation. They can move that factory to New Mexico because trucks and rail can bring it all in and out. The tech companies can go absolutely anywhere. The only resource they are tied to is the educated workforce, which I agree with the article is a self-manifesting destiny. Success brings more success, and the opposite happens at less fortunate cities.

  3. Re:Mandatory College Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This divide — I will call it the Great Divergence — has its origins in the 1980s, when American cities started to be increasingly defined by their residents' levels of education.

    Mandatory high school is great, but is not enough. College should be mandatory.

    High school isn't mandatory. It is effectively required for many jobs, but not mandatory.

    Frog-marching people through "education" isn't a solution. It is actually part of the problem. It used to be that only people who were motivated by a desire to be educated completed college. It is no surprise that such people went on to be successful.

    The response has been to interpret a college degree as the cause of success. Thus, people who are motivated by the desire to make money go to college, regardless of their desire to be educated. This itself has perverted the market for education by raising the cost of pursuing the "investment" in future earning power. It has also crowded the education system with incurious people merely interested in credentials and job training.