Subscribe
The New York Times has a recent article up talking about the disappearing “urban advantage” for low-skilled workers. It is based on the work of MIT economist David Autor.
Here is a chart from the article plotting wages against population density from 1950 to 2015:
The clear takeaway is that dense urban centers remain a place where wealth is created – but you probably need a college degree.
The economic advantages of dense cities for those without one appears to be disappearing. The labor market has diverged.
Interestingly enough, David’s research also suggests that college graduates may be starting to abstain from the suburbs – even when they have kids.
And that’s because the returns to being in the city are so great.
For the full NY Times article, click here.
Eduardo Porter recently published this piece in the New York Times on the “relentless economic decline” of small-town rural America. We often talk about rising income inequality, but the greater concern is the alarming rate of joblessness in many of these communities. Earning less than others is not as bad as earning nothing.
I think the below map from the article, depicting population density by county, starts to show how uneven the economic landscape is across the US. Porter puts it this way: “This is the inescapable reality of agglomeration, one of the most powerful forces shaping the American economy over the last three decades.”
But, of course, we don’t really have a solution to this problem. Some are suggesting employment subsidies, such as the earned-income tax credit. While others are suggesting that we need to make it easier to build in the large blue spikes shown above. That way we’ll be able to more affordably accommodate the people who will ultimately need to move from rural to urban.
While this latter suggestion may seem grim for small-town America, it is perhaps a reminder of what cities really are at their core: Cities are labor markets. They are the places where people come to get a job and make money.
The world is increasingly spiky. Inequality is growing and it is increasingly geographic in nature. We know that people tend to make more money in urban areas compared to rural areas – even when they possess the exact same level of education. The returns to being smart and educated are simply greater in cities.
But they also depend on the size of the city. Mark Muro and Jacob Whiton of Brookings recently published data looking at labor market performance – by metro size – from 2009-2015 (right after the financial crisis). What they found is that larger metropolitan areas simply performed better than smaller ones.
In summary:
City size matters because it’s a major influence on city prosperity and adaptability as well as local worker fortunes. Bigger cities are more
The New York Times has a recent article up talking about the disappearing “urban advantage” for low-skilled workers. It is based on the work of MIT economist David Autor.
Here is a chart from the article plotting wages against population density from 1950 to 2015:
The clear takeaway is that dense urban centers remain a place where wealth is created – but you probably need a college degree.
The economic advantages of dense cities for those without one appears to be disappearing. The labor market has diverged.
Interestingly enough, David’s research also suggests that college graduates may be starting to abstain from the suburbs – even when they have kids.
And that’s because the returns to being in the city are so great.
For the full NY Times article, click here.
Eduardo Porter recently published this piece in the New York Times on the “relentless economic decline” of small-town rural America. We often talk about rising income inequality, but the greater concern is the alarming rate of joblessness in many of these communities. Earning less than others is not as bad as earning nothing.
I think the below map from the article, depicting population density by county, starts to show how uneven the economic landscape is across the US. Porter puts it this way: “This is the inescapable reality of agglomeration, one of the most powerful forces shaping the American economy over the last three decades.”
But, of course, we don’t really have a solution to this problem. Some are suggesting employment subsidies, such as the earned-income tax credit. While others are suggesting that we need to make it easier to build in the large blue spikes shown above. That way we’ll be able to more affordably accommodate the people who will ultimately need to move from rural to urban.
While this latter suggestion may seem grim for small-town America, it is perhaps a reminder of what cities really are at their core: Cities are labor markets. They are the places where people come to get a job and make money.
The world is increasingly spiky. Inequality is growing and it is increasingly geographic in nature. We know that people tend to make more money in urban areas compared to rural areas – even when they possess the exact same level of education. The returns to being smart and educated are simply greater in cities.
But they also depend on the size of the city. Mark Muro and Jacob Whiton of Brookings recently published data looking at labor market performance – by metro size – from 2009-2015 (right after the financial crisis). What they found is that larger metropolitan areas simply performed better than smaller ones.
In summary:
City size matters because it’s a major influence on city prosperity and adaptability as well as local worker fortunes. Bigger cities are more
The situation is even more pronounced across the pond. According to the New York Times (quote from Richard Florida), a third of Britain’s gross domestic product comes from London alone.
What is far less clear is what should be done to address the decline of some of the smaller cities in America – cities that are stagnating and feeling left behind. But perhaps the first step is acknowledging what has happened and what remains feasible in today’s global economy.
Here is another quote from the above NY Times article:
Mr. Trump’s promise to relieve the pain by reviving the coal and steel industries, by keeping immigrants out of the country and by raising barriers against manufactured imports is only a rhetorical balm to satisfy an angry base seeking to reclaim a prosperous past that is no longer available.
That rhetorical balm.
The situation is even more pronounced across the pond. According to the New York Times (quote from Richard Florida), a third of Britain’s gross domestic product comes from London alone.
What is far less clear is what should be done to address the decline of some of the smaller cities in America – cities that are stagnating and feeling left behind. But perhaps the first step is acknowledging what has happened and what remains feasible in today’s global economy.
Here is another quote from the above NY Times article:
Mr. Trump’s promise to relieve the pain by reviving the coal and steel industries, by keeping immigrants out of the country and by raising barriers against manufactured imports is only a rhetorical balm to satisfy an angry base seeking to reclaim a prosperous past that is no longer available.
That rhetorical balm.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog