Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 430 posts

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#131

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #4

>an economist at the job-search company Indeed, finds that when salaries are adjusted for local costs of living, the average worker actually makes less in New York City or Los Angeles than in Toledo, Ohio or Birmingham, Alabama: Particularly impressive considering that the "average" for NYC, LA, SF includes a lot more very high salaries than Toledo and Birmingham (Google, FB, etc are not hiring hordes of SREs making…

I'd like to propose that "cost of living" calculators are extremely skewed when trying to compare extremely urban (nyc etc) vs less (or non) urban areas. For example manhattan might have incredible price/sq ft for rent; but you can get much smaller accommodations than you might Birmingham. Car + car maintenance + car insurance is a cost that's only required when you live somewhere without public transportation/walkable grocery stores. In addition non local goods are typically not factored in when talking about cost of living. Consumer goods, health care, travel, and retirement savings all are generally local independent. In this regard being able to save 10% of 200k is a large improvement over being able to save 10% of 60k.

On your last point I can't speak for Toledo, but I wouldn't discount the number of high skill workers in Birmingham. At least 4 years ago there was small but growing tech scene.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#132

Post by nightski »

marcosdumay wrote: post #120
moorhosj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

==I really enjoyed college, especially my liberal arts classes.== I think this highlights the true question. Do colleges exist to promote education and intellectual curiosity or to train workers? According to PEW, Americans believe colleges are for work training: "Americans are split on the main purpose of college, with 47% saying it is to teach work-related skills and 39% saying it is to help a student grow personal…

Wasn't "education and intellectual curiosity" a way to increase people's productivity? (Not even a way, wans't it supposed to be the best way?) Because that's the reason colleges are funded by the government. There's something very broken with our modern society.

I always thought that college was not to increase your typical office worker's productivity by X% but instead to be a long term bet on massive gains for society through academic research.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#133

Post by cwbrandsma »

motohagiography wrote: post #112

I find the tone of articles like these to be patronizing. Let's be clear, the hollowing out of rural economies is a direct and explicit effect of trade policy, and not some accident of economics and markets. The precise dynamic in this article is that where previously cities provided capital and farms provided food, with a spectrum of services in between - with globalization, cities no longer depend on their regional…

Trade policy? Lets start with some basics here: farms are getting larger, and there is no longer available farm land that wasn't already converted to farm land. That happened a long time ago, before me anyway. Farmer Jo has 4 kids and one farm. That farm only produced enough income for one family to live on, if they are lucky and expanded, maybe two. So Farmer Jo + One kid and family. All the other kids have to go elsewhere. You go look in town (maybe 5000 people in a good healthy farm town), and the jobs there are bleak as well. Cook, mechanic, hardware store, etc. Or you enter the trades: plumber electrician. But in small towns, there is still only so much room for them. These small towns have a form of "max capacity". So most of the kids move way. Out of four, on average 2 kids will stick around, but not enough for the town to "grow". Keep in mind, not every farm kids wants, or is cut out to perform farm labor.

Again, why do the kids leave? The town economy is based on farm economics, and is limited by the availability of land. Once the land is taken, the town will stop growing. And farm income is not what you call "stable" either, so the town goes thru a lot of boom and bust cycles. Infrastructure levies take a hit if you are talking about multiple years of taxes, simply because the farmers don't know what next year's income will look like.

Do you need to flee to the city? Depends on what you call a city. There is probably a neighbor town with +20,000 people in it. We call them cities around here (examples: Twin Falls Idaho and Algona Iowa.) In those vast metropolises you can work produce factories, car dealerships (the small towns don't have them), and other areas.

Source: I'm a farm kid with an older brother, from a small farming town in southern Idaho, and most my friends are former farm kids as well. My dad gave me the "talk" in high school, he knew I wouldn't make a good farmer. And those who stuck around are often not the lucky ones. They are just trying to hold on. (was not a fun heart-to-heart with my brother last night who thinking hard about selling out and becoming an EMT after 30 years of farm life).

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#134

Post by fastball »

wonderwonder wrote: post #12

The top 1% of American's own more wealth than the bottom 90% and this concentration is only increasing. Soon no cities regardless of size will deliver for low skilled workers as there will simply not be enough of the proverbial pie to go around. As wealth is concentrated and rents and property values rise the vast majority of this country will (does?) live paycheck to paycheck. This is unsustainable and will either n…

Repeat after me:

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#135

Post by jrhurst »

alkibiades wrote: post #121
wonderwonder wrote: post #12

The top 1% of American's own more wealth than the bottom 90% and this concentration is only increasing. Soon no cities regardless of size will deliver for low skilled workers as there will simply not be enough of the proverbial pie to go around. As wealth is concentrated and rents and property values rise the vast majority of this country will (does?) live paycheck to paycheck. This is unsustainable and will either n…

“not enough money to go around” Where do people get this strange idea that if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? Bill Gates got rich with an invention that also generated probably a trillion dollars in economic growth for everyone. Including most people on this sites income.

Likely because money and wealth is a zero sum game. There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#136

Post by fastball »

jrhurst wrote: post #135
alkibiades wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“not enough money to go around” Where do people get this strange idea that if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? Bill Gates got rich with an invention that also generated probably a trillion dollars in economic growth for everyone. Including most people on this sites income.

Likely because money and wealth is a zero sum game. There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around.

  There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around.
True(ish). False. False.

I say "ish" for the first one because hopefully humanity will grow beyond Earth in the near future.

Generally, all of the above are false unless you are talking about a population which never stops growing, and in that case that would be the problem. Not wealth inequality.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#137

Post by njarboe »

graeme wrote: post #94
mschuster91 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you could start out as a file clerk with a high school degree and work your way up into middle or even upper management (at least if you were white and male). That upwards mobility depends on one thing: that old people drop out of the workforce either by death or by pension, so that young people can rise up the ranks. Now, given that people in their 80s need to work (!) to survive, this "generational contract" is b…

This is the lump of labour fallacy. Rest assured that life will be harder for young people if a sizeable portion of the population is old, out of the labour force, and needs to be supported by a rising share of taxes from a small number of young workers. We should hope that older works stay in jobs as long as they're able. The coming demographic bulge isn't pretty.

The old people in America now own the majority of the assets. If they transfer those assets to the young in exchange for work, things will get better. If the old are split into those that have a huge amount of money and spend a little percent of it in retirement, passing the rest onto their heirs, and a large number of old people that need to keep working just to survive, locking out the young people from moving up, there will be trouble. Unfortunately it seems like the latter is happening at the moment.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#138

Post by wonderwonder »

alkibiades wrote: post #121
wonderwonder wrote: post #12

The top 1% of American's own more wealth than the bottom 90% and this concentration is only increasing. Soon no cities regardless of size will deliver for low skilled workers as there will simply not be enough of the proverbial pie to go around. As wealth is concentrated and rents and property values rise the vast majority of this country will (does?) live paycheck to paycheck. This is unsustainable and will either n…

“not enough money to go around” Where do people get this strange idea that if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? Bill Gates got rich with an invention that also generated probably a trillion dollars in economic growth for everyone. Including most people on this sites income.

Just one example. If I live in city A and all rental properties are owned by a select few wealthy companies and individuals, they are able to set the rental market. If they raise prices and I am a wage earner, I have no other option but to pay what they want, reducing my net income and increasing theirs. The vast majority of people are not able to spin a startup into being in their garages, they simply live and pay their bills the best that they can. I am not suggesting we vilify the wealthy but to suggest that one set of people earning greater portions of the total wealth does not negatively affect the less wealthy is disingenuous.

The same concepts can be applied to the wealthy having access to lobbyists and consequently the ability to reduce regulations leading to long term health care costs for those forced to live in now less regulated environments. Gentrification is another venue for this. People live in a neighborhood, wealthier people move in and property taxes go up. Poor people are forced out. The actions of the wealthy have ramifications on the lives and incomes of the less wealthy.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#139

Post by natoliniak »

grawprog wrote: post #48
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the short term yes, but in the long term it will benefit them too. If there is less work to be done in the world, then everyone will work less on average. I firmly believe that one of two things will eventually happen: • We will find new industries which replace the old jobs. Companies in these industries will by necessity find ways to fill positions, either by paying enough that (even) more people can afford coll…

As someone who's been on employment insurance before. I can't understand the appeal of ubi. Getting a small amount of money to do nothing is excruciating. It's really not a fun way to live.

> It's really not a fun way to live.

this is exactly why I find UBI appealing. For those who are unable to work, it will provide minimum means not to fall into abject poverty, but it will still carry enough incentive to improve oneself, find meaningful work and be a net contributor.

Re: Big Cities No Longer Deliver for Low-Skill Workers

#140

Post by ahakki »

shams93 wrote: post #119
robhunter wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> College education was something only upper class folks could receive (especially a liberal arts degree with dubious value in society) due to it's expense. With the emergence of things like state schools, the barrier became lower. This is not factually correct - tuition at non-state schools increased 10X in the last 30 years, way ahead of the pace of inflation. College education is significantly much less affordable…

Its even more stark when you look at University of California. My first year at UCI in 1990 tuition was $80, 5 years later my last year of tuition had leaped to $10,000. By the time all my student loans were paid I had paid off $750,000, there's a lot a person could do with that money. Baby Boomers with their $80 a year tuition were able to buy homes, invest in the market. There was a decision made in the 90s to tran…

Wait, how do five years of University at a price of $80 - $10000 a year add up to 750'000. Because that is a huge number.
Post reply on HN