Hacker News Reader

Comment by anishkothari | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for linking to the NYT article, much better than the Slate one.

IMO access to efficient public transportation has an outsized impact on people's ability to move up the economic ladder.

View on HN

How does that theory jibe with some of the best mobility results being concentrated in places like Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and North Texas?

I'm not an economist but I do wonder if the reasons some of those places have higher mobility is because the previous generation in those areas have relatively low income jobs (i.e. mostly agriculture) and many of the current generation have a "gotta get out of here" mentality leading them to better paying opportunities elsewhere. I know I felt that way living in the mid-west in early high school.

I'd like to see a map of how many of these income reporters moved away from their locales and to where and also what professions they picked up.

The mobility those regions demonstrate is better than average for all income classes, and those income classes are defined nationally, not locally.

Of course, that "gotta get out of here" feeling isn't limited to lower income kids, so it could be a factor. Certainly it's typically good for your earnings if you're willing to move where you can make more money. But then why isn't upstate New York dark blue? (Sorry, upstate New York!)

I like your theory. I think the schools in those regions are generally pretty good, and due to agricultural consolidation and general urbanization, most kids in those areas see the writing on the wall.

those areas have/ or are near to natural resources that provide well paying blue collar work

which I think explains the results you see almost entirely

I should have said public transportation in cities. In more rural areas, this would be less of an issue because of the otherwise low cost of living. There is less of an opportunity cost there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com