The 2016 election cycle
proved one thing; tens of millions of Americans were only too happy to cast
aside "business as usual in Washington" for an unknown and unproven
quantity, Donald Trump. A recent posting on this blog shows us who these
disenchanted Americans are and and how their well-being had a significant impact on the ultimate
result of the latest presidential election.
In this posting, I want to look at a
study done by the Equality of Opportunity Project on upwards mobility in
America which is defined as the chance that children will reach the top 20
percent of income distribution given parents who have incomes in the bottom 20
percent. Here is a map which shows the geography of
upward mobility for 741 metro and rural areas (aka commuting zones) with darker
colours representing a lower chance of upward mobility:
Note that children in the south and east central parts of the United States have a much lower chance of actually grasping the American Dream than those living in the northeast, central and western parts of the nation. As you can see on this map, there is a relatively interesting correlation between the regions with lowered future economic prospects and the outcome for in the 2016 presidential election:
A study by Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren at
Harvard University looks at the impacts of neighbourhoods on intergenerational
economic mobility and evaluated the casual effect of the 100 largest commuting
zones in the United States on a child's chances of success. Here is a
listing of the 10 commuting zones which have the largest positive casual effect on
household income in adulthood:
To help you understand
the causal effect, if a child grew up in Seattle rather than an average
commuting zone, he or she would make and average of 11.6 percent more at age 26
(9.1 percent more for boys, 14.2 percent more for girls). For instance,
if the average level of household income at age 26 is $26,000, those who grew
up in Seattle would earn an additional 12 percent or $3120.
Here is a listing of the
10 commuting zones which have the largest negative causal effect on household income in
adulthood:
The authors note that
there are five reasons why certain commuting zones have higher levels of upward
mobility:
1.) less segregation by
income and race.
2.) lower levels of
income inequality.
3.) higher quality public
schools.
4.) lower rates of
violent crime.
5.) larger share of
two-parent households.
Interestingly, the
authors also found that, on a nationwide basis, there is a weak correlation
between the cost of renting and higher levels of upward mobility except in
large metropolitan areas with higher levels of segregation and urban sprawl
where commuting zones with better prospects for upward mobility are much more
expensive.
This study shows us that,
while the American Dream of upward mobility is not dead, in many parts of the
United States it is on life support. The fraction of children that earn
more than their parents has fallen from over 90 percent among children born in the
1940s to fifty percent in children born in the 1980s. The authors' conclusion:
"We conclude that
absolute mobility has declined sharply in America over the past half century
primarily because of the growth in inequality. If one wants to revive the
“American Dream” of high rates of absolute mobility, one must have an interest
in growth that is shared more broadly across the income distribution."
If there is one
thing that the 2016 election cycle taught us its that the growing economic
inequality in the United States can have significant electoral repercussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment