Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Geographic Segregation By Education

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the philosophy-majors-in-philly,-music-majors-in-singapore dept.

Education 230

The wage gap between college-educated workers and those with just a high school diploma has been growing — and accelerating. But the education gap is also doing something unexpected: clustering workers with more education in cities with similar people. "This effectively means that college graduates in America aren't simply gaining access to higher wages. They're gaining access to high-cost cities like New York or San Francisco that offer so much more than good jobs: more restaurants, better schools, less crime, even cleaner air." Most people are aware of the gentrification strife occurring in San Francisco, but it's one among many cities experiencing this. "[Research] also found that as cities increased their share of college graduates between 1980 and 2000, they also increased their bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, museums and art galleries per capita. And they experienced larger decreases in pollution and property crime, suggesting that cities that attract college grads benefit from both the kind of amenities that consumers pay for and those that are more intangible." The research shows a clear trend of the desirable cities becoming even more desirable, to the point where it's almost a necessity for city planners to lure college graduates or face decline.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Translation (Rough) (2, Insightful)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about 3 months ago | (#47442077)

"We want to be as wealthy and well-positioned as people who worked their asses off in their 20's even though we couldn't be bothered to educate ourselves after high school and spent our 20's living with our parents, partying, and having a sweet car that we could only afford because we lived with our parents."

Here's a thought: Teach your kids the concept of long-term goals... It worked wonders for me.

Re:Translation (Rough) (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442089)

We want to be as wealthy and well-positioned as people who worked their asses off in their 20's even though we couldn't be bothered to educate ourselves

Who says that people who did not go to college did not educate themselves? You think that college is the only way to get an education? Anyone with the skills should be able to get the job, regardless of what piece of paper they have or don't have.

Re:Translation (Rough) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442105)

Education is irrelevant. Forget skills. You need to have the job to get the job. Nobody new to the workforce need apply. HR is just shuffling the chairs at the tea party.

Re:Translation (Rough) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442161)

In the best of all possible worlds, perhaps. But for many jobs, a resume without a degree is going to be screened out at almost the very start. Fair? Maybe not, but then life isn't fair.

Re:Translation (Rough) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442217)

Maybe not, but then life isn't fair.

I bet a lot of people said the same thing about racism in employment. Maybe we should try to eradicate this practice in similar ways before we end up turning all colleges into half-assed trade schools because greedy employers don't want to evaluate the skills of their employers so everyone feels they have to get a degree.

Re: Translation (Rough) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442269)

Too late... At least in most hi tech, HR people have no frame of reference to even begin to evaluate candidates. Successful hiring managers must due it themselves, or staff through subcontracting to get good people. Between HR's resume-buzzword-reading software and complete human ignorance, people who are uncredentialed can't get through the process without being connected to the right people on LinkedIn.

And to get those connections you need to be adequately connected by already living in the 5-10 cities that have this issue or be connected from your undergrad eng/CS programs.

Re:Translation (Rough) (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 3 months ago | (#47442525)

Maybe not, but then life isn't fair.

I bet a lot of people said the same thing about racism in employment.

I am beyond disgusted with people trying to equate everything to the racism that was a part of Western society's fabric until relatively recently.

Your failure to further your education has nothing in common with people who were never considered for jobs because of their race. You could have chosen to get a degree, they couldn't have chosen to be white.

You may think that you're being an insightful, open minded, progressive but you're being an insensitive douche with no perspective.

LK

Re:Translation (Rough) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442651)

I am beyond disgusted with people trying to equate everything to the racism that was a part of Western society's fabric until relatively recently.

There was no equating. And making analogies involving racism is a good way to get people to talk about real problems like this.

Your failure to further your education has nothing in common with people who were never considered for jobs because of their race.

You seem to be equating going to college with getting an education. That is 100% incorrect. There are other ways to get education, and by saying it all depends on a piece of paper (as is implied when you say "education" rather than mentioning college), you're ignorant. This doesn't even take into account all the people who do go to college and yet are absolutely clueless.

I'm merely saying people should be judged based on their skills, not on pieces of paper.

You could have chosen to get a degree, they couldn't have chosen to be white.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an analogy is. An analogy is not the same as saying that two things are exactly alike. It's saying that two things are similar in one or more ways. Understand that, and you'll soon stop replying as if someone said that two things are exactly alike even when it's perfectly apparent that they did not.

It's the same in the sense that people are being discriminated against based on irrelevancies, something which impacts so many people in a negative way.

Re:Translation (Rough) (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47442697)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an analogy is. An analogy is not the same as saying that two things are exactly alike. It's saying that two things are similar in one or more ways. Understand that, and you'll soon stop replying as if someone said that two things are exactly alike even when it's perfectly apparent that they did not

Perhaps people who post "analogy fail" mean that the differences between two things outweigh the similarities so much as to invalidate reasoning from situations with the one to situations with the other.

Re:Translation (Rough) (1)

invictusvoyd (3546069) | about 3 months ago | (#47442333)

That makes me imagine , what if people like Steve Jobs were running after jobs with their resume? There is something fundamentally wrong in this whole thing . There is something fundamentally unstable . You are just being exploited by someone whi inturn is being exploited by someone else .. something is wrong..

Re:Translation (Rough) (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442479)

Nobody in their right mind would hire Steve Jobs for an entry level position. You can be tyrannical and refuse to listen to anybody else ONLY if you are in charge.

Self-taught experts with holes in their knowledge (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442257)

The self-taught "experts" may not be complete dumbfucks, but they never have as complete of a body of knowledge as somebody who has actually even just tried to get some sort of a formal education in their chosen field.

I'm talking about the guy who maybe never even finished high school, but he read a couple of Ruby on Rails books, hacked together a simple blog system that kinda worked, and now he considers himself a computer science expert.

I've worked with enough of these self-proclaimed self-taught "experts" to have noticed some trends. One of the most singificant is that they have massive holes in what they know. They may know the basics of using a given programming language, but then they'll have no idea about security, or algorithms, or writing code that performs well. They won't know about Big-O notation and its implications. They don't know anything about relational theory and have no idea about the ACID principles, so they use NoSQL DBs, write what would be simple SQL queries using complex JavaScript code instead, and create "databases" that corrupt or lose data left and right.

The guy with the bachelor's degree may not be an expert, but at least he'll have likely heard at least something beyond the basics. He at least knows that an O(n^4) algorithm isn't going to scale well. He at least knows how to use foreign key constraints when designing a DB.

Hell, even the guy who only managed a couple of years of college before dropping out is probably a better candidate than the self-taught "expert" with no college experience whatsoever.

As an industry, we don't need yet another high school reject who read a shitty Ruby on Rails book thinking he's anything more than a shitty high school reject who read a shitty Ruby on Rails book. We need less such people, in fact.

Re:Self-taught experts with holes in their knowled (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442323)

The self-taught "experts" may not be complete dumbfucks, but they never have as complete of a body of knowledge as somebody who has actually even just tried to get some sort of a formal education in their chosen field.

Most college graduates are money-seeking who don't understand anything, too.

I'm talking about the guy who maybe never even finished high school, but he read a couple of Ruby on Rails books, hacked together a simple blog system that kinda worked, and now he considers himself a computer science expert.

So in other words, you're comparing completely ignorant idiots to people who got some amount of formal education. Not a big surprise there. On the other hand, people who do self-education right...

I hope you're not using these people to deride all autodidacts. The self-taught "experts" you speak of are barely self-taught at all, so the comparison isn't really valid.

As an industry, we don't need yet another high school reject who read a shitty Ruby on Rails book thinking he's anything more than a shitty high school reject who read a shitty Ruby on Rails book. We need less such people, in fact.

As an industry, we also don't need more shitty college graduates who have no idea what they're doing (the majority). And no, not even they understand things like Big-O notation and its implications, because pretty much all they cared about was getting a degree, and the colleges were happy to take their money.

If I seem hostile, it's only because I've seen people lump in idiots who barely even tried to self-educate with people who worked hard to educate themselves. In my mind, I separate college students who go there almost solely to get a degree (in other words, brainwashed losers) and college students who go there to get a better understanding of the universe around them. Why can't others do the same?

Re:Self-taught experts with holes in their knowled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442329)

Awww. Poor kid. Did someone self-taught code rings around you and make you bitter, much?

Smart & motivated that got a job w/o education >> average struggler that barely scraped a CS Bachelor.

Re:Self-taught experts with holes in their knowled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442393)

I wish that were the case!

Actually, I was woken up at 4 am a couple of nights ago because of the shitty work of a self-taught "expert". An old Perl system that I hadn't even been involved with for a few years now was having serious problems with data loss. Well, to keep a long story short, somehow one of the shitface self-taught "experts" working on this project managed to write a bubble sort function in Ruby that also happened to discard elements of the data being sorted in some cases. And then he rigged up this Ruby code so it was called from Perl, with further data loss happening while marshalling the data between the two.

Well, it gets deployed to the production servers, things get fucked up, he doesn't know what's wrong, so me and another experienced dev get night-time calls to fix it. A few hours later his shitty Ruby hack is gone (I found out yesterday that he spent three weeks working on it!), and the system is working fine again.

The only rings this self-taught "expert" managed to code around me and the other dev were rings of shitty Ruby code. And this isn't the first self-taught "expert" whose fuck-ups we've had to deal with. He's just the latest in a very long line. Yet we never seem to have such problems with those people who have a real Comp Sci or even an Electrical Engineering degree. It's very strange! It's like qualified people are better at their jobs or something, and unqualified people fuck things up! It's so unexpected!

I'm trying to not get into a 4 yorkshiremen (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about 3 months ago | (#47442737)

thing with you but I've seen similar stuff with self taught "experts". Let's see, I've seen experts that didn't know what the real difference between a list and array were, let alone knew what a map was. (CS 102 stuff.) Would always try to reinvent the wheel whether it was writing their own quick sort instead of using the built in one or building their own formatting routines that make the same strings as the ones already available in the class they're using. Then there's the whole issue of doing object oriented code because they're using C++ but having no concepts of some pretty basic OO ideas. (Like encapsulation or inheritance. Everything is public and everything is implemented multiple times it classes that really should be derived from one basic class.) Of course I'm guessing yours said the same stuff like "Oh my code is linear, if we need it to run faster get a faster computer." (It wasn't, it was order N^2)

Re:Translation (Rough) (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about 3 months ago | (#47442723)

Kind of like saying you can become an astronaut as a highschool drop out. Yes, technically you could have the skill and self educate, but who in their right mind would even consider such a person? Risk is way too high.

In theory, you don't need to go to college, but in practice, humans can't predict the future and people without degree are higher risk. Not worth it.

Re:Translation (Rough) (3, Interesting)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 3 months ago | (#47442341)

Apparently you never went to college.

Most four-year college kids aren't in technical program. They're in liberal arts programs. Typically they have lots of trouble getting up early enough to get to a 10 AM class, and bitch and moan that an 8-hour day is required to earn an A. They spend most of their time getting drunk and getting laid, and call it "networking." They spend a significant proportion of their study time debating fields that are (pretty much by definition) intellectual masturbation, like philosophy or theology. Then they go home and spend a few years on the couch waiting for the economy to improve, and/or frantically trying to get into grad school. They don't actually enter a field where the boss expects you to there at 8 AM every day until they hit their late 20s. And I know this because I went to a four-year-college for Histyory and Political Science, and then spent a year-and-a-half in Grad School; and ended up with absolutely no marketable skills.

OTOH, HS-educated kid tend to get thrown out at 18. Most of my co-workers at Home Depot had their own places, which they got with no help from Mom at all, at that age. The ones actually in their 20s generally have really shitty 10-year-old car, or no cars at all. The younger ones tend not to work a full 40 hours, because the company really prefers the scheduling flexibility four part-timers get you to two full-timers; and if you;re around a couple years you generally get full-time; but they are there at 6 AM when their schedule says "be there at 6 AM," and they stay until 10 PM on those days. Almost alkl of them have to do one of these a week, so they don;t have anything a middle-class person would call a "sleep schedule."

Re:Translation (Rough) (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442603)

> intellectual masturbation, like philosophy

Yeah, fuck Frege, Russell, and Quine. What did they ever do for a real discipline, like computer science?

Oh wait...

Re:Translation (Rough) (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 3 months ago | (#47442399)

I'm confused, do you think that college is harder than working a manual labor job for 8-10 hours a day? Because it's not. It's much easier than pretty much any real job. Why else is college synonymous with drinking and partying? Unfortunately, many people can't afford to go to college because of exorbitant tuition prices. Not everyone has mommy and daddy that can pay it for them.

Re:Translation (Rough) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442457)

I'm confused, do you think that college is harder than working a manual labor job for 8-10 hours a day?

That depends on the college, and what you mean by "harder." Solving complex logic problems requires a different set of skills and aptitude than doing repetitive work. Good colleges will not pass you if you do not truly understand the material, while bad ones will only care if you memorized information and were able to spew it all back on a poorly-designed test. So, the bad colleges are similar. The good ones, though, not so much.

Why else is college synonymous with drinking and partying?

Because many people who shouldn't be going to college are going to college, and the colleges are happy to let them do so because they want their money. Colleges then slowly turn into awful trade schools where most people are in it for a piece of paper, rather than the education.

Re:Translation (Rough) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442455)

I completely agree with you: also those who get educations such as PHD in speaking ancient dead culture long forgotten, expect to live in San Fran or New York in a big apartment like those seen on Friends?

All education is not equal, all people are not equal , they are not even born equal in terms of skills. Someone who is an artist should be a commercial artist selling to make money to buy the nice things that is a choice of that person. IF they choose not to "sell out" then they can live like any other poor person as most famous artists in the past have done.

Do not like it, then convince the rest of us to vote you in (yes YOU) as leader and you can run things. Can't get elected? Then get enough people to join you and your army to overthrow whatever government you oppose. Failing that shut the f--- up and live with your poor choices you made and go take night school.

Re:Translation (Rough) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442741)

Here's a thought: Teach your kids the concept of long-term goals... It worked wonders for me.

Wait...isn't there supposed to be a "now get off my lawn" ending to your post? Mod -1 for not following /. convention.

Continue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442079)

Let's continue turning colleges and universities into poor imitations of trade schools. I'm sure it will be a positive impact on real education. Because everybody's gotta go to college, right?

secure the borders (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442081)

We must build fences around our desirable cities, to keep the white college grads in, and the black high school trash out!

Moving is more natural (5, Interesting)

crow (16139) | about 3 months ago | (#47442095)

My observation is that people who don't go to college tend to get a job locally. People who do go to college often attend a college outside of the local area, and when they graduate, often apply for jobs nationwide.

The process of going to college makes moving to a new location much more natural.

It's no wonder that college grads will move to places where they can get good jobs, and that this would be places that already have a high concentration of people with college degrees.

Re:Moving is more natural (1)

Entrope (68843) | about 3 months ago | (#47442307)

On the flip side, if/when those college-educated people decide to have kids, they will find that having family nearby is a huge help. Roughly half of the college-educated parents in my generation (out of those I know well) moved to be near their parents specifically to make childcare easier. This often means a bit of career back-tracking, as they come up to speed in a different area of their field, or change to a significantly different industry.

Why is location irrelevant for some groups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442343)

That's not totally true. Just look at blacks in the US. While they were primary located in the southeastern states at first, there were several waves of mass migration. That's how we ended up with major cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and Washington D.C. that have black majorities. That's why there are cities as far away as Oakland and parts of New York that have very large black populations.

Although we find large populations of this community at all ends of the country, thousands of miles apart, their living conditions are quite horrible. Those cities mentioned earlier are known as crime-ridden hellholes.

Some people blame it on "poverty". Yet we've seen equally disadvantaged groups of people collectively better themselves within a few decades. We've seen poor Irish, poor Italians, poor eastern Europeans, poor Lebanese, poor Chinese, poor Vietnamese and so forth come to America with literally a few dollars to their name. Yet somehow they manage to become productive members of society. Their communities aren't known for their high levels of serious crime, regardless of where they're located. The Vietnamese are a particularly interesting case, since they arrived here quite recently, from a country that was almost totally destroyed by warfare. Yet we've seen them, as a whole, become productive independent business owners, doctors, lawyers, scientists, and other professionals in a generation or two.

Some people will also blame it on "oppression". Maybe this was true before 1965, but things have changed radically since then. Blacks have had more opportunties basically handed to them than any other group. They often get preferential treatment for acceptance into colleges, public service jobs and even private service jobs in some cases. They get astouding levels of financial support. Despite being given so much, we've seen so little progress.

Why is it that, regardless of where they happen to move, and although they're given all sorts of financial and non-financial support, the black community within America has so much trouble forming a society where crime isn't an issue, where drugs aren't abused, where gangs aren't formed, and where even just the most basic of small businesses can survive?

(I'm not an American, by the way, although I have visited many times. And save your false accusations of "racism", please. We're here to discuss real issues. If that hurts your feelings, bugger off.)

Re:Why is location irrelevant for some groups? (3, Insightful)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 3 months ago | (#47442443)

Except that immigrants to the US are a self-selecting group. Only the most motivated people are going to go through all the hassle and work that it takes to actually get here, so of course they are more likely to be successful once they do. There are also a lot of successful black people that grew up poor. But there are just a lot more black people overall, and as a group they didn't choose to be here in a country that is constantly shitting on them. As to your claim that there is no oppression any more, that is constantly disproved by studies that show having a "black" sounding name will result in fewer job interviews, less support from university faculty, harsher law enforcement treatment, etc. It is a reality that you cannot deny.

Actually you may have something here (3, Informative)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about 3 months ago | (#47442707)

I saw a report on I think 60 minutes probably 10 or 15 years ago where the black community was up in arms because they were losing out on scholarships. The complaint was they were losing them to the children of recent immigrants from Africa, a group that hadn't gone through the history of slavery because their ancestors didn't live in the US. (The whole point as far as they were concerned was this was to give a leg up to people that as a class had suffered through slavery and racism and recent African immigrants were not in this group but qualified for the scholarships and took them away from the people they were intended for.) To add insult to injury the recent African immigrants tended to be fairly successful and that lead to the complaint they didn't need the help anyway. But like you wrote, these immigrants were a self selecting group who went through all that hassle and they were more likely to be successful in the end.(It looks to me as though any group that intentional migrates will tend to do well because they're the driven to find success while people that are forced to migrate probably won't.)

Re:Why is location irrelevant for some groups? (2)

Zanadou (1043400) | about 3 months ago | (#47442489)

I'm not an American, by the way, [...] If that hurts your feelings, bugger off.

I think we've worked out your nationality. Cobber.

Re:Why is location irrelevant for some groups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442535)

Those cities mentioned earlier are known as crime-ridden hellholes.

You're including Washington DC, the putative capital of this country, governed by who? Oh yeah, Congress.

Who only gives a shit about themselves.

Some people blame it on "poverty". Yet we've seen equally disadvantaged groups of people collectively better themselves within a few decades. We've seen poor Irish, poor Italians, poor eastern Europeans, poor Lebanese, poor Chinese, poor Vietnamese and so forth come to America with literally a few dollars to their name. Yet somehow they manage to become productive members of society. Their communities aren't known for their high levels of serious crime, regardless of where they're located.

The Vietnamese are a particularly interesting case, since they arrived here quite recently, from a country that was almost totally destroyed by warfare. Yet we've seen them, as a whole, become productive independent business owners, doctors, lawyers, scientists, and other professionals in a generation or two.

http://www.voanews.com/content/vietnamese-americans-tend-to-live-in-enclaves/1700747.html

Try again, with some facts, rather than your fantasies. It's not quite as rosy as you think. Sure, there are some professionals, but universally? Nope.

Why is it that, regardless of where they happen to move, and although they're given all sorts of financial and non-financial support, the black community within America has so much trouble forming a society where crime isn't an issue, where drugs aren't abused, where gangs aren't formed, and where even just the most basic of small businesses can survive?

The vast majority of Blacks in America are still in some very particular areas. The Black Belt is still a real thing. And you know what? They are not given support by the white-controlled state governments, and are still subject to disenfranchisement. But it's also surrounded by plenty of white poverty too. Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, they have lots of poverty in general, and the "Conservative" elements in charge of these states, don't give a crap about fixing it, because that's not in their mindset.

But hey, you want to try some wealthy upper-class Blacks? They do exist in America. And not just those with sports contracts. There are doctors and lawyers too. You could find them, if you bothered to look.

(I'm not an American, by the way, although I have visited many times. And save your false accusations of "racism", please. We're here to discuss real issues. If that hurts your feelings, bugger off.)

But you are racist, and a questionable one at that. Either you are an outsider ignorantly commenting on American history, or you're a lying American ignorantly commenting on American history.

Re:Why is location irrelevant for some groups? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 months ago | (#47442705)

That's not totally true. Just look at blacks in the US. While they were primary located in the southeastern states at first, there were several waves of mass migration. That's how we ended up with major cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and Washington D.C. that have black majorities.

They moved to get away from the KKK and segregated bathrooms. Are you suggesting that solution is somehow applicable now? Start a KKK against people who didn't go to college so they will move?

Moving is more natural (3, Insightful)

Jmstuckman (561420) | about 3 months ago | (#47442591)

Absolutely right. I grew up in an economically disadvantaged area, went to college, and settled in one of the best-performing metro areas in the country. My classmates who skipped college are still there, driving 1-2 hours each way to the closest job they can find, and enduring the double disadvantages of lacking a college degree and living in a depressed area.

When one is living dangerously close to the poverty line, moving away from friends and family will be perceived as unacceptable risky. Only the most ambitious will leave, and most of those people went to college anyway.

Get a Degree (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442097)

They're gaining access to high-cost cities like New York or San Francisco that offer so much more than good jobs: more restaurants...

Work in a restaurant for less than minimum wage.

Re:Get a Degree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442117)

Meet interesting people and piss in their soup.

Re:Get a Degree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442503)

Sir, I would not have my soup any other way. That's why I only come in your restaurant and don't go anywhere else. Keep up the good soup :)

Buy a vowel. (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#47442207)

There is a natural, even understandable, aversion to newcomers who price the indigenous populace out of being able to afford to live in their ancestral homes. The jobs created in the service industry by the presence of higher wage earners will help a few shopkeepers, but not so much for the working poor.

Look at all these jobs we've created! means, more and more, subsistence level service industry jobs that will afford the children of these citizens a measurable disadvantage over the offspring of parents with professions.

When measuring ability versus resources, remember that no one scores without the ball.

No surprise (1)

GoddersUK (1262110) | about 3 months ago | (#47442109)

I'm a research student in London and I did my undergrad here too, what's amazed me is the number of people I know/knew who did their undergrad elsewhere that are now popping up all over the city. Turns out a graduate level job market attracts graduates who in turn attract graduate level jobs... What the summary fails to point out, of course, is that the growth of all the extra facilities - bars, restaurants, dry cleaners etc. - also ensure the job market grows in non-graduate jobs too, so it's win-win for everyone that lives in the lucky city. That city then grows at the expense of its neighbours that lose jobs in all sectors of the market (again, as we see in the UK where London and the south east is a giant black whole sucking up money and talent from the rest of the country). Whether or not you think this is a bad thing varies, of course...

Re:No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442201)

What the summary fails to point out, of course, is that the growth of all the extra facilities - bars, restaurants, dry cleaners etc. - also ensure the job market grows in non-graduate jobs too,

You are assuming that those jobs won't be taken by college grads who can't get better jobs. With a combination of a crappy job market for college grads and a higher proportion of college grads in the area it seems like they will be crowding people out of the lower skill jobs too.

Re:No surprise (2)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 3 months ago | (#47442309)

What the summary fails to point out, of course, is that the growth of all the extra facilities - bars, restaurants, dry cleaners etc. - also ensure the job market grows in non-graduate jobs too, so it's win-win for everyone that lives in the lucky city

Prices in cities are targeted at those high-earning college graduates. There may be greater need for bartenders, waitstaff, etc, but those low-wage workers can't afford to actually live in the city themselves, which necessitates long commutes, which eats up even more of their meager pay, which ensures that the lower class stays lower class.

Or maybe ... (3, Interesting)

WoodstockJeff (568111) | about 3 months ago | (#47442111)

... the college education included acquiring the desire to move to such places?

Personally, I don't consider places like NYC or SF to be desirable places to live. "Clean air"? "Low crime?" "Better schools?" Certainly, compared to other "cities of size". But, to me, the choice isn't limited to which "big city" to live in. And those criteria work to exclude larger cities, in my opinion.

Re:Or maybe ... (2)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 3 months ago | (#47442169)

You need to look at crime stats on a per 100K basis. NYC is lower than not just "big" cities but also small ones of the 100K variety.

Re:Or maybe ... (1)

Dereck1701 (1922824) | about 3 months ago | (#47442421)

I just did, at least for my state, and while there are of course some cities that do have higher crime rates than NYC (21) a VAST majority have lower, and in many cases far lower, crime rates than NYC (~580). Even sorting out all of the "small" cities (anything below 70,000) still shows only 5 cities with higher rates (One being Detroit) and 12 with lower rates. Of those 12 cities with lower rates 8 have half is violent crime rate (639.3). NYC may not be terrible crime wise, but its still not great either compared to the average (~387 instances of violent crime per 100K) or to many smaller cities.

this is a good thing (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#47442113)

more people with more money in an area require more people with lower skills to do jobs to support them. once again those working and making good money are indirectly helping those without skills get good jobs *for their skillset*

can we really quit bitching about people who make something of themselves??? that is not the america I was taught growing up but i fear thats what the current generation is being taught, to hate people who make something of them selves, IE "the rich"

Re:this is a good thing (2)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about 3 months ago | (#47442179)

Ah, yes. That. I live in Portugal and I see that attitude show every now and then in the people. You do not want that to happen in your region. It's bad.

Re:this is a good thing (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#47442355)

so an employeer paying good wages to its workers is now a bad thing??? since when???

Re:this is a good thing (1)

visualight (468005) | about 3 months ago | (#47442353)

I have not seen any example of people being taught to hate the rich, nor have I seen anyone specifically bitching about people making something of themselves. Perhaps you do fear these ideas are being taught to the current generation, but if so, these fears are completely unfounded. In your position, I would re-examine the source of these fears and likely (going forward) disregard all information from these sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.google.com/webhp?c... [google.com]

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion(s) of the article, but on the general topic of income inequality I am certain that not addressing it as a problem will cost all of society more in the long term, and, a lot of research is being done wrt to cause and effect of income inequality. None of the articles produced by this research are motivated by jealousy, or a hatred for people that made something of themselves. They are motivated by the belief that our democracy at least, and our very nation possibly, are seriously threatened by income inequality.

Re:this is a good thing (0)

HanzoSpam (713251) | about 3 months ago | (#47442497)

"Equality" is the most evil word ever introduced into political discourse. Followed closely by "democracy".

As for income equality, I'll note the feudalism was a stable political structure for over a thousand years. How's liberal democracy looking after 200 and change?

Re:this is a good thing (1)

visualight (468005) | about 3 months ago | (#47442523)

So if you could remake the world you would be a serf? Because under feudalism that's your only choice, and it doesn't matter how smart you are or how hard you work, your circumstance will NEVER improve.

If you're under the delusion that YOU would fare differently because you're (ahem) *special*, realize that what enables that delusion is the democracy and equality GIVEN to you by previous generations of socially conscious activists.

There are only so many chairs at the top, and NONE of them have your name on it peasant.

Re:this is a good thing (0)

HanzoSpam (713251) | about 3 months ago | (#47442583)

So if you could remake the world you would be a serf? Because under feudalism that's your only choice, and it doesn't matter how smart you are or how hard you work, your circumstance will NEVER improve.

If I were a serf, I'd be obliged to pay the landowner 1/3 of what I produced on his land. Given that I now pay considerably greater percentage than that in various taxes, serfdom doesn't look like that bad of a deal. My circumstances then, as now, would be determined by how well I made use of the resources at my disposal.

If you're under the delusion that YOU would fare differently because you're (ahem) *special*, realize that what enables that delusion is the democracy and equality GIVEN to you by previous generations of socially conscious activists.

The only thing your democracy and equality have produced is a society where the parasites to vote themselves a living out of the pockets of the productive. Repeat after me: All men are not created equal. Never have been, never will be.

There are only so many chairs at the top, and NONE of them have your name on it peasant.

Neither mine or yours, either then or now. What of it?

Re:this is a good thing (1)

visualight (468005) | about 3 months ago | (#47442675)

Wow. Please record some of your observations and discussions and upload them to youtube. OMG I will send you money if you do.

Re:this is a good thing (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#47442539)

have you not been paying attention to san fransicso for example? slashing bus tires, attacking people who work for google for simply working for google, there is a real hate for those who are making something of themselves there. the same could be seen in NYC during the occupy movements.

Re:this is a good thing (2)

visualight (468005) | about 3 months ago | (#47442763)

Yeah I've seen that. And I'm sure that more of that is inevitable if the way our economy works doesn't change. The behavior your describing is the -effect- of relative income inequality (trickle down supply-side economic policy) growing wider over the last 35 years. And it's going to get worse, much worse, and it's going to cost "us" a lot more to ignore than if we actively alter course.

Emotion based outrage, increase in crime rates, riots, and eventually violent revolution are the -predictable- effects of growing relative income inequality and loss of social mobility. And, as in the past, the powerful and elite are digging in their heels -which actually makes the situation worse.

The point is, this is not an issue specific to any generation or culture being more prone to jealousy than another. It's a predictable -response- of every human population in similar circumstances.

Re:this is a good thing (1, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47442377)

can we really quit bitching about people who make something of themselves???

Many people have a "zero-sum" mental model of economics. They believe that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and therefore, if some become richer, others must become poorer. Although some people become rich through corruption and rent-seeking, most get there by creating wealth rather than just concentrating what was already there. Rather than pushing others down, they pull others up by creating jobs and demand. But there are plenty of people that don't see it that way. Enough to support political parties and governing majorities based on their misguided beliefs.

Re:this is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442511)

With an economic model based on the exploitation of scarcity of resources ( and yes I I do appreciate some things are genuinely 'scarce' as opposed to artificial scarcity and no I don't have a solution), Then yes someone is getting poorer as some else profits but as long as that person is someone far away who Americans don't have to see , then they don't to care.

In fact they don't care as long as its some homeless 'bum' because obviously its all that persons own fault otherwise they would be a 'self made' success like they believe themselves to be.

Re:this is a good thing (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47442607)

With an economic model based on the exploitation of scarcity of resources ...

Except that our economy is mostly NOT based on the exploitation of scare resources. Someone writing code is not "stealing" from anyone else. They are creating value from nothing. The raw materials (petroleum and metal ore) in an iPhone is worth about 5 cents. The main commodities that our economy needs (oil, coal, iron ore, silica sand) are not "scarce", and it is absurd to claim that poor people would be better off somehow if they were left in the ground.

they don't care as long as its some homeless 'bum'

So if we close all the diamond mines, we will no longer have homeless bums? Sure. Whatever.

Programming without a license (0)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47442747)

Someone writing code is not "stealing" from anyone else

Yes they are. They are implementing patented processes without a license, implementing copyrighted video game rules without a license (such as all those projects for computer science classes that require students to reimplement a video game created by Alexey Pajitnov), implementing ways to provide taxi or multichannel television services without a license, implementing means to allow end users to trade copies of major label music and major studio movies without a license, writing programs that run on set-top computing platforms without a license, etc. I can provide citations on request.

Re:Programming without a license (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442771)

Okie dokie, please provide citations for each 'foobar without a license' which says they're stealing.

Re:this is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442759)

That is the problem. The America you were taught growing up was a lie.

bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (5, Interesting)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#47442131)

Yes. The pinnacle of civilized living.

If that's your cup of tea, and you've the good fortune to select a profession that pays the bills your entire life in your chosen metropolis, I say more power to you. Others may find solace in living more simple, rural lives.

Remember, much of the benefit of higher wages is just more money passing through your hands to accommodate the cities' higher cost of living.

bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442205)

TFA focuses on wages, but there is more to life than just that. Also, having an opportunity to do things that are more worthwhile. The simple life is nice, but do you want that to be your entire life, without any real accomplishment that you can look back on? And it is nice to be surrounded by intelligent, educated, aware people with broad horizons, rather than be in a place where those people are rare and hard to find.

Re:bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 months ago | (#47442223)

There is no culture in rural areas. There is no learning. For the active mind, it is a fate worse than death. Intelligent people want to be around other intelligent people. Who wants to live in the country with a bunch of bigots who dismiss any ideas they don't agree with?

Re:bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#47442281)

There are intelligent, interesting people wherever you go, within reason.

Intelligent people occasionally want to be around other intelligent people,

but if we don't keep sending missionaries out to the ignorant borderlands, how will we convert the bigoted savages?

Re: bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (2)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#47442371)

I have family in rural areas and they like to go on hikes in natural areas and a national park, camping and other outdoor activities rather than the cultural getting drunk at bars every weekend and spending all your money eating out at restaurants

Re: bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442433)

You mean like dismissing the idea that someone could live a productive and full life without being surrounded by self important assholes? Perhaps you are the bigot here.

Re:bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442507)

You seem to be equating intelligence with education. I'll think up a problem to solve, throw a bunch of miscellaneous junky would finis the in a pile and pit you and your "intelligent" friends against and equal number of "uneducated" farm kids. What would happen is they would finish their thing, then come help you with yours, then offer you to stick around for supper and beer because they would feel sorry for you.

Re:bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (3, Insightful)

Dereck1701 (1922824) | about 3 months ago | (#47442541)

Because people in urban centers spend most of their time going to libraries, zoos, museums & art centers? Most of those "bigots" from rural areas go out of their way and consider it a privilege to go to urban centers and experience those things. Many in those urban centers that could walk or drive to them in under 20 minutes rarely if ever go. I grew up in a rural area and my childhood was filled with trips to the Toledo Zoo, Washington DC, Cape Canaveral, various space & history centers, and my family was far from well off (farmer, UPS driver, McDonalds, Backhoe operator, Walmart is a rough employment history of my parents). I've seen people living out in the sticks with far more culture than some living a block from a major library/museum.

Re:bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (2)

donscarletti (569232) | about 3 months ago | (#47442549)

There is no culture in rural areas. There is no learning. For the active mind, it is a fate worse than death. Intelligent people want to be around other intelligent people. Who wants to live in the country with a bunch of bigots who dismiss any ideas they don't agree with?

You don't think the thing you just said then was maybe, well, super bigoted?

I grew up in the country, there are smart people too. The town's "intellectual elite" tend to know each other and be friendly regardless of their profession, age and views, meaning that if you're smart, you get a diverse group of friends. In cities, people form microcosms of folks just like them, with roughly the same job, the same age, the same personality and the same views. A metropolis is the antithesis of diversity, they bring every kind of person together from all over the world, so you can find the ones just like you.

The only thing bad about the country is the job situation. And the lack of entertainment and fine dining. And there being no choice in schools. And the Internet being slow and expensive. And that you have to drive everywhere. And it is inconvenient to take international flights. And consumer goods are expensive. And quite a few other things.

Re:bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442667)

Are you for real?

Not everyone takes solace in being overly social. I prefer some social contact, but my days spent with my significant other and a few close friends. I find myself better suited to live in areas away from large cities.

Re:bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, art galleries (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 3 months ago | (#47442469)

It depends on what you mean by "cost of living." It is actually much easier to be poor in a city than in a rural area. Public transportation means that you don't have to own a car or pay for gas/insurance. You have much easier access to social services, food banks, etc. You can survive on a lot less money in the city than in more isolated areas. The problem comes when you start to want more space.

NYC (3, Interesting)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 3 months ago | (#47442135)

less crime? OK. clearner air? compared to....? NYC is a big place - its not just Manhattan or the upper East (or West) side. In fact, you might make the argument in reverse when it comes to NYC, that lower "skilled" workers are clustering there and getting the benefits described.

Re:NYC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442211)

Good comment. Large cities also attract foreign immigrants primarily because of the availability of low paying jobs and the easier assimilation into the already existing communities of fellow countrymen. Had the government the common sense to just drop the 50,000 or so illegal child immigrants from Mexico into Los Angeles no one would have cared or even noticed.

Get educated (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 months ago | (#47442137)

" We've always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, ." -- Mitt Romney

So Stalin and Pol Pot got it right? (2)

gelfling (6534) | about 3 months ago | (#47442153)

For true equality we need collectivization, or genocide, whichever comes first.

Re:So Stalin and Pol Pot got it right? (1)

visualight (468005) | about 3 months ago | (#47442383)

Exactly. Also, our thermostats should be set at either 0(c) or 100(c).

Less crime and cleaner air. In the cities. (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 3 months ago | (#47442155)

Really?

Re:Less crime and cleaner air. In the cities. (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 3 months ago | (#47442195)

I thought the same thing. They seems to be comparing cities to other cities, and completely ignoring all other places you might choose to live.

Confusing cause and effect (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about 3 months ago | (#47442157)

They're gaining access to high-cost cities like New York or San Francisco that offer so much more than good jobs: more restaurants, better schools, less crime, even cleaner air.

There's more restaurants because there are more high-income college grads to spend money there. There's less street crime because Johnny the Finance Douchebag isn't likely to do anything worse than public urination. (white collar crime is another matter)

As for better schools, hasn't happened yet at least in NYC -- the system is very uneven and the lengths parents will go through to get their kid in a better elementary school are legendary. Lose the battle, and welcome to the suburbs. If it does happen, it'll again be because the well-educated wealthy college students are there.

Cleaner air is mostly because there's little polluting industry left. Which means fewer blue-collar jobs.

The implied narrative that those rich overeducated scum are hogging all the good places and leaving the poor in high-crime areas with bad schools, dirty air, and no amenities gets cause and effect completely wrong.

Re:Confusing cause and effect (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442261)

I draw the opposite conclusion. Cities generate wealth that flows into other areas that would otherwise not be as economically viable. Nevada thrives on money flowing from San Francisco and Los Angeles, New Hampshire, the famous live free or die state is parasitic on Boston and Mississippi is a black hole for federal subsidies. It is NYC that makes Connecticut the state with the highest per capita income in the nation since it is apparently the preferred residential location for hedge fund operatives and similar criminals.

Chicken or egg? (3, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | about 3 months ago | (#47442191)

Yes, lots of educated (and wealthy) citizens create markets for better services in cities. But decades of surveys of companies planning locations and of educated workers considering relocation tell us it works the other way around, too.

States like Arizona and Texas that base their plans for attracting high-wage (lots of educated employees) employers on cutting taxes usually do it by also slicing schools and other services.

That seems to be working in places like Austin, where the city makes up for the lack of State support for education (or actual hostility to it) by cranking up local sales taxes -- which fall more on the poor than on the affluent. Which is a sweet deal if you're making serious money as a twenty-something in technology there, but might not look so good when you have kids and you're looking for daycare and primary schools.

We're doing the experiment. Check in again in ten or twenty years to see which way the arrow of cauality runs.

Re:Chicken or egg? (4, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 months ago | (#47442251)

Education is funded by property taxes, not sales tax. In Austin, people are being priced out of their homes because they voted for every social program out there, and now the taxes are too damn high.

"I'm at the breaking point," said Gretchin Gardner, an Austin artist who bought a 1930s bungalow in the Bouldin neighborhood just south of downtown in 1991 and has watched her property tax bill soar to $8500 this year.

"It's not because I don't like paying taxes," said Gardner, who attended both meetings [of "irate homeowners"]. "I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can't afford to live here anymore."
-- Austin American-Statesman

Re:Chicken or egg? (2)

russotto (537200) | about 3 months ago | (#47442291)

"I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can't afford to live here anymore."

Ha... cause and effect is a bitch sometimes, isn't it? No doubt she thought all those things would be paid for by other people. If she thought at all.

Good? (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 3 months ago | (#47442273)

More bars, more restaurants, and more dry cleaners makes my point. Bars are negative. Eating in restaurants is negative. And forget dry cleaners! Bars are a disaster as alcohol is now seen as the greatest killer in America. Restaurants are part of the health and obesity epidemic. And dry cleaning should be illegal. Not only are the chemicals used bad for the environment but imagine the transportation required for people to run back and forth to get their laundry. A city is nothing more than a cancer which inevitably reaches out and destroys rural areas. Yes, a city can support a museum. That way people can go see a stuffed animal that used to be common on the very ground underneath the museum. Never spend a penny on alcohol and don't even drink it if it is free. Avoid restaurants! Your wallet will love you and your waist line will look better as well. And if it isn't wash and wear don't allow it in your home.

Re:Good? (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 3 months ago | (#47442327)

Which all makes perfect sense right up until you start making more than about 30$/hour and realize that the only resource more important than your health and your money is the time you spend enjoying yourself or learning new things while someone else is doing your chores for you. Also, you should probably seek better advice on restaurants... I used to think the nicest meal you could buy was from the Cheesecake Factory too.

And in other news ... (1)

johnlcallaway (165670) | about 3 months ago | (#47442295)

... people that make more money buy nice things, live in nicer houses, and send their kinds to nicer schools.

Someone actually spent money on this?? Go to Maine and look at old mill towns like Saco/Biddeford and Lewiston/Auborn. Mill towns, where the wealthy lived on one side of the river, and the mill workers lived on the other.

I would say it's obvious to most people and no study was needed, but I guess someone has to justify their wasted college education by getting paid with government subsidized studies so they can live in the nicer part of town.

Re:And in other news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442411)

... people that make more money buy nice things, live in nicer houses, and send their kinds to nicer schools.

And in turn, waste all the extra money they have, when they could invest it and retire much earlier than others.

This is the problem. People who have more money think they should live like kings and queens. This is not an intelligent financial decision. Many live on less than $20,000. Whenever I see someone who makes significantly more than that complaining about how they never have any money, it's almost always going to be because they think they have to be "consumers" and waste all of it on garbage they don't need.

Boo hoo... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442331)

How dare all the intelligent, hard working people benefit from their intelligence and hard work! We simply MUST let all the underclass parasites enjoy the benefits of all the intelligent people's hard work, right?

Third world people = third world country.

Re:Boo hoo... (0)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 3 months ago | (#47442477)

How dare all the intelligent, hard working people benefit from their intelligence and hard work!

Intelligence and hard work has little to do with going to college.

First (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442369)

First!

Celebration writ large (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 3 months ago | (#47442379)

If you've fallen in love with the Walt Disney World experience, you now have the option to live in a town designed by Disney itself: Celebration, Florida. Resembling "Main Street, USA" and the "EPCOT World Showcase" writ large, Celebration helps blur the distinction between between Disney and real life, effectively letting you live in a theme park.

Know who doesn't live in Celebration, Florida and its mean income over $75k/yr? The people who work in Celebration, Florida.

It's not hard to find new developments across the US where you see new apartments and condominiums built alongside or even on top of faux city shops (complete with acres of parking) to give the residents the "gentrified neighborhood" experience. But you can bet that the folks who actually work in Whole Foods or PF Chang's don't actually live there. And the folks that work there can't afford to shop there.

Birds of a feather flock together (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442403)

A shocking conclusion. Go Stanford!

Open Borders (1)

anorlunda (311253) | about 3 months ago | (#47442417)

The article only discusses domestic segregation, but the elephant in the room is national differences.

If global warming becomes as bad as they say, many heavily populated areas of the world (think India) will become too unproductive to support their population. Other areas (think Canada or Scandanavia) will become more habitable. Clearly the only humane policy will be totally open borders and to allow unlimited migration globally. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

My point is simply to mock the massive hippocracy and parochialism of western societies.

Re:Open Borders - Bad idea (1)

kosh271 (2036124) | about 3 months ago | (#47442627)

Opening the borders is absolutely the quick patch to the issue, but the long-term compounding of the issue to the point of catastrophic failure. While "wealth" may not be a zero-sum concept, planetary resources are absolutely zero-sum. It is possible to use these resources more efficiently, but there is a limit.

If a region's population has outstripped it's resources, it is up to that population to reduce it's own population. I do not advocate killing people, but I do advocate population controls.

Limiting the number of children to 2 per person can almost guarantee the population will reduce itself to a sustainable level.
It requires:
1. No new people are allowed in (closing borders)
2. Once a man or woman has had 2 children, they are medically prevented from having any more.
3. No fertility treatments are permitted (prevents attempts at having triplets and more at once)
*If triplets or more are expected, there should be no penalty. I do not advocate forcing someone to terminate a fetus because it would put them over the limit.

While I believe in the above statements, in my country it would never come to pass because a person's individual freedom outstrips long-term planning. (there is also a large number of people that would argue that it violates their religious freedom)

Re:Open Borders - Bad idea (1)

anorlunda (311253) | about 3 months ago | (#47442735)

I agree with what you said kosh271 except:

1) if the population reduction is great (say 75% or more) and the need is urgent (say 50 years or less), then birth control can not possibly be adequate.

2) if birth control is inadequate or unattainable (you said it can not come to pass in your country) then what?

None of us want to advocate killing, but the next most drastic step after birth control (and maybe the next most drastic step after that) lead us to ethically taboo places that no one is willing to discuss. That suggests that our fate is demise though inaction because all suffupicientky effective actions are too drastic to consider.

Raise this subject in a room full of activists and you'll empty the room in an eye blink. No one dares to discuss it publicly.

Intelligence= good food / not having to murder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47442459)

Maybe intelligence = not having to commit crimes and having others willing to invest in the area you live in.

If we are all equals, then anyone can achieve what the rest have achieved. Get off your ass.

Maybe it's money (1)

Livius (318358) | about 3 months ago | (#47442487)

Is this really about education or is it just self-selection based on wealth? People have noticed the latter for thousands of years.

The relation "Quality" Jobs in the cities and Debt (1)

epwpixieqneg1 (3709433) | about 3 months ago | (#47442513)

Since the beginning of the 80, when the current unsustainable debt system started, the growth of all of the so called services and on some level IT jobs have been fueled by the constantly mounting of new debt. If this were not the case, the growth would not have been so rapid, and the others part of the less efficient/not needed economy would have been fast annihilated and not allowed to exist as in the current system. These jobs tend to be concentrated in or around the cities and here it stands very basic relation, between the reason most of the collage graduates are going to these places. In most recent time, the current bubble-debt based system was not allowed to re-balance naturally in 2008, but was fueled by cheap money by the FED. This continuation and inflammation, on it's own, tends to accelerate the movement human resources to these cities, by allowing these regions to mount more and more debt. At some time in the near future, this bubble, and the current debt base system, will deflate rapidly, via inflation (very disruptive for the common people) or any other means, not excluding some kind of sever social disruption/revolution. When this happens these places of concentration will be the hardest hit due to inability of the masses to sustain themselves, without the system allowing debt base/resources extraction to the cities.

Is this really a new trend... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 3 months ago | (#47442701)

... or just an ongoing occurrence that is becoming more visible due to the larger amount of data available for analysis?

Isn't this common knowledge? (2)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | about 3 months ago | (#47442739)

I really thought this was rather obvious, and that everyone already knew it, whether they discussed it or not.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?