“When you set aside the class-warfare rhetoric that Democrats so enjoy, the drivers of income inequality are plain. The first is rarely acknowledged. It’s the increasing tendency of highly educated professionals to marry each other. Doctors used to marry nurses. Now they marry other doctors, concentrating family wealth.

“The second is that the modern economy places an ever-higher premium on job skills, and yet we don’t have a public education system that responds to this fact. In 2013, how is it possible that a year or more of computer science isn’t a universal high school graduation requirement?

“It’s not just information-technology jobs going unfilled because of a mismatch between what schools teach and what employers need. In many skilled-job categories — welders, critical-care nurses, electrical linemen, special-education teachers, geotechnical engineers, respiratory therapists — unemployment is practically zero.

“So long as we have an absurdly complex tax code in which the amount that the very wealthy pay depends on the skill of their tax attorneys, the Occupy argument that the U.S. is rigged to help the rich will resonate with some. But this doesn’t address the disconnect between what our schools teach and what our economy needs.”

Liberal think tank: Higher job skills more rewarded than ever

Now the most venerable liberal think tank of all — the Brookings Institution, the one a Nixon aide wanted to firebomb — has released a study of big-city income inequality that makes some of the same points. This is from the L.A. Times’ write-up of the study:

“Los Angeles has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the nation, but that’s due in part to a relatively strong local economy that’s stoking the fortunes of higher-income people, according to a new study.

“Of the 50 largest U.S. cities, L.A. has the ninth-highest level of income disparity, according to the analysis by Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. …

“Inequality has become a flash point nationwide as the wealth of top earners surges while the middle and lower classes grapple with stubborn income stagnation. Politicians have clashed loudly on what’s driving the dichotomy, and what steps, if any, should be taken to reverse it.

“The study found, however, that rising inequality may simply be an unavoidable byproduct of robust local economies that plump the incomes of coveted workers.

“Fast-growing industries with highly paid employees — such as technology, finance and entertainment — tend to cluster in large metropolitan areas, said Alan Berube, a Brookings researcher who specializes in inequality. And the ongoing gentrification of many cities, such as in downtown Los Angeles, is drawing wealthier people.

“At the same time, big cities also draw large numbers of low-income people seeking lower-skilled jobs.”

Needed: a much smarter and more focused education system

Joel Kotkin, the shrewd Los Angeles Democratic futurist, points to the best approach to income inequality in his piece last week in New Geography:

“A pro-growth program today could take several forms that defy the narrow logic of both left and right. We can encourage the growth of high-wage, blue-collar industries such as construction, energy and manufacturing. We can also reform taxes so that the burdens fall less on employers and employees, as opposed to those who simply profit from asset inflation. And rather than impose huge tuitions on students who might not  finish with a degree that offers employment opportunities, let’s place new emphasis on practical skills training for both the new generation and those being left behind in this ‘recovery.'”

The problem facing this approach in California, alas, is that the state’s education status quo has fierce guardians. They don’t want sweeping change because it would cost many CTA and CFT members their jobs.

And given that the CTA and CFT are by far the most powerful forces in the state, this is an immense problem for those who want to do something more constructive about income inequality than tampering at the margins with pseudo-solutions like raising the minimum wage.

A new study undercuts Occupy-style rhetoric and adds nuance to a key public-policy debate.

A massive statistical analysis of upward and downward economic mobility in the United States that is getting big play on The New York Times website is loaded with fodder for interesting comments about American life. Here are the key conclusions drawn by David Leonhardt, the NYT’s often-excellent economics columnist/reporter:

“The study — based on millions of anonymous earnings records and being released this week by a team of top academic economists — is the first with enough data to compare upward mobility across metropolitan areas. These comparisons provide some of the most powerful evidence so far about the factors that seem to drive people’s chances of rising beyond the station of their birth, including education, family structure and the economic layout of metropolitan areas.

“Climbing the income ladder occurs less often in the Southeast and industrial Midwest, the data shows, with the odds notably low in Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, Raleigh, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Columbus. By contrast, some of the highest rates occur in the Northeast, Great Plains and West, including in New York, Boston, Salt Lake City, Pittsburgh, Seattle and large swaths of California and Minnesota.”

Not just Silicon Valley — San Diego, Sacramento and L.A., too

But Leonhardt doesn’t make enough of California’s singularity in this latter category. Included in the NYT package is a chart showing the likeliness of sharp upward economic mobility by city. The chances of a child who grew up in the bottom fifth of family income (less than $25,000 a year) ending up in the top fifth of family income (more than $107,000 a year) are better in California than anywhere in the U.S. Here are the Top 10 cities for sharp upward mobility:

1. San Jose

2. San Francisco

3. Seattle

4. San Diego

5. Pittsburgh

6. Sacramento

7. Boston

8. New York

9. Los Angeles

10. Washington D.C.

Six of the top nine cities are in California. In every one, at least one in 10 really poor kids ends up in the top fifth of income.

That certainly counters the Occupy-style rhetoric one encounters in the Golden State’s faculty  lounges and, too often, in newsrooms.

The value of impulse control — and the rise of ‘assortative mating’

But then the whole debate over income inequality in the U.S. has always been full of straw men, vapid class warfare and extreme rhetoric. The most significant gap in the U.S. isn’t between the wealthiest 1 percent and everyone else. As Charles Murray has documented, it’s between the 30 percent of people who tend to get married, avoid getting in trouble, value education and who have impulse control and the 70 percent of people who are less likely to have consistently positive habits and behavior.

There’s also assortative mating. The doctor no longer marries the nurse, the lawyer no longer marries the secretary. The doctor marries another doctor, the lawyer another lawyer, etc. Here’s a snippet of  The Economist’s excellent 2011 take on the rise of the “cognitive elite,” changing marriage patterns and other underemphasized facts about U.S. life.

“’Assortative mating’ further entrenches inequality. Highly educated men are much more likely to marry highly educated women than they were a generation ago. In 1970 only 9% of those with bachelors’ degrees in America were women, so the vast majority of men with such degrees married women who lacked them. Now the numbers are roughly even (in fact women are earning more degrees) and people tend to pair up with mates of a similar educational background.”

This is a profoundly important finding that shows more than anything else why Murray’s 30-70 gap is what matters, not the Occupy palaver. But it’s not nearly as good TV as saying the richest of the rich are out to subvert 99 percent of Americans for their own benefit.

]]> https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/25/ca-residents-most-likely-to-go-from-poor-to-rich/feed/ 8 46581