Why Workers Without College Degrees Are Fleeing Big Cities

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/21/business/economy/migration-big-cities.html

by pseudolus • 7 years ago

76 94 7 years ago

nytimes.com

jamisteven• 7 years ago

paywall.

foota• 7 years ago

Ironically, could be interpreted as the reason they're leaving cities as well.

taborj• 7 years ago

Interesting; I'm not having any problem reading the article. Using Brave browser here.

ctnb• 7 years ago

You get a certain number (10-20?) of free articles per month.

gwbas1c• 7 years ago

I wish we could downvote articles behind a paywall, like we can downvote posts.

y-c-o-m-b• 7 years ago

I disagree about the down votes, but I wouldn't mind seeing a [paywall] tag next to the title.

Having said that, i'm using Chrome Incognito with uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger extensions, i'm not getting any paywall on this article...

EDIT: Looks like there's a 10 article limit before the paywall kicks in, that's why only some users are seeing it - they've run out the limit.

linuxftw2• 7 years ago

Yeah, I feel it's a grass roots effort here to drive people to paywall news sources we otherwise wouldn't consider. On any given day, there's one to two links to WSJ and NYT on the front page, even on stories that aren't exclusives.

The cool kids don't mind paying for journalism and all that, and the press deserves our support (etc, etc). Most of the content I enjoy here is written for free by hobbyists or company blogs.

el_cujo• 7 years ago

Doesn't really present anything terribly surprising. Bigger cities have crazier cost of living and wages for the degree-less are, no surprise, not keeping up. I don't think anyone here will be shocked to find out working at mcdonalds or as a janitor in SF or NYC isn't as viable as a smaller city.

sjg0072• 7 years ago

The theory is that these jobs would pay higher to attract workers and be able to do so by having enough customer volume.

jimbob45• 7 years ago

https://pastebin.com/b6TbxtGh

Here you go

linuxftw2• 7 years ago

For the first time in at least a decade, 4,868 more people left King County, Wash. — Amazon’s home — than arrived from elsewhere in the country.

This statement lacks precision and is a poor way to open the article. It implies that this is the only time that particular net change took place, not a net-negative change. EG, maybe 2000 people left last year?

While one can certainly infer, it's poor style IMO.

duxup3• 7 years ago

It will be interesting to see if this is an ebb and flow or a longer term pattern.

Many of the jobs that offered a leg up to those without a college background no longer exist and won’t come back.

The jobs thing is interesting. I changed careers via a bootcamp (that's a whole other topic but let's just assume they produce some portion of viable candidates (like me!)), and I found a lot of jobs requiring lots of experience, working with 8 frameworks / languages (at least) described as "entry level"... and if you can't say you worked with all those things the impression you're just out and they'd rather sit there looking for someone for a year (giving HR and recruiters something to do I guess) than actually try someone out.

It would be nice to see more jobs / companies open to hiring non traditional type folks for say 6 months trail, reasonably well paid (obviously not the salary for 8 languages / frameworks guy, and find people who can help to some extent now, and later.

It could extend to even other areas of work with shorter term retraining and reasonably paid, but still entry level type work.

ravenstine• 7 years ago

Supposedly, more companies used to hire people on a trial basis. That probably went away because today's employees require a lot of HR overhead, and businesses can get in trouble for alternatively hiring people as contractors(if it appears they are treating the contractor like an employee).

cheerlessbog• 7 years ago

The single most reliable source of good tech hires in my experience is undergrad internships. It's a 3 month interview both ways with full pay and benefits. If we could make that more commonplace for folks in mid career it would likely increase diversity as well as reduce hiring misfires.

TecoAndJix• 7 years ago

I just started with a company after a 3 month contract-to-hire position. Even though the cost to them was double what I was paid (plus a 10%+ placement fee), they saw the long term savings of finding a good fit (and hopefully I continue to be).

SolaceQuantum• 7 years ago

This is an interesting statistical breakdown essentially saying that moving to the cities for opportunity used to hold true but likely no longer does for those without college degrees. Therefore it makes more economical sense for people without college degrees to move out of high COL areas, as there is no longer an income gain worth it anymore for them (broadly).

I fear this is a worrying sign that cities will eventually begin to lack necessary labor to keep running.

sjg0072• 7 years ago

I think folks in the trades probably still do well. But the low end has definitely become unaffordable. The housing situation in these cities in untenable so now second tier cities will experience major growth. The Twin Cities metro is one area which I think can sustain a differentiated jobs economy and you can still find reasonable housing... that may not hold long term though.. still there is a lot of land to develop.

hellisothers• 7 years ago

Shhh don’t tell anybody about the Twin Cities!

seisvelas• 7 years ago

A very large portion of tradesmen have associates degrees. In fact, I often wonder if the tradesmen are artificially boosting the income statistics of degree holders in general.

icebraining2• 7 years ago

One must wonder why the income doesn't rise to match. My guess is that technology allows cities to buy such labor from low-COL areas. Improved communications, of course, but there's less obvious stuff like food conservation[1] or precision manufacturing that allows for standard, easy-to-assemble housing parts.

[1] For example, in a recent discussion about Seattle raising the minimum wage, a restaurant association exec said they had ways of reducing the needed labor, like buying pre-chopped vegetables.

dexen2• 7 years ago

My guess is that technology allows cities to buy such labor from low-COL areas. Improved communications (...)

The very reason for the persistent, vocal push for mass transportation. This allows centrally-planned, carefully routed influx of cheap labor, while at the same time keeping the low earning families out of sight & out of mind. The upmarket city districts won't be defiled by the sight of a 10 year old sedan, or, heavens forbid, an unmowed lawn.

Social stratification follows & "us vs them" perceptions rise.

throwaway55554• 7 years ago

Cities will adapt by widening roads to attempt to handle all the commuters.

elindbe2• 7 years ago

That seems unlikely. If there's not enough people to work at minimum wage then they'll have to pay more.

eloisant2• 7 years ago

I'm actually wondering why it's not already happening.

threatofrain• 7 years ago

I think it's good because it means cities will have to pay more for labor and deliberately consider housing issues. Either that or magical AI comes.

At some point either the services people want are worth it, or they're not.

esoterica3• 7 years ago

As least the article acknowledges that higher income individuals can do better on expensive cities even after paying for housing. HN is full of smug LCOLers who love brag about how much better they are doing than those SF losers because their mortgage is only $2/month or whatever.

Kurtz79• 7 years ago

HN as also full of smug SFers and SVers who love to brag (masking it as a half-hearthed complaint) how much the pay for housing, implying that they can afford it.

Usually, neither type is able to provide meaningful discussion about the topic at hand.

Not being from US, but often traveling there, I have always wondered how mimimum-wage workers are able to afford living even remotely close to Manhattan or SF.

The answer seems to be that they increasingly can't.

seanmcdirmid6• 7 years ago

Smugness on both sides. The only thing that we can really trust is data and math.

Minimum wage workers in these communities are usually immigrants who double up on very family style living accommodations. It’s still better for them in SF than it was in say Manila.

dfxm12• 7 years ago

I have always wondered how mimimum-wage workers are able to afford living even remotely close to Manhattan or SF.

They split the cost with someone. Either with roommates or a wealthy parent who lives somewhere else.

askafriend3• 7 years ago

Why do you take it as bragging?

People on HN can afford it because they get paid a lot. It’s pretty simple.

tych02• 7 years ago

One thing I've never understood about this argument is: iPhones/Pixels are $1000 no matter where you live. A new decent sedan is $25k no matter where you live.

Even if housing is 20% of your income in both HCOL and LCOL and it seems completely ridiculous to pay $500k * 20% and not ridiculous to pay $150k * 20%, you can still by more cars, phones, etc. with your remaining $500k * 80%.

This is ignoring the cost of consumables like food, etc. But I believe the same argument applies.

seanmcdirmid6• 7 years ago

A new decent sedan is $25k no matter where you live.

In the states of course. That logic no longer applies in Singapore.

But yes, many expenses are fixed across the country; they might even be cheaper in high COL areas (international travel, foreign food). So 100k in mobile Alabama isn’t 200k in SF. Once you get over your housing differential, everything else is much more mellow.

icebraining2• 7 years ago

I think the argument is that comparable housing is not the same percentage of your income is both areas - ie, people in a LCOL may be paying the same 20%, but they live in a two-story house instead of a room or tiny apartment.

qntty• 7 years ago

You're right, but people aren't talking about the % of their income they pay in housing. They're talking about how much is left after they pay for housing.

q845712• 7 years ago

Are you saying that "high" COL means a house costs $500k? in my limited experience, you're off by 1.5-3x.

The house I spent my teenaged years in was purchased for less than 100k and will still sell today for less than 100k. I think my mom would get her money back, and maybe some appreciation, but the sale price of that home will reflect the dwindling economy of the town and region it's in.

In contrast, the house for sale a quarter mile from my current apartment is listed at 2.4 million. It's a little bit larger than my mom's, but the plot of land is probably a little smaller (big house, small yard vs. post WW2 development full of ranch houses with yards big enough for kids to run around and play in).

The town my mom's in isn't a food desert, but I can get an order of magnitude more variety of produce, substantially fresher (for most of year -- during the local late summer and harvest season she can get fresh, local, cheap produce).

And similarly, the town my mom still lives in isn't a dead economy, but there's no way i'm getting a tech job with an office within bicycling distance of her house, whereas from my current apartment i can bicycle to a few dozen local technology employers.

Also I'm currently willing to pay a premium for good weather.

dsfyu404ed• 7 years ago

Every interaction with a business that has a presence in your HCOL area caries a price premium because those businesses are getting fleeced by their landlords who are getting fleeced by their plumbers who are getting fleeced by their landlords...

The HCOL area isn't the obvious net win it should be on paper. I live in a "blighted shithole" so to speak. I paid $10 for a buffet dinner and $0 for parking. All those nickles and dimes really add up fast.

bradjohnson• 7 years ago

It's strange to hear someone tell people making less money that they're too 'smug' about living in a less universally desirable part of the world.

gniv• 7 years ago

There is another dynamic here: Small cities are trying harder to attract workers. Here is a nice writeup illustrating this: https://annehelen.substack.com/p/this-land-is-your-land

2819b• 7 years ago

I can't help but think to myself "how does this person live here?" whenever I interact with a service worker in SF, particularly one that doesn't appear to be in school. It's not a healthy reflex but I have to admit I have that thought all the time.

leesec• 7 years ago

East Palo Alto?

mrosett2• 7 years ago

Maybe 7 years ago. Even EPA is pretty expensive these days.

sreyaNotfilc• 7 years ago

The more I think about SF the more I shudder. There's an interesting video "How to Fix San Francisco" what a guy uses Google Maps to showcase the structure of the town. It was eye opening. SF is jammed packed with people. From the skyview it looks grey with streets and buildings. No nature, no parks, nothing.

But why (serious question)? Other than A) Growing up there and B) Silicon Valley bragging rights the city does not seem to have much going for it. Yet, people still live there and pay a hefty price to do-so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObkdErzqXy4

paul7986• 7 years ago

And the homeless epidemic there :-(

UncleMeat• 7 years ago

The city has excellent food, art, music, and other culture. In the suburbs I can't go see a world class gallery of modern art. Or go see a musical. Or go see live jazz. Or go to a bar that specializes in modern cocktails. It is also a capital of activism and support for the LGBT community.

Cities aren't for everybody. Some people really want green spaces and SF doesn't really offer much there but to think that there are no benefits is just wrong.

hardtke• 7 years ago

A lot of long time and native Bay Area residents have favorable housing situations, either by owning a family home from before the latest bubble, or by living in a rent controlled apartment or an apartment with a landlord who prefers tenant stability over chasing market rents.

robbyt• 7 years ago

Same situation in NYC, but there are many more people like this. The great majority of police, teachers, and other city workers in NYC are natives with homes bought in more affordable times, because nobody else could afford to live here on with such a low paid job.

The house I share was bought for $30,000 in the early 1980s, paid for by a single uneducated emigrient worker.

goobynight4• 7 years ago

Owning the property before the boom, living with parents that own the property or write software, dating software engineers, or commuting really. far

starpilot• 7 years ago

https://youtu.be/C0FnJDhY9-0

thorwasdfasdf• 7 years ago

Roughly 70% of SF is rent controlled, right? It's still hard, but possible.

goobynight4• 7 years ago

It's possible, just probably not a great idea

40acres• 7 years ago

There is an interesting flywheel effect going on in large productive cities, gentrification is pushing out those previously impacted by white flight. NIMBYs prevent dense suburbs, and we don't have adequate transportation for lower income folks to efficiently commute to job centers, what's our plan for folks without degrees? My prediction is a large increase in "welfare".

freehunter2• 7 years ago

The answer right now is exurbs. Big City gets too expensive to live in (or doesn't have enough housing) so people move to the suburbs because they're desirable and usually have a nice community, school district, and downtown of their own. When the suburbs fill up or become too expensive, people move to commuter towns (exurbs). Towns with no character of their own, no political force, no real economic activity. The only thing they have going for them is a quick and easy connection to the bigger city.

A few years ago I co-founded a company that provides services to Midwestern exurban towns with the goal of turning them from just a commuter's bedroom into places people might actually want to spend some time (and some money). It's one of the hardest challenges I've ever taken on.

notfromhere• 7 years ago

Can you give more details about this company?

squish78• 7 years ago

Does the source of this article actually say that it's people without college degrees who are leaving? The data only showed net migration, as far as I could tell.

atemerev4• 7 years ago

That's odd. I live in Geneva, Switzerland, where everything is expensive. College-educated people have huge salaries here, but it rises the cost of labor accordingly. Dishwasher installation was about $400 cash, babysitters take $20/hour. Nobody here will work for less. Why it isn't the case in SV?

ok_coo• 7 years ago

Because in America the free market applies to everything except for labor. /s

Seriously though, in the US practically every other option is considered before wages are raised. Wage suppression is real even if people don't want to admit it.

atemerev4• 7 years ago

Well, it's not only wages. Even if you pay cash to illegal immigrants here, it still will be quite expensive, they need money too (If you are not that rich, you can find cheap food here, cheap clothing, etc — but certainly not cheap labor). Perhaps it is the culture — the Swiss expect to pay a lot for everything, and prefer local-sourced products and services.

marcosdumay• 7 years ago

Because people in Switzerland are richer than in the US.

atemerev4• 7 years ago

Comparing the general population, perhaps. Comparing professionals — maybe not, I am a software engineer here, and I earn less than somebody of my qualifications would earn in Silicon Valley.

eloisant2• 7 years ago

I don't think tech workers in Silicon Valley are poorer than the Swiss. They can afford $20/h daycare.

As far as the rest of the population... Well they'd be richer if they were paid decent wages!

Why Workers Without College Degrees Are Fleeing Big Cities

Related Stories