Urban inequality in Europe and the United States is so severe that urban elites claim most of the benefits from the agglomeration effects that big cities provide, while large parts of urban populations get little to nothing:
In recent years, researchers from across disciplines have identified striking and seemingly universal relationships between the size of cities and their socioeconomic activity. Cities create more interconnectivity, wealth, and inventions per resident as they grow larger. However, what may be true for city populations on average, may not hold for the individual resident.
"The higher-than-expected economic outputs of larger cities critically depend on the extreme outcomes of the successful few. Ignoring this dependency, policy makers risk overestimating the stability of urban growth, particularly in the light of the high spatial mobility among urban elites and their movement to where the money is", says Marc Keuschnigg, associate professor at the Institute for Analytical Sociology at Linköping University and professor at the Institute of Sociology at Leipzig University.
[...] An individual's productivity depends on the local social environments in which they find themselves in. Because of the greater diversity in larger cities, skilled and specialized people are more likely to find others whose skills are complementary to their own. This allows for higher levels of productivity and greater learning opportunities in larger cities.
But, not everyone can access the productive social environments that larger cities provide. Different returns from context accumulate over time which gives rise to substantial inequality.
[...] Consequently, the initially successful individuals in the bigger cities increasingly distanced themselves from both the typical individual in their own city, creating inequality within the big cities, and the most successful individuals in smaller cities, creating inequality between cities.
The study also finds that top earners are more likely to leave smaller city than larger ones, and that these overperformers tend overwhelmingly to move to the largest cities. The disproportionate out-migration of the most successful individuals from smaller cities results in a reinforcement process that takes away many of the most promising people in less populous regions while adding them to larger cities.
[...] "Urban science has largely focused on city averages. The established approach just looked at one datapoint per city, for example average income. With their focus on averages, prior studies overlooked the stark inequalities that exist within cities when making predictions about how urban growth affects the life experiences of city dwellers", says Marc Keuschnigg.
With respect to urban inequality, the study draws attention to the partial exclusion of most city dwellers from the socioeconomic benefits of growing cities. Their lifestyle, different than among the urban elite, benefits less from geographical location. When accounting for the cost of living in larger cities, many big-city dwellers will in fact be worse off as compared to similar people living in smaller places.
Journal Reference:
Martin Arvidsson, Niclas Lovsjö, Marc Keuschnigg, Urban scaling laws arise from within-city inequalities, Nature Human Behaviour 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01509-1
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 25, @07:18PM (5 children)
>The study also finds that top earners are more likely to leave smaller city than larger ones, and that these overperformers tend overwhelmingly to move to the largest cities.
I moved from a city with a population of 2.3 million to a city with a population of 140,000 and in that move demanded (and received) a salary of $115K - something the big city wouldn't blink at - commensurate with my experience at the time, but apparently was eye-wateringly high in the small town. I continued to be paid $115K/yr through a number of employers in the small town, but it was hard to find them and they always grumbled about it. Seems that the going rate for my skill set there is closer to $45K, $60K tops - even though once I was hired at $115K my employers were always pleased with their ROI.
Finally, I moved to a city with a population of 1.0 million where $115K is no big deal, and advanced through normal-ish raises to over $150K. I haven't checked back in the small town, but I doubt they've changed their rates at all.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Saturday March 25, @07:41PM (4 children)
Or you can be lucky like me and work for a huge corporation with the corporate philosophy that everyone at the same level needs to earn the same money (to avoid the dreaded "I get less because I belong to marginalized group X" lawsuits), no matter where you are. And I'm in a small office in the middle of nowhere where a house (not a stately mansion, but far, far larger than a single person can sensibly use) runs you around 150k instead of paying 500k for a tiny 400sqft flat in the capital.
A lot of corporations move towards "same pay on same tier" payment for exact that reason I mentioned, you just have to find one with offices somewhere in the middle of nowhere. And of course you have to be ready to move there.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 25, @08:35PM (3 children)
This town of 1M has relatively low cost of living, so the large corporation I work for tends not to hand out promotions to higher levels here. Same type of responsibility in a higher cost of living town would get Principal or Senior Principal or Fellow or some such tacked on to their title and a 20-50% pay increase to go with it.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Sunday March 26, @01:05AM (2 children)
They don't dare to do that anymore here. Unless you actually have seniority, i.e. can show that you have the years of experience, no matter where you are, no matter who you are, the pay is down to the cent equal. There have been some nasty lawsuits around here based on discrimination, so that's simply and plainly a no-go. Same work level, same pay. To the cent.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 26, @01:40AM
I think you miss the point: we get the same pay for the same titles, but some product development in lower cost of living areas is done by "senior software engineers" and very similar product development is done in higher cost of living areas by "senior principal software engineers" who were promoted to that level at hiring time.
Then we can talk about what our colleagues in India and China are paid. It's not really comparable, India gets free shuttle service from home to work and back. I don't think our colleagues in China have on worksite dormitories but many companies do... We did have pretty ridiculous turnover in China for awhile, after 6 months they made so much money relative to what they were used to they would quit and go back to the boonies where they came from.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 26, @02:09AM
Work From Home adds an interesting twist to this calculus... Used to be that the big corporations rarely had offices in small towns, particularly for the R&D work I do.
In the last 3 years, I have been invited to the office twice but never required to go (and in fact only went once.). So, commuting from anywhere is much easier now.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by DadaDoofy on Saturday March 25, @08:12PM (5 children)
"while large parts of urban populations get little to nothing"
This is not at all surprising. Large parts of urban populations contribute nothing and exist solely on social benefits funded by those who do contribute.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 25, @08:45PM (2 children)
The building I work in employs 80ish design engineers and related jobs earning 100-200k, another 100ish test and manufacturing engineers earning 60-120k and 300ish assembly workers earning 25-50k, and 15ish executives earning $250k+
In other words, the bulk of our employees are paid relatively little, but without them nothing gets produced. The executives perform the valuable function of communication between upper management and the rest of us. Apparently that communication is worth 10x what actually building the product is worth?
Ben & Jerry tried for a reasonable company wide income ratio, and it worked for them until they started interfacing with the bigger distribution channels.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @09:31PM (1 child)
Those highly-paid employees could almost certainly do the jobs of the lower-paid employees, but the reverse is not true. Also, the supply of people who can do the high-paying jobs is much more limited than the supply of people who can do the low-paying jobs.
In other words, the highly-paid employees are worth more (otherwise, the companies wouldn't be paying them more). This isn't hard to understand.
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 25, @10:55PM
>the supply of people who can do the high-paying jobs is much more limited than the supply of people who can do the low-paying jobs.
That's the story, having worked with both, I can tell you that there are some line workers who would do a better job in the executive role than some of the executives. Not all, not even a majority, but at least 25% of the executives could be improved by replacement with select line workers.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Sunday March 26, @12:39AM (1 child)
In my experience, those are the folks that get all the money. The people doing all the work get little.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 26, @02:12AM
Another interesting calculus is: you need hundreds of assembly workers, but only one CEO, so paying the CEO something crazy is not only possible, but not much of a strain on the company. Doubling salary of the line workers would sink many companies.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday March 25, @10:23PM (2 children)
Your best neighbor is the one you can't see in the next fjord.
I've lived in cities. The biggest I've managed to feel somewhat good living in was 250,000 in. Now I live in the boonies way up north and while there are some drawbacks - mostly the inconvenience of remoteness for things like groceries and getting mail quickly - the advantages far outweigh them.
The silence is priceless. City dwellers don't know what silence is.
Never having to lock your doors is priceless.
Breathing clean air is priceless.
Fuck city life - big or small. The elites can keep it: I'm much richer than they are in because I'm happier than they are.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Sunday March 26, @01:09AM
This right there. The silence alone is worth anything. I know that some neighbor in my street goes to work at 4am. How I know? It's the ONLY car you hear any time between midnight and 6am. From about 10pm to 6am, the loudest noise is the insects. And even they only in Summer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 26, @01:16AM
>Never having to lock your doors is priceless.
We live in a city of 1M and don't have to lock our doors either, but we do anyway.
Being out in the boonies, there is no point in locking your doors at all because in the rare event someone does want to burgle your home, nobody will hear the glass breaking, police response times to alarm calls are likely measured in hours, etc.
I do envy your silence, though we have a relatively quiet spot for being less than 10 minutes away from 3 grocery stores.
Clean air is a tricky thing, if you have any agriculture nearby burning of the fields (and applications of pesticides) can make our "city" air seem clean by comparison, though due to our quiet location the neighbors (and we) burn excess cardboard, pallets, branches, etc. And of course the idiot neighbor also burns plastics.
What has really tied us to the larger city is schools and services for the children. If it weren't for that, we would be deciding between 100+ acres "somewhere nice" that we could afford or a smaller home on a relatively uncrowded Caribbean island, which can be even more tranquil than the boonies on a continent.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26, @01:43AM
Maybe should help them to move out of the city if they're really getting nothing from being in a city?
But seems like many still prefer to be in the city than to move to rural areas. Guess they still benefit despite the increase in inequality? Good luck finding a fully equipped and staffed hospital in a rural area.
FWIW cities can be more environmentally friendly than having all the humans spread out and doing more damage to the environment. 8 billion people, 4 billion hectares of forest. Good luck having enough forest for tigers, elephants etc if all those billions were living in the forest.
What you could do is have better internet connections at rural areas. Then more of those WFH jobs can remain in the USA instead of being sent to Asia or elsewhere.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 26, @09:50AM (1 child)
I think a huge thing missing here is that cities aren't fully responsible for the "successful few". It's global trade networks - which large cities happen to be well-connected to. That also explains the "high spatial mobility among urban elites". If the value came solely from the city, then they'd lose considerable value by moving. Their high mobility indicates otherwise.
For example, the Seattle metro area isn't responsible for the massive success of Microsoft: it's their decades of market dominance of both operating systems and office software (word processor, spreadsheets, etc). A variety of cities could have served just as well for the company's headquarters. They basically just need solid internet access, a good, local labor pool, and a nice airport. Seattle just happens to be where they are.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 26, @12:07PM
While you are correct to an extent, different cities have different talent pools and that influences which industries develop there.
I started "out of place" in Miami, big city but I got a very rare for the location job in medical device development. When that ran out 12 years later, there were no more jobs in med device development in Miami available (a few in manufacturing, but that's actually quite different). So, I was highly paid and in demand, just not in Florida that year.
Worked for another company in a smaller town doing development of an MRI device, when we acquired our investors, they demanded the company move to a different small town (far away) to be close to a population of experienced MRI developers, basically so we could poach them without having to convince them to relocate.
Some skills are available in basically any big town, many are less evenly distributed.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 27, @03:06PM
The premise of this article is highly debatable because we are in the midst of a sea change in social constructs. Most of us here know that the technological underpinnings have been in the works for several decades, and many of us have been the ones building those, so we are not as surprised by what has finally arrived in the public consciousness. Public figures and the general public, however, rely almost entirely on habits and customs. They do things a certain way because that's how they've always done them, and they expect that tomorrow will be the same and so will the next day.
The cities that exist today have the form they do because that is what the best level of technology persuaded them to be. That is, centralization was the most efficient. Now the de-centralized systems that Soylentils and people like us have pioneered have changed the calculus such that centralization comes with undue costs. That means everything that was built around centralization now has to adjust or disappear, and boy are they not happy about it. In fact, I believe that's what's behind the current political discontent and the absolute panic of the elites who made their fortunes on centralization.
That aside, of course cities were designed to celebrate and court the elites. They always were. And in a system designed around them, by them, to benefit them, it made sense for non-elites to cluster around them and hope for scraps that fall from their tables. To be in close physical proximity to them, to serve them, and to reap ancillary benefits from that, paid.
As such, it has been much better to be in the city than the countryside for a long time, if not always. You can go to museums and see all the riches of the ages on display for the price of a subway token and a minimal door fee. You can watch free concerts in the parks performed by the finest artists of the age. On holidays there are magnificent displays of fireworks. And so on, and so on. The wealth and largesse bestowed upon all city residents no matter their bank balance, is staggering.
Now, do the poor residents of the housing projects get on the subway and go see the incredible sights in those museums, even though they can and can afford it as well as anyone else? No, not at the same rates. At most they go as kids on school field trips, before they're old enough to really understand and appreciate what they're seeing. But that's a question of family practice, not any systemic financial oppression. Anyone can avail themselves of the opportunities in the city, and even if they do often they do not appreciate what they have because they have never gone without it.
So the status quo has been complex enough already, but now we have to consider that modern cities are about to implode because of the technical and social shifts that have been catalyzed by the coronavirus. New York City, for example, depends on its finances almost entirely on property taxes. But with nobody coming into the office anymore, companies are relinquishing their footprints and paying a lot less in property taxes. All those office workers staying at home are not buying meals or doing anything else in the city, so all those businesses are suffering. Long term, a city cannot paper over a change like that and the longer they try to the harder they're going to fall.
When that happens, the rich and the middle class, basically anybody with the financial ability to leave, will. And then the poor people who dislike living in a city with rich people are going to really dislike living in a city with no rich people at all.
Washington DC delenda est.