Climbing the economic ladder? Think north and east

Just released research conducted by the Pew Center has revealed that economic mobility (upward and downward) varies by state.

From CNN:

Residents of eight states, primarily in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, have the best shot of moving on up, according to the Pew Economic Mobility Project, which just released what it calls the first state-level study on the subject.

But those living in nine southern states have the poorest chance of bettering their situations, the project found.

Click to expand...

Economic mobility highest in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic - May. 10, 2012

The Pew Center's Economic Mobility Project can be found here: Economic Mobility Project - Pew Center on the States

The Pew Center's page on the report can be found here: Pew Center on the States

The state-by-state statistics can be found here: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/MobilityofStates_Data.pdf.pdf

Not surprising imo.

To be upward mobile you need a level playing field. Countries that have this have high upward mobility.. those that dont have low.

Very misleading. A lot of this has to do with the much higher cost of living in these highly-taxed, overpopulated, issue-laden metropolitan areas.

You have to pay people a LOT of money to get them to move to those crapholes, and even more to get them to stay.

A 6,000 square foot home on a tree-lined acre of land in Dallas-Fort Worth can be had for $1 million easy. In New York or Washington, it would be $3-4 million, and in prime areas in California, it would be even more than that.

A burger and fries in New York can run upwards of $18-20. It just costs more to live there, so you have to bribe good people to do so.

Erod said:

Very misleading. A lot of this has to do with the much higher cost of living in these highly-taxed, overpopulated, issue-laden metropolitan areas.

You have to pay people a LOT of money to get them to move to those crapholes, and even more to get them to stay.

A 6,000 square foot home on a tree-lined acre of land in Dallas-Fort Worth can be had for $1 million easy. In New York or Washington, it would be $3-4 million, and in prime areas in California, it would be even more than that.

A burger and fries in New York can run upwards of $18-20. It just costs more to live there, so you have to bribe good people to do so.

Click to expand...

We do have good burgers and fries up here...just saying.

Erod said:

Very misleading. A lot of this has to do with the much higher cost of living in these highly-taxed, overpopulated, issue-laden metropolitan areas.

You have to pay people a LOT of money to get them to move to those crapholes, and even more to get them to stay.

A 6,000 square foot home on a tree-lined acre of land in Dallas-Fort Worth can be had for $1 million easy. In New York or Washington, it would be $3-4 million, and in prime areas in California, it would be even more than that.

A burger and fries in New York can run upwards of $18-20. It just costs more to live there, so you have to bribe good people to do so.

Click to expand...

Very true. COL in California and New York is ridiculous. I'll take my Great Lakes view any day, even the snowy ones.

PeteEU said:

Not surprising imo.

To be upward mobile you need a level playing field. Countries that have this have high upward mobility.. those that dont have low.

Click to expand...

According to Pew, the primary drivers indicate a lack of a "level playing field":

"We know that there are certain drivers of mobility and they include things like educational attainment, savings and asset building and neighborhood poverty during childhood, among other things," said Currier.

Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like "if you come from a fairly well off family, you're more likely to climb that economic ladder yourself."

Interesting study, but the data doesn't really suggest that you'll "climb the economic ladder if you move to the northeast." The results only pertain to "Americans born between 1943 and 1958" and a simple two-point comparisons where they "measured their earnings when they were age 35 to 39 and again when they were age 45 to 49." So... we're looking at an early Boomer cohort and how their earnings changed mostly during the late 80's/early 90's.

It's quite a stretch to pretend that we can generalize that to today's population and today's economy.

Before you buy into how some news organizations choose to interpret the findings of this study:


It's probably worth looking at data from 2012 rather than what was good for older boomers in the 80's and 90's - because that seems to suggest moving in the opposite direction, South and West:

Economic Growth by State (most recent)
Economic Growth statistics - states compared - Economy data on StateMaster
# 1 Arizona: 8.7%
# 2 Nevada: 8.2%
# 3 Florida: 7.8%
# 4 Idaho: 7.5%
# 5 Oregon: 6.7%
# 6 Utah: 5.8%
# 7 Virginia: 5.6%
# 8 Montana: 5.4%
# 9 Wyoming: 4.9%
# 10 Hawaii: 4.8%

Business Insider Best States for Job Growth Next 5 Years
The Best States For Job Growth For The Next 5 Years - Business Insider
1 Arizona
3 Texas
3 Florida
3 Idaho
6 South Carolina
6 North Carolina
8 Washington
8 Tennessee
8 Oregon
8 Georgia
8 Colorado

Forbes:
1 Texas
2 Nevada
3 Arizona
4 New mexico
5 North dakota
6 Utah
7 Florida
8 Oklahoma
9 Georgia
10 Oregon

donsutherland1 said:

Just released research conducted by the Pew Center has revealed that economic mobility (upward and downward) varies by state.

From CNN:



Economic mobility highest in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic - May. 10, 2012

Click to expand...

Well when you've gone as low as you can go, the only other option is up. Those of us in the south are still in good shape and it's easier to be pulled down, than to move up.

The difference in earnings growth between Texas and New York is 5% and that's over a 10-year period which would come out to 0.5% per year. Hardly a dent in the paycheck so I can't say I give much credence to this study. If you want to achieve the American Dream, get out and do it...get off you butt and work for it!! No study should stop you from doing that.

Interestingly enough, some of Pew's findings reflect data concerning college participation rates for students with low-income families. In general, the regions containing states with the highest college participation rates for such students did well in the Pew study, while the regions containing the states with the lowest rates did not fare as well. The data may suggest that education remains a key mechanism for upward mobility.

For 2010, the states with the highest and lowest college participation rates for students from low income families were as follows:

Highest:
1. New Hampshire: 55.6%
2. New Jersey: 50.1%
3. New York: 48.5%
4. Vermont: 46.1%
5. Massachusetts: 45.9%
6. Michigan: 45.8%
7. Pennsylvania: 44.1%
8. Ohio: 43.2%
9. Minnesota: 43.1%
10. Maine: 42.1%
11. Iowa: 41.8%
12. Wisconsin: 40.5%
13. Connecticut: 39.1%
14. Rhode Island: 38.5%
15. Maryland: 38.3%

National Average: 33.3%

Lowest:
1. Alaska: 10.1%
2. Wyoming: 18.1%
3. Oklahoma: 19.8%
4. Louisiana: 21.1%
5. New Mexico: 22.4%
6. Nevada: 22.8%
7. West Virginia: 24.1%
8. Utah: 24.1%
9. Washington: 25.1%
10. Texas: 25.2%
11. Idaho: 26.5%
12. Arizona: 27.2%
13. Mississippi: 27.5%
14. Kentucky: 27.5%
15. Alabama: 27.6%

Source: The data cited appeared in the March 2012 edition of Postsecondary Education Opportunity.

It should be noted that the data I cited above in the rankings is from 2010, which does not match the cohort studied by Pew. However, data that goes back farther shows a lot of persistence. States with relatively high college participation rates for students from low-income families typically sustain those rates. The same holds true for those with relatively low college participation rates. Hence, the issue of college participation by students from low-income families is a chronic one and, therefore, the data may have some utility.

donsutherland1 said:

Lowest:
1. Alaska: 10.1%
2. Wyoming: 18.1%
3. Oklahoma: 19.8%
4. Louisiana: 21.1%
5. New Mexico: 22.4%
6. Nevada: 22.8%
7. West Virginia: 24.1%
8. Utah: 24.1%
9. Washington: 25.1%
10. Texas: 25.2%
11. Idaho: 26.5%
12. Arizona: 27.2%
13. Mississippi: 27.5%
14. Kentucky: 27.5%
15. Alabama: 27.6%

Source: The data cited appeared in the March 2012 edition of Postsecondary Education Opportunity.

It should be noted that the data I cited above in the rankings is from 2010, which does not match the cohort studied by Pew. However, data that goes back farther shows a lot of persistence. States with relatively high college participation rates for students from low-income families typically sustain those rates. The same holds true for those with relatively low college participation rates. Hence, the issue of college participation by students from low-income families is a chronic one and, therefore, the data may have some utility.

Click to expand...

Only have a couple of minutes to respond - I'm not sure I see a strong correlation with the Pew Study, at least on the lower end.
-Only two of the "eight worst" identified by pew are in the lowest eight here
-Utah is one of the best on Pew, one of the worst here
-In general, the Pew study highlighted states in the deep south as the worst, whereas this list is largely made up of western states.
-Worth pointing out that the two lowest, Alaska and Wyoming, have very low poverty rates and very high median income compared to the rest of the country - for most kids in those states, college may not be the wisest route.