My favorite target among the liberal intelligentsia is (and probably always will be) Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist. Krugman comes complete with the imprimatur of the Nobel Prize Committee that gave him an award in economics for his work regarding international trade. Sadly, Krugman decided that the prize made him an authority on just about everything. Yesterday, he was opining on the reasons for reduced social mobility. Krugman "explained" on the pages of the Sunday Times that it was lack of public transportation that the keeps the children of the poor from making it into the ranks of the richest in society. No, really, that is what Krugman wrote.
Krugman based his argument on a study that found that in Atlanta (with a poor transportation system) only 4% of the children born into families in the lowest fifth in family income make it into the top fifth while in San Francisco it is 11% of the children in the lowest fifth who make it to the top fifth. Krugman explains that since the poor in Atlanta are stuck in their own neighborhoods, they cannot get to the jobs which are in the better neighborhoods.
This is one of those studies done by academics with too much time on their hands and too much of an agenda to push. First of all, let's be clear about one thing: in a society with perfect opportunity only 20% of the children born into the lowest fifth would make it to the top fifth. That, however, assumes that the folks in the lowest fifth have children of equal opportunity to those higher on the income ladder. That is not right though. Being in the lowest fifth in income does no mean one is of lower intelligence, but people with lower intelligence are more likely to be in the bottom fifth. Children of folks with lower intelligence are also more likely to also have lower intelligence, so it stands to reason that on this basis alone, the children born into the lowest fifth of income are more likely to stay there than those born higher up the income chain. Second, because income depends in part on inherited wealth, those born to folks who have wealth to leave behind are also more likely to end up higher on the income ladder. Similarly, children born into families that can pay for college without huge loans are not burdened with debt when they enter the workforce and they can raise their incomes faster as a result. Third, without question, the public transportation system in New York City is better than the one in San Francisco. Indeed, the majority of New Yorker do not even use cars but rely on the subways and buses to get to work. If Krugman were correct, the figures in the Big Apple should show much more social/income mobility than elsewhere, but they don't. Fourth, one thing that well all know is that a person can buy a used car for next to nothing in this country. Sure, it won't be an Aston-Martin or even a new Ford Focus, but one can get an old car nevertheless. If the jobs are there but not available due to lack of public transport, someone with drive can buy an old car to get to work.
This whole post may seem unimportant, but it is not. In the days and weeks to come, we are likely to see another push by the left for more public transportation in order to foster social equality. You need to be ready when you hear "experts say that better public transportation will lead to more social equality." As the song goes, "it ain't necessarily so!"
Krugman based his argument on a study that found that in Atlanta (with a poor transportation system) only 4% of the children born into families in the lowest fifth in family income make it into the top fifth while in San Francisco it is 11% of the children in the lowest fifth who make it to the top fifth. Krugman explains that since the poor in Atlanta are stuck in their own neighborhoods, they cannot get to the jobs which are in the better neighborhoods.
This is one of those studies done by academics with too much time on their hands and too much of an agenda to push. First of all, let's be clear about one thing: in a society with perfect opportunity only 20% of the children born into the lowest fifth would make it to the top fifth. That, however, assumes that the folks in the lowest fifth have children of equal opportunity to those higher on the income ladder. That is not right though. Being in the lowest fifth in income does no mean one is of lower intelligence, but people with lower intelligence are more likely to be in the bottom fifth. Children of folks with lower intelligence are also more likely to also have lower intelligence, so it stands to reason that on this basis alone, the children born into the lowest fifth of income are more likely to stay there than those born higher up the income chain. Second, because income depends in part on inherited wealth, those born to folks who have wealth to leave behind are also more likely to end up higher on the income ladder. Similarly, children born into families that can pay for college without huge loans are not burdened with debt when they enter the workforce and they can raise their incomes faster as a result. Third, without question, the public transportation system in New York City is better than the one in San Francisco. Indeed, the majority of New Yorker do not even use cars but rely on the subways and buses to get to work. If Krugman were correct, the figures in the Big Apple should show much more social/income mobility than elsewhere, but they don't. Fourth, one thing that well all know is that a person can buy a used car for next to nothing in this country. Sure, it won't be an Aston-Martin or even a new Ford Focus, but one can get an old car nevertheless. If the jobs are there but not available due to lack of public transport, someone with drive can buy an old car to get to work.
This whole post may seem unimportant, but it is not. In the days and weeks to come, we are likely to see another push by the left for more public transportation in order to foster social equality. You need to be ready when you hear "experts say that better public transportation will lead to more social equality." As the song goes, "it ain't necessarily so!"
No comments:
Post a Comment