Maybe you've heard of Stephen Jay Gould. Among the many brilliant and wonderful things he penned was "The Median is Not the Message." He was interested in mesothelioma survival rates, but the logic applies here, too. Some will do worse, some will do better. But the statistical median salary of a 26 year old predicts nothing.
3
"Whatever progress [Manhattan's] schools have made, they're not generally considered to be among the nation's best." Maybe true (though my son LOVED LaGuardia), but affluent children don't go to them, so they can't really be a factor. Also, 26 is too young for a comparison, especially among the children of the affluent who are probably still collecting degrees at that age. Try again at 35 and see what you come up with.
2
This trend was found in a lot of affluent places. Knowing that the adult outcomes were measured when people were in their mid-20's, it seems likely that many of them were in graduate school, law school, medical, business school, internships, or other low-paying positions that ensure affluence by the 30's and 40's.
3
many affluent kids ore off in costa rica counting turtles after college, or skiing i switzerland. they are living off their parents largess.
26 may be too young for the analysis. Affluent Manhatten children are likely to go to medical school or get a JD/MBA that do not pay off by 26. It is also possible that they have a gap year that delays their entry to the labor market.
5
A number of things have changed since I was a kid in Manhattan in the 1960’s – 1970’s. The percentage of family income that is required to pay for housing has risen geometrically. Back then a family could purchase an apartment (or pay an appropriately scaled rent) for between 2 and 3 times annual family income. We paid $25.00 per month to garage our car in 1970.
Being rich (and letting everybody know) has become fashionable. Being and acting nouveau riche has become popular and acceptable behavior. New York City and Los Angeles are centers of conspicuous consumption. Many of the children of wealth I have met in the last 20 years appear to be quiet self-absorbed, obsessed with materialism and show few signs of emotional intelligence. Perhaps they are just emulating their parents.
Being rich (and letting everybody know) has become fashionable. Being and acting nouveau riche has become popular and acceptable behavior. New York City and Los Angeles are centers of conspicuous consumption. Many of the children of wealth I have met in the last 20 years appear to be quiet self-absorbed, obsessed with materialism and show few signs of emotional intelligence. Perhaps they are just emulating their parents.
6
Another possible reason: The top earners in NYC tend to be outliers in their field, whereas the richest families elsewhere are more likely to make money in ways their kids can duplicate.
It's easier to take over the family business or become a surgeon than to become another Beyonce.
It's easier to take over the family business or become a surgeon than to become another Beyonce.
4
Manhattan is bad for all children. No homes that I can see -- only skyscraper condos over dirty, smelly streets. And that's downtown! Sorry, but that's how I see it.
1
Then it is obvious you don't know this city.
2
Growing up 'affluent' in Manhattan can be like being designated as a pre-med major from the moment of birth, if not conception. (Do 'prestige' pre-schools accept the as-yet-unborn for their waiting lists, as long long as a name can be assigned once amniocentesis has determined the kid's gender?) It's just being pushed to relentlessly compete, not just for grades but in matters of appearance as well, with constant evaluation by one's own - and other - 'helicopter' parents - and the constant danger of being snapped, captioned and trolled for moments of slack or, Heaven forbid, non-conformity. The result? Like ending up as a real pre-med at Harvard, where they actually had sections of Organic Chemistry - the traditional memorisation-misery make-or-break class - that get smeared into a second-semester course where they have no hope of exceeding a 'B' no matter how high their exam and lab grades. (That was years ago, but I doubt that things have loosened up any.) So, of course, a performance that might be considered straight-A in other parts of the country could end up on the low end of the curve on Peter Minuet's $24 island. That will do one's kids' future prospects about as much good as a nice, big drink of The Rev. Jim Jones' Jonestown Kool-Ade.
Still want to try to raise a family in Manhattan?
Still want to try to raise a family in Manhattan?
Manhattan attracts the best and brightest from all over the country & world and most people who grow up in Manhattan tend to want to continue to live in Manhattan. It sounds harsh, but statistically speaking, as a whole they are out shined by the crème of the crème who descend upon the city and take the best and highest paying jobs.
Another related theory of mine: the affluent children in NYC often times (it seems) have an uber sense of entitlement. That's never good for personal drive; many children of high net worth families at a young age develop the misconception they can maintain their social status and way of life and pursue their interests non-reflective of income potential. More so than in other parts of the country where the arts, for example, are not as admired. On top of that, many have a sense of superiority simply because they live in Manhattan (eg. "bridge and tunnel" people and people from middle America are lesser people). When the best and the brightest and the hardest working from these areas come to the City to compete, the truth comes out in statistical averages.
Another related theory of mine: the affluent children in NYC often times (it seems) have an uber sense of entitlement. That's never good for personal drive; many children of high net worth families at a young age develop the misconception they can maintain their social status and way of life and pursue their interests non-reflective of income potential. More so than in other parts of the country where the arts, for example, are not as admired. On top of that, many have a sense of superiority simply because they live in Manhattan (eg. "bridge and tunnel" people and people from middle America are lesser people). When the best and the brightest and the hardest working from these areas come to the City to compete, the truth comes out in statistical averages.
2
The New Jersey counties close to New York are very diverse. Essex County, for example, includes Newark (very poor) on one side and Millburn (very rich) on the other. The Millburn public school system is one of the nation's best. The Newark public school system was so bad it had to be placed under State control.
Analyzing data by counties might have made sense fifty or sixty years ago, when America was still largely agricultural. These days, however, most Americans live in cities, and many of them live in towns that form the suburbs of cities. There are multiple towns within a county and the towns are often very different.
Perhaps it's convenient to use county data for "historical reasons". Perhaps it's just laziness. Either way, there's not much value in a study that achieves its lowest relevance where the greatest number of people live.
Analyzing data by counties might have made sense fifty or sixty years ago, when America was still largely agricultural. These days, however, most Americans live in cities, and many of them live in towns that form the suburbs of cities. There are multiple towns within a county and the towns are often very different.
Perhaps it's convenient to use county data for "historical reasons". Perhaps it's just laziness. Either way, there's not much value in a study that achieves its lowest relevance where the greatest number of people live.
2
Let's not forget the role of intra-cohort competition. Institutions like colleges or big employers may knowingly or unknowingly encourage geographical diversity. But in their mind, Manhattan (if not NYC) is one region just as Atlanta is one region. Never mind that Manhattan has 4x as many people. Thus if the top 10% of Atlanta makes it somewhere, only the top 2.5% of Manhattan makes it there too.
1
"The more important questions about all of these issues do not involve affluent and upper-middle-class children. Most of them will be just fine, whether they grow up in Manhattan or not."
Except in NYC and the northeast and among so many affluent, well-educated parents, they make decisions about their children based on a fear they will end up impoverished immiserated. Among my generally well-off, educated and mostly two-income professional group of friends who live in NYC and other urban areas, an early obsession sets in with securing what's "best" and "entirely passable" with inferior or harmful, despite the fact all the data from these studies clearly contradicts the this false equivalency.
Your passing mention of NYC's public schools as "not generally considered the best" reinforces the idea that a child born with a generous surplus of social capital may still be in danger if he's not afforded superior experience and education from the beginning ('Send him to private school!'). It's ironic you point to the effects of income inequality on these issues while simultaneously signaling to well-off readers they should still worry in a way that exacerbates and encourages disparate resource distribution in society. But it also explains how it's a problem no one wants to face: If we want to contribute to a solution, those in the educated classes need to confront our toxic assumptions & competitive fears - and have more faith in what we bring to our children.
Except in NYC and the northeast and among so many affluent, well-educated parents, they make decisions about their children based on a fear they will end up impoverished immiserated. Among my generally well-off, educated and mostly two-income professional group of friends who live in NYC and other urban areas, an early obsession sets in with securing what's "best" and "entirely passable" with inferior or harmful, despite the fact all the data from these studies clearly contradicts the this false equivalency.
Your passing mention of NYC's public schools as "not generally considered the best" reinforces the idea that a child born with a generous surplus of social capital may still be in danger if he's not afforded superior experience and education from the beginning ('Send him to private school!'). It's ironic you point to the effects of income inequality on these issues while simultaneously signaling to well-off readers they should still worry in a way that exacerbates and encourages disparate resource distribution in society. But it also explains how it's a problem no one wants to face: If we want to contribute to a solution, those in the educated classes need to confront our toxic assumptions & competitive fears - and have more faith in what we bring to our children.
6
Very interesting data but I think the timing of the data point is misleading. If these children grew up in "households" making 400K, I imagine most 26 year olds living in Manhattan (having been one myself) have not yet married. Many of them have not yet found a longterm career. Many are still pursuing higher education which bring down averages. The real comparison, which may take years of followup, will compare what these children are making (their "household income") when they have children of their own.
4
There'a a lot of guessing by the study authors about interpretation of their outcomes. What good, in many ways, is looking at average incomes, especially in an area where extreme differences are the norm? Showing median incomes, or averages at different levels of income, would reveal more. And as others have said, if there was some indication of whether these "disadvantaged" affluent offspring are in fact well subsidized would throw a different light.
It is remarkable that the cultural riches of Manhattan do not appear to enrich the lives of poor children . . .
It is remarkable that the cultural riches of Manhattan do not appear to enrich the lives of poor children . . .
3
I don't disagree but want to pick up on your comment about Manhattan's cultural opportunities not enriching poor children's lives. Sadly, poor children will only encounter those opportunities if adults get them there. Other "advanced" countries have longer school days and longer school years, supported by taxpayers, that allow for more time spent learning -- including cultural education and trips outside the school. Our ridiculously short school days mean that poor children in public schools barely get enough instruction time in the basics, then are left to their own devices in impoverished neighborhoods. The adults in their own communities may not be aware of the cultural riches in Manhattan or may be uncomfortable taking kids there. Wouldn't it be wonderful if poor children could spend their afternoons safely guided by knowledgeable adults among the cultural offerings of one of the greatest cities in the world? Wouldn't it be wonderful if those offerings spoke to them and were chosen to reflect more than a Euro-centric point of view? There are so many barriers between poor children in New York and the museums, arts, and other experiences there.
Averages. You show averages of incomes. Consider that those who are poor do even worse than your map shows because, in truth, they do. Much worse. The media loves statistics stories because they are? Easy. For the reporter. But for the person living the poor end of the stick nothing is easy. A job paying $26,000 a year (guaranteed) with insurance benefits and a retirement plan would be so much less stressful than what they are really doing. Get real, please.
1
There is a strong statistical bias in these results. High income in Manhattan corresponds to lower income elsewhere (wages are higher, along with prices). So they compare Manhattan families to families elsewhere with the same income but lower social class. Once the Manhattan children grow up they move out they follow the pattern of their social class, and earn less.
2
So I guess access to the finest world-class museums no longer counts in measuring successful "outcomes" for our children. Nor the opportunity to enjoy theater, symphony performances, opera. Nor take advantage of an extensive public library system. Nor exposure to people and ideas from all over the world. I wonder how many of those children growing up elsewhere and making lots of money are chomping at the bit to come to NYC. Or maybe they have immigrated to NYC and that's why they're earning so much.
2
I love New York and lived there and the Hudson River Valley for 25 years. But, really a 26 year old can't afford the Met $25, the Whitney $20, theater tickets 1/2 price at $50-$100, Opera stratospheric, rent $2500 for a studio!
Most of these kids don't go to museums and/or their parents still support them.
It is a city of "haves", tourists, "have nots" and "I don't care millenials"!
Most of these kids don't go to museums and/or their parents still support them.
It is a city of "haves", tourists, "have nots" and "I don't care millenials"!
8
There's a lot of free and inexpensive culture in NYC, and young adults are very savvy about how to access it. From art galleries to free days at museums, from preview days at the theatre to the tkts booth, from concerts at Juilliard to free outdoor concerts, Manhattan offers a cultural bonanza for practically nothing. My two sons and their friends meet up to walk on the Highline, have a picnic, and then go to an outdoor concert. If they want a romantic evening, they take the Staten Island ferry afterwards, instead of the touristy Circle Line, for pretty much the same view.
1
false news. comparing earnings at 26? Affluent parents support their children through post college internships etc and then support them through graduate school. A comparison at 35 or 40 might have been more realistic. A physician or lawyer to be might not have even graduated professional school at 26
11
Sure, but are you suggesting that Manhattan-raised children from affluent families are less likely than those from other areas to attend graduate or professional school at age 26?
1
False values. Trying to keep up with the Bloombergs - when you have neither the extreme wealth or the aptitude.Couple that with essentially absence of any face to face time with parents, technology overload, and the feeling of inadequacy a teen feels when surrounded by success and good luck in the extreme...all a happy childhood does not make.
1
Interesting...I guess I should move.
1
The other "bigger question" is about gender inequality. Why are there such disparities among girls and boys across income distributions (both ways) and what can we do to provide more opportunities for girls. Look at your map guys. I'm surprised it's not mentioned here.
3
Is it so hard to say "I don't know?"
Former Manhattanite here.
I wonder if cost of living is a factor. It costs more to live in Manhattan, so real incomes (in terms of purchasing power) are not as high as they look. Kids from high-income families aren't as privileged as they would be in other places, and perhaps as a consequence their income-based outcomes (since they won't all work in expensive but high-wage locations like Manhattan when they grow up) are likely to be lower than their parents.
I wonder if cost of living is a factor. It costs more to live in Manhattan, so real incomes (in terms of purchasing power) are not as high as they look. Kids from high-income families aren't as privileged as they would be in other places, and perhaps as a consequence their income-based outcomes (since they won't all work in expensive but high-wage locations like Manhattan when they grow up) are likely to be lower than their parents.
5
'...$50,000...That’s a lot of money for a 26-year-old. The national average for 26-year-olds is only $33,000...'
Does the author not know that $50,000 in Manhattan is equivalent to $33,000 or less in most other states? It is not 'a lot of money', no one can live on it here, unless they have roommates.
'...Perhaps Manhattan has a lot of affluent families whose children choose jobs that do not maximize a person’s income, such as teachers, professors, stay-at-home parents, politicians or musicians...'
Manhattan has a lot affluent families, both native-born and foreign nationals, whose children are 'artists', 'musicians', and 'poets' and can indulge their every whim because their family pays all their bills.
These Trustafarians are not doing community service jobs or helping others, you can see them at bars and coffee houses, slumming in the 'real' parts of Bushwick and Greenpoint and the Lower East Side, driving rents into the stratosphere for the rest of us who chose badly in our parents.
Does the author not know that $50,000 in Manhattan is equivalent to $33,000 or less in most other states? It is not 'a lot of money', no one can live on it here, unless they have roommates.
'...Perhaps Manhattan has a lot of affluent families whose children choose jobs that do not maximize a person’s income, such as teachers, professors, stay-at-home parents, politicians or musicians...'
Manhattan has a lot affluent families, both native-born and foreign nationals, whose children are 'artists', 'musicians', and 'poets' and can indulge their every whim because their family pays all their bills.
These Trustafarians are not doing community service jobs or helping others, you can see them at bars and coffee houses, slumming in the 'real' parts of Bushwick and Greenpoint and the Lower East Side, driving rents into the stratosphere for the rest of us who chose badly in our parents.
33
I live in NYC and my experience is that young, affluent Manhattanites are still going through professional training or have low paid jobs in the arts by age 26. Many parents pay a significant portion of their children's living expenses, including rent. Ultimately, a good paying job is important but many of them are still setting up their careers with their parents financial help. These young people probably won't hit their financial stride until the age of 32 or so. They also tend to get married later and this study is recording household income. So a young married professional couple in West Virginia both making $30K a year (total of $60K) will show a higher household income than a single adult Manhattanite making $30K in NYC working a starter job and partially financed by his/her parents.
These professional career paths often take years to complete (eg. MD, attorney, self-supporting artist), and many upper middle Manhattan parents will partially or fully financially support their children while they are attaining their education/training. There are other areas of the country where self sufficiency is expected at an earlier age.
These professional career paths often take years to complete (eg. MD, attorney, self-supporting artist), and many upper middle Manhattan parents will partially or fully financially support their children while they are attaining their education/training. There are other areas of the country where self sufficiency is expected at an earlier age.
21
A more relevant article would be "Are Affluent Children Bad for Manhattan?"
48
As the song famously said, "If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere." I'll bet people from around the country and around the world are singing that song in their heads as they arrive. Maybe not so much people who were born and raised here.
5
Umm..the whole county thing is a ridiculous example of bad methodology.
Re: Manhattan: Perhaps the children of people who make $400k in Manhattan only make $50k when they're 26 (as opposed to the $56k made by kids whose parents made the same amount of money but grew up elsewhere) because the people making $400k in Manhattan would only be making $100k (or possibly way less) anywhere else in the world?
The map shows that poor kids growing up in *my* county (Mercer) do, on average, less well than poor kids growing up elsewhere. Well...gee..does it matter WHERE in Mercer County they live? Mercer County contains three of the top rated school systems in the state (Princeton, West Windsor, Hopewell) but it also contains Trenton, which is one of the worst. I wonder which school system most of the poor kids go to? I guarantee you that if you take a poor kid out of Trenton and move him into my neighborhood, he's going to make way more money when he grows up.
Re: Manhattan: Perhaps the children of people who make $400k in Manhattan only make $50k when they're 26 (as opposed to the $56k made by kids whose parents made the same amount of money but grew up elsewhere) because the people making $400k in Manhattan would only be making $100k (or possibly way less) anywhere else in the world?
The map shows that poor kids growing up in *my* county (Mercer) do, on average, less well than poor kids growing up elsewhere. Well...gee..does it matter WHERE in Mercer County they live? Mercer County contains three of the top rated school systems in the state (Princeton, West Windsor, Hopewell) but it also contains Trenton, which is one of the worst. I wonder which school system most of the poor kids go to? I guarantee you that if you take a poor kid out of Trenton and move him into my neighborhood, he's going to make way more money when he grows up.
20
Did the study adjust for the proportion of 26 year olds still in school pursuing graduate or professional degrees?
18
I was about to post exactly this. At 26 I was a Ph.D. (STEM) student living on a generous stipend but well under 50k! But my degree has opened doors to careers I would have no chance at without my doctorate. Is there a higher rate of Manhattan-born children in law, business, medical or doctoral programs? If so than this must be taken into account.
2
This Upshot states that a family living in Manhattan making $400k per year is quite affluent and you'd expect a child of that family who makes $50k at age 26 to have done better than that compared to 26 year olds elsewhere in the country who make a good deal less. Hm. Maybe a family making $400k *in Manhattan* is quite a bit less well off than a family making $400k in other parts of the country. Seen in that way, their child is doing pretty great. I am not worried about that child. Once again, the Upshot is tripped up by misuse of statistics.
5
Yes, where I live, $400,000 per year is vastly wealthy. Here, people with that income would live in a full-scale mansion with daily help.
For my husband and I to approximate our standard of living here, for just the two of us, in Manhattan, would take over $400,000 per year.
Also, even the children of the educated, professional class out here are perfectly happy to go to Big 10 schools, so the pressure to pay for high-dollar schools is lower. We had no trouble paying our daughter's way. I can't imagine the pressure that middle class parents feel to pay for super expensive schools. I get that a lot of schools offer "packages," but a student loan is a terrible anchor to hang around a child's neck.
I checked out our county (in the middle of nowhere), and kids do better from here. My daughter and her husband each made considerably more than $55,000 by 26, but they do live in a big city that is not New York. They do not live extravagantly at all.
New York is wonderful. But I can't imagine the financial stress of living there.
For my husband and I to approximate our standard of living here, for just the two of us, in Manhattan, would take over $400,000 per year.
Also, even the children of the educated, professional class out here are perfectly happy to go to Big 10 schools, so the pressure to pay for high-dollar schools is lower. We had no trouble paying our daughter's way. I can't imagine the pressure that middle class parents feel to pay for super expensive schools. I get that a lot of schools offer "packages," but a student loan is a terrible anchor to hang around a child's neck.
I checked out our county (in the middle of nowhere), and kids do better from here. My daughter and her husband each made considerably more than $55,000 by 26, but they do live in a big city that is not New York. They do not live extravagantly at all.
New York is wonderful. But I can't imagine the financial stress of living there.
8
Thin air at the 90th floor ultimately takes its toll on the developing mind.
13
Yes
The bottom line is that Professor Chetty's study isn't yet accomplishing what he hoped it would do: identify advantages in nurture in some places that could be adopted in the rest of the country.
I don't think his quest is utterly hopeless, but he needs to vastly refine his methodology to tease out very subtle differences. That's the history of these kind of studies going back to the federal government's Coleman Report of 1966.
The most obvious things he needs to do are:
- Adjust all his data for cost of living differences around the country.
- Think much harder about how to adjust for the manifold effects of regression toward the mean. For example, the reason Chetty finds "Manhattan is extremely bad for children in families in the top 1%. It is among the worst counties in the U.S" is because it's only natural for the children of the small number people who clawed their way to the very top -- "If I can't make it there, I can make it anywhere!" -- to regress toward somewhat lower incomes on average. It's a statistical inevitability.
- Furthermore, Chetty will get more useful results if he admits that race is fundamentally relevant to his study, in that blacks regress over the generations toward a lower mean than whites or Asians. For people other than trans-racial adoptees, race is statistically descriptive to some degree of both nature and nurture, so it's hardly surprising that his national maps always come out with an obvious racial cast to them.
I don't think his quest is utterly hopeless, but he needs to vastly refine his methodology to tease out very subtle differences. That's the history of these kind of studies going back to the federal government's Coleman Report of 1966.
The most obvious things he needs to do are:
- Adjust all his data for cost of living differences around the country.
- Think much harder about how to adjust for the manifold effects of regression toward the mean. For example, the reason Chetty finds "Manhattan is extremely bad for children in families in the top 1%. It is among the worst counties in the U.S" is because it's only natural for the children of the small number people who clawed their way to the very top -- "If I can't make it there, I can make it anywhere!" -- to regress toward somewhat lower incomes on average. It's a statistical inevitability.
- Furthermore, Chetty will get more useful results if he admits that race is fundamentally relevant to his study, in that blacks regress over the generations toward a lower mean than whites or Asians. For people other than trans-racial adoptees, race is statistically descriptive to some degree of both nature and nurture, so it's hardly surprising that his national maps always come out with an obvious racial cast to them.
16
Professor Chetty's methodology produces many curious results, such as:
"Marin County [in California] is extremely bad for children in families in the top 1%. It is among the worst counties in the U.S."
versus
"Boone County [in West Virginia] is pretty good for children in families in the top 1%. It is better than about 70 percent of counties."
http://www.unz.com/isteve/amazing-chetty-facts-boone-county-wv-is-very-g...
"Marin County [in California] is extremely bad for children in families in the top 1%. It is among the worst counties in the U.S."
versus
"Boone County [in West Virginia] is pretty good for children in families in the top 1%. It is better than about 70 percent of counties."
http://www.unz.com/isteve/amazing-chetty-facts-boone-county-wv-is-very-g...
15
I went to private schools on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and the "best" neighborhood in Dallas during the period of this study.
In NYC, a large portion of the richest students had parents in the arts -- actors, directors, writers, etc. About half of my friends went into the arts or academia or left-leaning politics. We internalized the message that it was much more prestigious to be published in Paris Review than to be, say, a successful accountant. At reunion, some alumni still sheepishly introduce themselves as "just a doctor" or "just a lawyer."
In Dallas, everything was about money, money, money -- what kind of car you drive, whether you shop at Neiman's, how many designer labels are visible on your outfit. My classmates' ambitions tended to be about making money.
However, New York has become more like Dallas over the past couple of decades. It's become a parody of Sex and the City with $20 cocktails and $500 shoes. I would bet that 20 years from now, the rich kids currently growing up in NYC are more likely to be hedge fund managers than poet laureates.
In NYC, a large portion of the richest students had parents in the arts -- actors, directors, writers, etc. About half of my friends went into the arts or academia or left-leaning politics. We internalized the message that it was much more prestigious to be published in Paris Review than to be, say, a successful accountant. At reunion, some alumni still sheepishly introduce themselves as "just a doctor" or "just a lawyer."
In Dallas, everything was about money, money, money -- what kind of car you drive, whether you shop at Neiman's, how many designer labels are visible on your outfit. My classmates' ambitions tended to be about making money.
However, New York has become more like Dallas over the past couple of decades. It's become a parody of Sex and the City with $20 cocktails and $500 shoes. I would bet that 20 years from now, the rich kids currently growing up in NYC are more likely to be hedge fund managers than poet laureates.
65
Too true. And sad.
2
A corporate lawyer friend who worked at a prestigious NYC law firm told me they much preferred hiring SUNY and Fordham graduates, usually the first in the family to get a college degree, as they were hungry and hard-working.
The worst were the Harvard and Yale graduates, who were rich prima donnas with no work ethic, as they had never so much as made their beds as children.
Drive and ambition, whether you are in the .01% or the bottom 10%, trump all.
The worst were the Harvard and Yale graduates, who were rich prima donnas with no work ethic, as they had never so much as made their beds as children.
Drive and ambition, whether you are in the .01% or the bottom 10%, trump all.
8
No disrespect to SUNY and Fordham graduates, but no student gets through Yale or Harvard law schools without a strong work ethic.
2
Regression toward the mean no doubt plays a role.
Some of the kids who used to be living with their parents in high-paying Manhattan in the past now live some place less high paying (every place other than San Francisco and/or Williston, ND is lower paying than Manhattan). Some of the kids who were living with their parents somewhere else than Manhattan now live in high-paying Manhattan. (Among people making $400k, a not insignificant percent of their kids decide to try to see if they can make it in NYC.)
Some of the kids who used to be living with their parents in high-paying Manhattan in the past now live some place less high paying (every place other than San Francisco and/or Williston, ND is lower paying than Manhattan). Some of the kids who were living with their parents somewhere else than Manhattan now live in high-paying Manhattan. (Among people making $400k, a not insignificant percent of their kids decide to try to see if they can make it in NYC.)
6
In some ways Manhattan is big, or at least diverse. It not all affluence. However, I raised my daughter here, even withn the public school. She did fine, had unusual experiences and is now in college out of state and doing well.
3
This study also suggests that living in Los Angeles County is bad for affluent children. LA county comprises an area of over 4,700 square miles and includes cities that vary wildly in demographics. Some neighborhoods are suburban with kids that walk to school and participate in activities like scouts, sports and music. Other areas have high crime rates, few parks and little in the way of after school activities. This study may be useful when looking at the big picture but the details seem unreliable to me.
7
A lot of young people of middle class or upper middle class background have moved out of Los Angeles County to find cheaper housing, even at the expense of lower nominal incomes, in outlying counties and in other states, such Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas.
Professor Chetty should ask Mrs. Chetty to explain to him how families think about real estate costs versus income.
Professor Chetty should ask Mrs. Chetty to explain to him how families think about real estate costs versus income.
1
26 is just an odd age. My guess is that most of these children from the very affluent are still in graduate school.
1
As I pointed out back 2013, Professor Chetty very much needs to adjust his data for the wildly different costs of living and salary levels in different parts of the country. $400k in some parts of the country is a huge amount. In Manhattan, it's not.
A corporate attorney making $400k in Tulsa, say, is living the good life. A corporate attorney making $400k in Manhattan has a much lower standard of living.
A corporate attorney making $400k in Tulsa, say, is living the good life. A corporate attorney making $400k in Manhattan has a much lower standard of living.
36
$400k is SIX times the Manhattan median HH income and 3.3x the average. It puts you well into the top 10% of Manhattan households. It's still affluent even by local standards.
14
Yes, but the 400K in Manhattan allows you to live in Manhattan. If you spend your 400k in Tulsa, you'll have a big house and lots of disposable income, but you will be living in Tulsa, which is a lovely place with great people, but which doesn't have the same level of economic opportunity, the diversity of jobs, the extent of educational resources/institutions, equivalent cultural amenities/events, etc., as a city like NYC. Manhattan is expensive because it has lots of things that lots of people want; Tulsa is less expensive because there is much less demand for living there (although it is a really nice place, not hating on Tulsa!).
17
Manhattan is expensive because it's an island with limited space while it is the center of certain high paying industries (eg finance) so that wealthy individuals are competing for severely restricted resources. Even for them, it's a rat hole.
1
Does the study look at the amount of wealth kids of affluent Manhattanites may have acquired without working? Eg things like trust funds? Would that be included as household income? If not, if there is a hidden source of capital, these children might well be able to choose more rewarding, lower paying, jobs?
53
I suspect that part of the issue relating to the lower relative earnings of affluent young adults who are native Manhattanites is that the peer group they are measured against when they hit their mid to late 20's contains many of the 'best and the brightest' from all over the country and abroad. A kid who grows up wealthy in NYC - and who returns to the local job market after college / grad school - has to compete for jobs with high-achievers who grew up elsewhere.
28
One downside to growing up in the city is the very long hours affluent parents work. I know many families where both parents leave home before their kids and don't get home until after 9 pm or even 10pm. The children are in the care of nannies most of the time. Often incredibly nice, competent and well educated nannies, but still perhaps not ideal especially when parents may also be working weekends. Some of these families let the kids stay up very late so they can at least get a kiss goodnight. That works until they start school but keeping school aged young kids up until 10pm isn't so great. And the parents wind up super stressed because the minute they stagger home at night the kids land on them all desperately wanting a bit of attention. Then the workplace becomes the only non chaotic sane place and so the incentive to get home earlier is diminished.
26
My suspicion is that the affluence measurement doesn't adequately account for Manhattan's high cost of living -- particularly housing and private education. A family earning $400K per year elsewhere has a great deal more disposable income to invest in college education and other resources that lead to children's success later on. Yes, lower marriage rates will impact income too, but the cultural hypothesis about artists not valuing money rings false.
11
Everyone knows that many affluent parents move their families out to the nearby suburbs --Conn, NJ. Westchester, LI. Hudson Valley if they can--- leaving the affluent who can't make the move for some reason--- to be in this study. The family supports are there already and have been there for generations now--sports, scouts, schools, churches, public parks--everything--so that families are able to be much more focused on their own children that on everyone else. There is a concentrated peer group for every affluent child in a suburban town-they can find friends more easily. Maybe the ones who don't move, can't, because of their demanding jobs and they are less-inclined to focus on the best enviroment and upbringing of their children. That is a choice they make to the long term detriment of their child though they may not want to admit that.
It's much easier to daytrip into NYC for a bit of culture for a suburban affluent family than it is to drop into a suburb for participation in a sport or group by an affluent city family.
It's much easier to daytrip into NYC for a bit of culture for a suburban affluent family than it is to drop into a suburb for participation in a sport or group by an affluent city family.
17
We stayed in Manhattan to raise our family because we had low rent and good public schools. I stayed home with my children for 6 years. We nverd had a nanny. My children (and their friends) went to the top-rated colleges and universities without having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on private school, tutors, etc. My children have friends and social supports galore in Manhattan. Most of these comments are based on stereotypes. Stereotypes are rarely, if ever, the reality.
3
Ah, OK.
Shall we then paraphrase the question of "Are some school systems just bad"?
Shall we then paraphrase the question of "Are some school systems just bad"?
5
According to two different cost of living calculators, a couple making $400K in Atlanta would need to earn over $850K in Manhattan to have the same standard of living. So the Manhattan family is just not as rich as other couples with the same income living elsewhere. If Manhattan isn't the highest cost place in the US - it's darn close. Even moving from San Francisco you'd need to earn over 25% more just to stay even.
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-cost-of-living-calcul...
http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/