The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local

This seems like an obvious consequence of globalism and the nature of the labor market. Also seems consistent with Picketty’s thesis about capital growth. The days when being a US citizen gauranteed affluence are coming to a close. To see the future look at California; refugees from Guatemala living amongst young millionaires, mostly immigrants also. A global community, sliced into ever narrower tranches by the invisible hand. It’s the future we choose.

&quot;Within the same state or metropolitan area, inequality today is large and extreme, in part because of the continuing effects of racial discrimination&quot;<p>What is the ratio of discrimination to starting from a historically disadvantaged (i.e. non-recompensed) position?<p>This article reads like a narrated census rather than a true insight into the problem.

I’m amazed the article didn’t mention the political correlation between the “big metros” and everywhere else. We know that increasingly “Blue America” is exclusively these major metros and “Red America” is everywhere else. But all these better outcomes are correlated to living in Red America, which they say is mostly due to affordable housing.<p>I don’t really know what to make of that, but it’s interesting to me.

This all speaks to a calcification of opportunity in the USA where coming from a good family background (with strong educational opportunities) means opportunities abound. If you come from a disadvantaged background, you are likely to stay there.<p>This is essentially meritocratic feudalism.

I’m not sure what the motive is of this piece. Are we going to tax more the most opioid ravaged parts of Ohio to pay for the poor in New York City?<p>Poverty today is closely linked with housing prices. If your housing is too expensive, it’s up to fix it (looking at you California).