The New York Times has been doing a series of articles about the lack of opportunities in Baltimore and similar places, and today published an interesting map of the whole country, by county, purporting ( I haven’t studied the data base) to show how living in certain counties is good or bad for young people who are from families without much money. It shows of course that inner cities are bad in this regard, and in fact most of California is bad, or at best neutral, including all of Greater Los Angeles. They measure it by how much above or below the norm are the earnings of someone who grew up there when he/she reaches the age of 26. Most of the places giving results above the norm ( topping out at about $3000 above the norm) are in New England and the northern part of the Midwest.
Lois
Well, what else can we expect from a system based on the conviction that maximizing profits was job one,
and that consuming as much; as fast; as possible, was a virtue?
Where’s that map showing “growth potential” for the country?
Yeah, now that would be an interesting one to do in decadal slices going back a hundred years or so.
Not that anyone would learn anything from it.
As they say the die is set. :down:
Hey Lois, what’s with your signature?
Is it supposed to look like that?
red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand." ― George Eliot, Silas MarnerWhat's the secret message?