Where Workers Go, Do Jobs Follow?

Using data from the 1990 and 2000 Census of Population, an analysis of workers and jobs in the central cities and lower- and higher-income suburbs of the largest 150 metropolitan areas indicates that:

Roughly 65 percent of all residents and nearly 60 percent of all jobs are now located in the suburbs, with over a third of each in the higher-income suburbs. More individuals now live in the higher-income suburbs than in the central cities, and nearly as many jobs are in the higher-income suburbs as well.

Population grew strongly during the 1990s in the lower-income suburbs, while job growth was particularly strong in the higher-income suburbs. Residential populations grew by 36 percent in lower-income suburbs, compared to just 24 percent in the central cities and 16 percent in the higher-income suburbs; while employment growth was more rapid (at 26 percent) in the higher-income suburbs, than in the central cities and lower-income suburbs (18 percent each).

Population growth in the lower-income suburbs for blacks and Latinos has been especially dramatic, while their employment growth in these areas lags behind. Population growth in the lower-income suburbs is also especially pronounced for less-educated groups. But job growth lags behind population growth in the lower-income suburbs and exceeds it in the higher-income suburbs for all educational groups.

Most groups of residents in the lower-income suburbs must now commute out for work, especially to the higher-income suburbs. Major changes in commute patterns over the 1990s were observed among Latinos (and, to a lesser extent, high school dropouts), with the sharpest increases in commutes towards the higher-income suburbs occurring among members of these groups who live in the central cities and lower-income suburbs.

The accessibility of residents of lower-income suburbs to jobs in higher-income areas appears to vary greatly across metropolitan areas. Lower-income suburbs are largely contiguous to higher-income suburbs in some metropolitan areas (such as Baltimore and Boston) while they are mostly concentrated on different sides of the central cities in other areas (such as Atlanta, Chicago, and Denver).

These findings suggest that local labor market policy should better maximize access to good jobs and skill-building opportunities for all workers throughout the metropolitan area. Employer access to potential workers should be enhanced as well, regardless of where the workers and the jobs are located.

Notice the advice at the end of the article: “These findings suggest that local labor market policy should better maximize access to good jobs and skill-building opportunities for all workers throughout the metropolitan area. Employer access to potential workers should be enhanced as well, regardless of where the workers and the jobs are located.”

This is the Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank. They seem to imagine that government can dictate the solution. Their findings, of course, reveal exactly the opposite: that the people who create jobs understandably don’t want to build their offices or plants in the middle of inner city slums.

I read the authors’ summary recommendation as urging governments to provide greater “access” to good jobs for people living in the “urban core” through higher investment in public transportation. Of course, the assumption of the article is that most of the people in the urban core have the qualifications for those jobs. If they did, however, the companies would build facilities there in the first place.

I think the statement is meant as an endorsement to high capacity public transportation between suburbs and cities. Many suburbs aren't served by public transportation. Also, the high-income suburban growth is probably slower than the lower-income suburbs because of the housing density in the latter.

High income suburbs are likely to have larger homes on larger parcels, limiting population growth. Lower income suburbs are likely to include smaller tract housing on smaller parcels and condominiums and apartments - more population capacity per acre. I think the intent of the study is to find a way to extend city services into the surrounding suburbs so as to make employment in suburban companies easier for unemployed city dwellers. Buses, light rail and subways are ways to accomplish their dreams.

I never cease to be amazed, at how left-thinking writers manage to not just get the cart before the horse, but to confuse the two. Jobs are created where those who create the jobs are. Jobs are not created where those who do not create jobs are. Total idiots. They will also sit around and speak of these simple correlations of economics in terms of "models".

How about, "Where jobs go, Workers follow". Duh!

What have you been smoking?

I think the intent is to provide an excuse to tax high income suburbs to provide money for transportation, subsidies to business, and just plain general income transfer to low income suburbs. The way to justify this is to postulate a regional job market.

For reasons of crime, work ethic, and qualifications good jobs are frequently generated in high income areas. The socialists want to suppress this.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.