Americans born to low-income families are faring worse than the last generation in most major U.S. cities, a new analysis finds.

#Intergenerational #mobility
— the idea that you'll do better than your parents, your children will do better than you, and so on
— is core to the American dream, but is far from a guarantee.

A new analysis from the Census Bureau and Opportunity Insights, a research group at Harvard University, seeks to measure intergenerational mobility at the county level.

Researchers compared the average household income at age 27 for Americans born to low-income families in both 1978 and 1992 to get a localized picture of changing opportunities over time.

What they found:
In 38 of the 50 biggest U.S. metro areas, Americans born to low-income families in 1992 were doing #worse at age 27 than those born in 1978 at that age.

Brownsville, Texas, had the biggest increase across generations: Those born in 1992 made $33,500 at age 27, compared to $31,400 for those born in 1978 (up 6.7%; adjusted to 2023 dollars).

Philadelphia had the biggest drop, with those born in 1992 making just $27,200 at age 27, compared to $31,200 for those born in 1978 (down 12.8%).

Between the lines: The geography of mobility has shifted dramatically, especially when breaking down the data by race.

"By 1992, upward mobility for low-income #white children in the #coasts and in the #Southwest fell markedly to rates on par with those observed in #Appalachia and other areas that historically offered the lowest chances of upward mobility," the researchers write.

"Conversely, for #Black children, upward mobility
increased the most in the #Southeast and the #Midwest
— areas where outcomes had historically been poorest for Black Americans."

Yes, but: "Black children born in 1992 still had poorer prospects of rising up than white children in virtually every county in America, because initial Black-white disparities were so large."

The bottom line:
Changes affecting one generation quickly affect the next,
the researchers say, and "thereby generate rapid changes in economic mobility."

"While this carries hope for how opportunity can improve, it also comes with some caution, as communities can experience declining opportunity in a similar timeframe."

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/13/upward-intergenerational-mobility-us-cities

"Are you giving #guitar lessons face to face now?"

I get asked this in txt just about every week from what would have been prospective customers, and from students taking lessons online.

My answer is the same as it's been for almost 3 years now:

The #covid #epidemic took off when a critical point was reached - that appeared to be about 10,000 infections. Given that you can go 14 days asymptomatic (ignoring the retro-causality violation of the #CDC's revised "convenience guidelines) *my* metric for a safe reopening is when the rate drops to 10,000 a day, and stays there for 28+.

I know my reasoning has created a woosh effect for many, so:

1) More than 28 days, because someone infected on day 2 of an initial 14 days won't change the statistics at 14 days. *You don't know if the rate is constant until at least double the asymptomatic duration. It makes no sense for me to gear up reopening my brick-and-mortar business if it turns out at day 16-17 the rate is going back up.

2) .... yes, 14 days asymptomatic. I don't care if you can cite a *particular* cherry picked variant shows other behavior: even if you believe that to be representational of "all variants", *you don't - you *can't* - have current data on newly emerging #variants*. 14 days is what used to be called a "prudent number".

3) .... no, I don't care what the CDC says. They're obviously politicized. My reasoning is sound.

4) I am, for better or worse, going off of CDC numbers. I am taking them with a grain of salt, since "for some reason" #HHS changed the reporting requirements back in January, and CDC change theirs July 4. Again, it is only prudent to presume the real infection rate is much, much higher than what the CDC reports*.

5) I am tempering this with CDC waste water data, which leads (...used to, back when the CDC listed a daily infection rate...) the infection rate data.

6) I am also tempering it all with another observational metric of N=~30: my #Guitar students.

*It makes no sense for me to resume face to face lessons when I have a student out with covid every other week!*

* If I'm sitting in a room, sharing air with someone for 30 minutes, there is zero chance I'm not going to get covid over and over, as well as transmit it to others. It's irresponsible and stupid.

7) I don't care how mainstream "thought" cares to typify the pandemic. I've read dozens of papers in the past years, skimmed *hundreds* of studies, watched dozens of lectures by virologists, epidemiologists, others. Without presenting any evidence - because I'm just a peasant - I believe:

- Every time you're infected you are risking a possibly severe episode;
- Every time you're infected you are most likely suffering some sort of organ damage, that is "invisible";
- CD4 T-cell destruction is real
- #Longcovid is real, and appears to be a certain risk for 1 in 5 - mild, #comorbid or not.

Another way of looking at it, get covid 5+ times and your chances are "quite good" of having long covid. As it is, I know quite a few people that have tested positive 3 times, some 4 times. With the attitude of #letitrip, it's #mild, "most people" will be infected 5 times and more.

This is completely insanity.

So no, I don't care how "mild" you think it is, or that you had it and it was "just like a cold", or "a friend got over it in a week" - I believe in my Peasant Medical Education over the past years more than your anecdotal interpretation of what you think you've seen.

I haven't had a full schedule in a long time now, and money is tight. I'm effectively turning away business because here in the #Southeast United States the #propaganda has been ladled on pretty heavily, most people don't wear masks, and a lot literally don't believe covid is real. So I'm an outcast.

It's my belief we are now in an endless cycle that will see surges in April (post #SpringBreak) July (post July 4), and post #Holidays in January. Waste water data shows people are obviously carriers days before that.

I claim there will be another surge in January. I hope the waste water data shows it being lower than this year; I'm afraid it could be higher. Regardless, *unless there is no surge in January NOTHING HAS CHANGED*.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

The old and weak have been killed in the past years. Covid is not going to have the Shock and Awe that it had in 2020. Right now it should be shocking and awing parents, but I've also learned sociopathy is more prevalent than I thought...

NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Except one thing....:

Twitter. Again, I hope the migration here - or even anywhere else, will change people's attitude through the January surge. The pandemic would be much better had certain people, bots, not had Twitter as a disinformation platform.

Regardless, I'm looking for it to drop to ~10,000 infections a day. You should be, too.

#guitarlessons
#Pandemic
#booster
#masks
#distancing