Okay. I'm reading this: "Diamond also found that as cities increased their share of college graduates between 1980 and 2000, they also increased their bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, museums and art galleries per capita. And they experienced larger decreases in pollution and property crime, suggesting that cities that attract college grads benefit from both the kind of amenities that consumers pay for and those that are more intangible."
And my reaction is: yes, there is inequality, but what we're seeing here is that college graduates are improving their cities. Awesome!
And I really dislike this 30,000-foot view of humanity:
"""
"When you have more college grads, all of these amenities seem to improve in your city," Diamond says. "But that may be at the expense of kicking out lower skilled workers to other cities."
It also comes at the expense of other cities that may lose their college grads. What happens to Toledo and Baton Rouge without them?
"""
I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities. I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives.
I don't think Diamond is asking you to make choices that improve society. He's attempting to analyze systemic changes in society accurately. And from that perspective, it is not only appropriate but absolutely required that you look at overall shifts, not just one city in isolation. The extent to which a particular city's improvement is "internal" vs. just zero-sum shifting at the expense of other cities, is pretty relevant to that. If college graduates vs. non-graduates are self-segregating and this explains a large part of the wealth changes in both directions (the places that get more graduates get richer, the places with fewer get poorer), then I think it is not really accurate to say that "college graduates are improving their cities", or at least it is not the whole story. It would be more accurate to analyze it as a migration, something like: college graduates are concentrating in some areas and not others, and wealth flows accordingly. Assuming, again, that systemic flows of educated people are the main causal factor in wealth changes, as Diamond claims.
> I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives.
There were times, in my country, when they even dared to instruct women to make more children for the state (Eastern Europe, before 1989). It was their "patriotic duty" to make babies. Not to mention that university graduates were distributed by them to whatever city they wanted, at the end of the studies (married students were sent together though). Moving to another city was prohibited generally - for the same reason - they saw people as pawns to move around as they pleased.
I really dislike this idea that we should always elevate individual wants over the overall societal benefit of having integrated societies with low levels of inequality.
"I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities."
This dogma has penetrated very, very deep amongst techies. The invisible hand seems to be a drop-in replacement for any reflexion about morality for some.
>I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities.
That's the "for the community" view vs the "for the individual" view. When people start thinking in the second, more selfish, way, households, neighborhoods, cities and countries go downhill quickly.
I think that, paradoxically, as most things in life, it's the "community first" attitude that creates stronger and more empowered individuals. The "self first" attitude, despite the widespread mistrust, fear, hate and selfishness, also results to loneliness, depression, less power (because when you're just by youself you can be crushed more easily by others, etc).
>I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives.
It's not "political goals". It's solidarity, duty, love, connection, ties, roots, caring for where you live, caring for the neighbor, all those things. It's easy to dismiss them as "chains".
So is it a zero-sum deal? If there is a certain "type" of person that makes cities better when they are present can we make more of this type? Or must we simply choose between moving them all to a few special extra-nice cities and scattering them out so that all cities are equally mediocre?
A lot of people do care about helping other people. It is fantastic that you are not one of them but I find it an odd, yet more common theme now, that they like to celebrate this characteristic of themselves..
>I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives.
While in this case I do agree with your conclusion, the argument that people should just be able to live their lives is what gave the suburban sprawl, which makes it costlier to offer good services, etc.
> They're gaining access to high-cost cities like New York or San Francisco that offer so much more than good jobs: more restaurants, better schools, less crime, even cleaner air.
Yes, and a lot of these folks are spending the vast majority of their disposable income on housing and discretionary income on the so-called "amenities" mentioned in the article.
Don't get me wrong: it's great to be able to live in a desirable area with high employment, but at the end of the day, it's not what you make, it's what you keep. There are a lot of folks like this guy[1] who confuse cashflow from employment with financial security.
The paltry savings rates in this country aren't just a product of the less educated, lower-wage workers. If you look at national averages, it's pretty obvious that most college graduates aren't doing a great job of converting their higher wages into savings and assets.
i dont think that is fair. just because they are not taking advantage of their improved situation doesnt mean they dont have a situational advantage.
What im trying to say is, they do have a huge net benefit, but they may not be financially behaved to actually save it. My former roomate quite a bit of money and spent a great deal of it on alcohol. you could increase his wage, he'd just find a way to spend more. you could decrease his wage, and his spending on those non-accounted things would drop.
"Census data suggests that in 1980 a college graduate could expect to earn about 38 percent more than a worker with only a high-school diploma. Since then, the difference in their wages has only widened as our economy has shifted to bestow greater and greater rewards on the well-educated. By 2000, that number was about 57 percent. By 2011: 73 percent."
Regardless of how I feel about this, I wonder a bit what these numbers would look like if you took the one percent out of the equation. The distribution of wealth right now is totally nuts and concentrated at the very very top. If we were to remove them my suspicion is that it still would be trending up but maybe somewhat less severely.
This article doesnt state what census figure explicitly it was pulling from; however, its the norm to use median household income (or some other median value) as to not be skewed by outliers. In that case, removing the top 1% wouldnt make a difference.
"has shifted to bestow greater and greater rewards on the well-educated."
I'm old enough to have seen that the lifestyle and quality of living for the average college grad has decreased quite a bit over than interval, its just decreased MUCH further for non college grads, who are generally now found only in the trades, unemployed, manual labor, or are special and unusual anecdotal snowflakes. The numbers are of course better because we reward numbers. I'm writing about actual lifestyle and quality of life.
Inherently there's no reason why credentials result in better bartenders, waiters, baristas, receptionists, file clerks, but it does make it somewhat more likely that a given individual will have any job at all.
This gives the article a different tinge. Much as the future is already here, just unevenly distributed, some cities for arbitrary reasons may simply be more or less decayed than others. There may be some survivorship bias such that peculiar theories can be manufactured out of fundamentally random data. That city was in the FIRE business and is now rich, that city was in the automotive business, and isn't rich.
Didn't think of this, very good point. I also have a feeling this is by gross income. When we factor in college debt I think it will level off a lot more.
What degree of this is just how many college students is a city able to attract?
Georgia has worked very hard to make Georgia a good state for choosing to go to a local college, and I find it extremely unlikely that a large number of people are being pushed out of Atlanta due to cost of living, its extremely affordable to live in Atlanta, even more so if you consider the greater metro area.
This is a very good point. There are cities like Atlanta and Chicago that offer good jobs, good amenities and don't suffer in the same way - a large reason is ease of developing housing in areas there are demand. Boston, SF, NYC come with many unnecessary restrictions so supply is not able to shoot up with demand. Ed Glaser's book "Triumph of the City" discussed many of these issues.
This being hacker news I would ask if this is an inefficiency ready to be taken advantage of or a system ready to be disrupted?
I would argue that payment companies/services like Square are successful in part because they are doing just that. They lower the bar to someone with or without a collage degree starting a small business like a food cart or truck that can thrive in a collage grad heavy city.
Similarly sites that offer reviews make it easier for a business to prosper on merit and reduce the tendency of people to just go to a chain because they know what they will get.
I don't think this is an uphill battle. Surly a neighborhood feels more vibrant alive and inspiring when all the workers (tech and otherwise) are out on the street choosing from many unique options then when they all line up the mcdonald's drive through, starbuck's or the company cafeteria to get the same thing they got yesterday.
So what is the next great start up that helps make this happen?
The consequence of the food truck growth is that there are now many more mobile, explosive installations of gas in existence as opposed to restaurants which have a contained, inspected, fixed installations of gas.
At what point did we have the conversation as to whether this is a good thing? We didn't.
There's another article on the front page right now, http://www.venturedlife.com/episode-three that suggests Detroit could be the next Silicon Valley. I'd like to see an analysis of THAT article in the context of the findings reported on in THIS article.
Oakland and Washtenaw counties (adjacent to the county Detroit is in) have college graduates at rates far higher than the national average.
Washtenaw is about on par with San Francisco (but also only ~1/3 the population).
I think it's relevant because you don't need all those services to exist in the core of Detroit or a huge migration to get access to lots of educated people.
I am not sure how that could be prevented without reducing inequality. And I don't see how to raise the income of lower educated people in a world which is ever more automated.
Progressive taxation on wealth (not income). Then, mess with the curve of progressiveness.
Generating income becomes the unbridled thing. Sitting on mountains of wealth becomes futile. No dynasties. What have you done for me lately? You can live a king's life by generating obscene earned income, but your kids will only be assured easy street. Their kids only assured middle class. This gives grandpa and grandma a reason to improve the lot of the middle and lower classes.
If you let the lower groups fall too far into despondence, they will eventually come for your heads. You can build prisons to a point. You can create mental prisons to an extent. You can pacify the masses for a long while. Eventually, there's nothing left in the tank. Nothing to lose. Then, you lose stability and your choices are few.
The more your society reflects fiefdoms of the middle ages, the more you'll start seeing royalty thrown from windows and put on stakes.
We have the very wealthy (royalty). We have their military class ready to step in: Gun-coveting believers in the system that amazingly keeps increasing inequality. Then we have a growing base of servants who can't own land or tools of production (education). This looks increasingly familiar.
A lot of the richer cities have major restrictions on development that drive rents very high [1]. The cities that are attracting more low-income people (e.g., the Texas cities) have much more development-friendly policies that keep the rent lower despite massive immigration.
(1) The cost of attending college has grown faster than inflation over the past few decades.
(2) Yet, it seems that the ROI on college is high (for those you graduate), as evidenced in this article.
(3) There's another statistic that gets bandied in education reform circles: 43% of college grads in 2013 were underemployed (working jobs that don't need a college degree).
I wonder how #3 reconciles with #1 and #2. Perhaps this is a case of averages lying, and the ROI data for top colleges might look very different from bottom colleges (to the point where there may even be no income disparity between attending a bad college vs. not attending college).
Has anyone seen a better / deeper analysis of this?
Perhaps it's not the "going to college" that puts one at an advantage, but the "being able to go to college." In other words, the people who are able to make the choice to go and afford it were already at an advantageous position.
The Economist published a chart in April showing some of the (American) colleges with the highest and lowest rates of return on investment over twenty years. The article admits that the study "surely overstates the financial value of a college education" because it compares college graduates to non-attendees without trying to adjust for differences in intelligence, etc., so take it for what it's worth.
The employers probably "need" employees with at least average intelligence and conscientiousness, for which a college degree (in anything) is a decent proxy.
>Yet, it seems that the ROI on college is high (for those you graduate), as evidenced in this article.
The ROI of a college degree earned 30 years ago is high. Recent college graduates aren't faring so well. Those who do have jobs are frequently underemployed, living with their parents, and buried under school loans.
Pittsburgh is a pretty amazing place right now, because it's a recovering rust belt city that's managed to transition from manufacturing (steel) to services (health care, banking, higher education, technology firms) pretty well but because their initial crash was SO hard they still have very affordable cost-of-living comparitively. So you have all the public transit and nice museums and great libraries and all that but a bartender and a waitress can buy a house and raise kids together too. It's someplace where "hipsters" are not secretly living off their parents' money to front as making it.
Pittsburgh has really weird demographics, with an uneducated older population, an educated younger population, a big gap in middle-aged population, and a massive housing surplus.
Why? Pittsburgh's steel industry, which had tons of well-paid blue-collar union jobs, collapsed in the early 1980s: 'Following the 1981–1982 recession, for example, the mills laid off 153,000 workers.'[0] A lot of the working-age population left in the following years. The main thing remaining were a lot of world-class institutions in healthcare & education (much better than a lot of the Rust Belt, e.g. Detroit/Toledo/Milwaukee), so the people that come to & stay in Pittsburgh today are very well-educated[1]. The older population that had pensions or savings to fall back on when the steel collapse came, and didn't need to relocate for work, is a lot less educated.
"A higher share of college graduates also yielded higher wages for workers without college degrees, likely because employers have to pay them more to keep them in higher-cost cities:"
I'm wondering if the increase in average wage of non-college degree holders outweighed the higher cost of living in the cities with high concentrations of college degree holders.
If so, not so bad, all boats lifted higher by the tide &c. I suspect that the rise does not outweigh the increased cost of living, especially rents/housing costs. The result is a long commute added onto the day for the people who do not hold college degrees and who work in the chi-chi economy. That process has limits.
Perhaps it needs a generation or two to reach steady-state?
"They're gaining access to high-cost cities like New York or San Francisco that offer so much more than good jobs: more restaurants, better schools, less crime, even cleaner air."
lol what? The whole article reads like someone who has a giant boner for SF. Lots of assumptions that it's an objectively better place to live and obviously everyone wishes they could live there.
Tech job hubs are few and far between. There are only a handful of cities you have to choose from. Toledo and Baton Rouge aren't on the table for tech workers just like SF and NYC aren't on the table for a high school drop out.
Interesting article and data, it is basically a deep and narrow dive into one of the issues tacked by the 2008 book 'The Big Sort': http://www.thebigsort.com/
This just in: Rich people have better lives and are happier than poor people! Film at 11.
If they want people to start taking inequality seriously, the first thing journalists might want to do is to figure out what the hell they're trying to accomplish.
What if what the journalists are trying to accomplish is to make information available to people and prompt dialogue about the issues -- whatever the outcome of that dialogue?
[+] [-] civilian|11 years ago|reply
And my reaction is: yes, there is inequality, but what we're seeing here is that college graduates are improving their cities. Awesome!
And I really dislike this 30,000-foot view of humanity:
""" "When you have more college grads, all of these amenities seem to improve in your city," Diamond says. "But that may be at the expense of kicking out lower skilled workers to other cities."
It also comes at the expense of other cities that may lose their college grads. What happens to Toledo and Baton Rouge without them? """
I'm not subservient to helping cities-- I'm going to cities because of my own interests, and I absolutely reject any guilt to bringing down those cities. I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives.
[+] [-] _delirium|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] visarga|11 years ago|reply
There were times, in my country, when they even dared to instruct women to make more children for the state (Eastern Europe, before 1989). It was their "patriotic duty" to make babies. Not to mention that university graduates were distributed by them to whatever city they wanted, at the end of the studies (married students were sent together though). Moving to another city was prohibited generally - for the same reason - they saw people as pawns to move around as they pleased.
[+] [-] xorcist|11 years ago|reply
Each individual may have perfectly rational reasons for their behaviour. It can still be interesting to study side effects of their group behaviour.
The gist of the article can easily be lost if you preoccupy yourself with rationalisations about your own feelings about it.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RodericDay|11 years ago|reply
This dogma has penetrated very, very deep amongst techies. The invisible hand seems to be a drop-in replacement for any reflexion about morality for some.
[+] [-] coldtea|11 years ago|reply
That's the "for the community" view vs the "for the individual" view. When people start thinking in the second, more selfish, way, households, neighborhoods, cities and countries go downhill quickly.
I think that, paradoxically, as most things in life, it's the "community first" attitude that creates stronger and more empowered individuals. The "self first" attitude, despite the widespread mistrust, fear, hate and selfishness, also results to loneliness, depression, less power (because when you're just by youself you can be crushed more easily by others, etc).
>I dislike this attitude that sees people as pawns that we should move around for political goals rather than as people who are just living their lives.
It's not "political goals". It's solidarity, duty, love, connection, ties, roots, caring for where you live, caring for the neighbor, all those things. It's easy to dismiss them as "chains".
[+] [-] noonespecial|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kenjackson|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benatkin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rtpg|11 years ago|reply
While in this case I do agree with your conclusion, the argument that people should just be able to live their lives is what gave the suburban sprawl, which makes it costlier to offer good services, etc.
[+] [-] 7Figures2Commas|11 years ago|reply
Yes, and a lot of these folks are spending the vast majority of their disposable income on housing and discretionary income on the so-called "amenities" mentioned in the article.
Don't get me wrong: it's great to be able to live in a desirable area with high employment, but at the end of the day, it's not what you make, it's what you keep. There are a lot of folks like this guy[1] who confuse cashflow from employment with financial security.
The paltry savings rates in this country aren't just a product of the less educated, lower-wage workers. If you look at national averages, it's pretty obvious that most college graduates aren't doing a great job of converting their higher wages into savings and assets.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5505622
[+] [-] autokad|11 years ago|reply
What im trying to say is, they do have a huge net benefit, but they may not be financially behaved to actually save it. My former roomate quite a bit of money and spent a great deal of it on alcohol. you could increase his wage, he'd just find a way to spend more. you could decrease his wage, and his spending on those non-accounted things would drop.
[+] [-] Chronic28|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dmritard96|11 years ago|reply
Regardless of how I feel about this, I wonder a bit what these numbers would look like if you took the one percent out of the equation. The distribution of wealth right now is totally nuts and concentrated at the very very top. If we were to remove them my suspicion is that it still would be trending up but maybe somewhat less severely.
[+] [-] autokad|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VLM|11 years ago|reply
I'm old enough to have seen that the lifestyle and quality of living for the average college grad has decreased quite a bit over than interval, its just decreased MUCH further for non college grads, who are generally now found only in the trades, unemployed, manual labor, or are special and unusual anecdotal snowflakes. The numbers are of course better because we reward numbers. I'm writing about actual lifestyle and quality of life.
Inherently there's no reason why credentials result in better bartenders, waiters, baristas, receptionists, file clerks, but it does make it somewhat more likely that a given individual will have any job at all.
This gives the article a different tinge. Much as the future is already here, just unevenly distributed, some cities for arbitrary reasons may simply be more or less decayed than others. There may be some survivorship bias such that peculiar theories can be manufactured out of fundamentally random data. That city was in the FIRE business and is now rich, that city was in the automotive business, and isn't rich.
[+] [-] withdavidli|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walshemj|11 years ago|reply
Nursing is now a graduate entry job as are may of the roles I entered the job market from high school.
Thus the remaing jobs avaible to hs diploma kids are lower paid ones.
[+] [-] imaginenore|11 years ago|reply
It's not that hard to make a hamburger-making machine and then make thousands or millions of copies.
[+] [-] placeybordeaux|11 years ago|reply
Georgia has worked very hard to make Georgia a good state for choosing to go to a local college, and I find it extremely unlikely that a large number of people are being pushed out of Atlanta due to cost of living, its extremely affordable to live in Atlanta, even more so if you consider the greater metro area.
[+] [-] dkural|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] micro_cam|11 years ago|reply
I would argue that payment companies/services like Square are successful in part because they are doing just that. They lower the bar to someone with or without a collage degree starting a small business like a food cart or truck that can thrive in a collage grad heavy city.
Similarly sites that offer reviews make it easier for a business to prosper on merit and reduce the tendency of people to just go to a chain because they know what they will get.
I don't think this is an uphill battle. Surly a neighborhood feels more vibrant alive and inspiring when all the workers (tech and otherwise) are out on the street choosing from many unique options then when they all line up the mcdonald's drive through, starbuck's or the company cafeteria to get the same thing they got yesterday.
So what is the next great start up that helps make this happen?
[+] [-] bsder|11 years ago|reply
http://articles.philly.com/2014-07-03/news/51033519_1_lunch-...
The consequence of the food truck growth is that there are now many more mobile, explosive installations of gas in existence as opposed to restaurants which have a contained, inspected, fixed installations of gas.
At what point did we have the conversation as to whether this is a good thing? We didn't.
Disruption isn't automatically a benefit.
[+] [-] mattdeboard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|11 years ago|reply
Washtenaw is about on par with San Francisco (but also only ~1/3 the population).
I think it's relevant because you don't need all those services to exist in the core of Detroit or a huge migration to get access to lots of educated people.
[+] [-] asdkl234890|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pistle|11 years ago|reply
Generating income becomes the unbridled thing. Sitting on mountains of wealth becomes futile. No dynasties. What have you done for me lately? You can live a king's life by generating obscene earned income, but your kids will only be assured easy street. Their kids only assured middle class. This gives grandpa and grandma a reason to improve the lot of the middle and lower classes.
If you let the lower groups fall too far into despondence, they will eventually come for your heads. You can build prisons to a point. You can create mental prisons to an extent. You can pacify the masses for a long while. Eventually, there's nothing left in the tank. Nothing to lose. Then, you lose stability and your choices are few.
The more your society reflects fiefdoms of the middle ages, the more you'll start seeing royalty thrown from windows and put on stakes.
We have the very wealthy (royalty). We have their military class ready to step in: Gun-coveting believers in the system that amazingly keeps increasing inequality. Then we have a growing base of servants who can't own land or tools of production (education). This looks increasingly familiar.
Or maybe I just have some Dystopia Myopia.
[+] [-] jvm|11 years ago|reply
[1] Krugman on the "zoned zone": http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/the-two-americas... (his point about the bubble actually turned out to be probably not completely accurate, but the split in urbanization policy is very real).
[+] [-] gautambay|11 years ago|reply
(1) The cost of attending college has grown faster than inflation over the past few decades.
(2) Yet, it seems that the ROI on college is high (for those you graduate), as evidenced in this article.
(3) There's another statistic that gets bandied in education reform circles: 43% of college grads in 2013 were underemployed (working jobs that don't need a college degree).
I wonder how #3 reconciles with #1 and #2. Perhaps this is a case of averages lying, and the ROI data for top colleges might look very different from bottom colleges (to the point where there may even be no income disparity between attending a bad college vs. not attending college).
Has anyone seen a better / deeper analysis of this?
[+] [-] cko|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tdeitch|11 years ago|reply
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21600131-too-man...
[+] [-] orangecat|11 years ago|reply
The employers probably "need" employees with at least average intelligence and conscientiousness, for which a college degree (in anything) is a decent proxy.
[+] [-] cowbell|11 years ago|reply
The ROI of a college degree earned 30 years ago is high. Recent college graduates aren't faring so well. Those who do have jobs are frequently underemployed, living with their parents, and buried under school loans.
[+] [-] Tycho|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trackofalljades|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akgerber|11 years ago|reply
Why? Pittsburgh's steel industry, which had tons of well-paid blue-collar union jobs, collapsed in the early 1980s: 'Following the 1981–1982 recession, for example, the mills laid off 153,000 workers.'[0] A lot of the working-age population left in the following years. The main thing remaining were a lot of world-class institutions in healthcare & education (much better than a lot of the Rust Belt, e.g. Detroit/Toledo/Milwaukee), so the people that come to & stay in Pittsburgh today are very well-educated[1]. The older population that had pensions or savings to fall back on when the steel collapse came, and didn't need to relocate for work, is a lot less educated.
[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pittsburgh#Collapse_... [1]http://nullspace2.blogspot.com/2013/06/education-examined.ht...
[+] [-] keithpeter|11 years ago|reply
I'm wondering if the increase in average wage of non-college degree holders outweighed the higher cost of living in the cities with high concentrations of college degree holders.
If so, not so bad, all boats lifted higher by the tide &c. I suspect that the rise does not outweigh the increased cost of living, especially rents/housing costs. The result is a long commute added onto the day for the people who do not hold college degrees and who work in the chi-chi economy. That process has limits.
Perhaps it needs a generation or two to reach steady-state?
[+] [-] forrestthewoods|11 years ago|reply
lol what? The whole article reads like someone who has a giant boner for SF. Lots of assumptions that it's an objectively better place to live and obviously everyone wishes they could live there.
Tech job hubs are few and far between. There are only a handful of cities you have to choose from. Toledo and Baton Rouge aren't on the table for tech workers just like SF and NYC aren't on the table for a high school drop out.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] webmaven|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinceguidry|11 years ago|reply
If they want people to start taking inequality seriously, the first thing journalists might want to do is to figure out what the hell they're trying to accomplish.
[+] [-] cauterized|11 years ago|reply