More Jobs, Please

As a complement to this post on job-finding and job-supplying in Pittsburgh, try some Joel Kotkin on for size.  Are cities offering jobs for everyone?

Since the beginnings of civilization, cities have been crucibles of progress both for societies and individuals. A great city, wrote Rene Descartes in the seventeenth century, represented “an inventory of the possible,” a place where people could create their own futures and lift up their families.

What characterized great cities such as Amsterdam—and, later, places such as London, New York , Chicago, and Tokyo—was the size of their property-owning middle class. This was a class whose roots, for the most part, lay in the peasantry or artisan class, and later among industrial workers. Their ascension into the ranks of the bourgeoisie, petit or haute, epitomized the opportunities for social advancement created uniquely by cities.

In the twenty-first century—the first in which the majority of people will live in cities—this unique link between urbanism and upward mobility is under threat. Urban boosters still maintain that big cities remain unique centers for social uplift, but evidence suggests this is increasingly no longer the case.
Kotkin notes that a major source of the contemporary problem is a shift in the dynamics of class mobility.  As in -- it is disappearing; expanded access to education is no longer a sure route to greater prosperity for all.  Jobs and income for the upper class are doing reasonably well; for the middle and lower classes, not at all.  The problem is exacerbated by housing costs, which are extraordinary in places like London.  In the US, one might look at places like Manhattan or the Washington, DC metro area, or just about any large city on the Western edge of California.

Kotkin is talking mostly about the mega-cities of the 21st century, such as London, but his comments resonate even with respect to small fry such as Pittsburgh:

Broad-based economic growth might seem the most logical solution to this dilemma. In the past, socialists, liberals, and conservatives might vigorously have debated various approaches, but generally agreed about the desired end result: shrinking slums and expanding opportunity for the middle or working class. Today, however, many urban “progressives” do not trouble themselves overmuch about the hoi polloi. Instead, they are more likely to devise policies to lure the much-ballyhooed “creative class” of well-educated, often childless, high-end workers to their cities. This goes along as well with an increased focus on aesthetic and “green” issues. ...

Attacking the class gap requires a redefinition of current views about the overused term “sustainability.” This concept needs to be expanded beyond its conventional environmental definition to reflect broader social and economic values as well. It is one thing to consider how, in an era dominated by dispersed work, core cities might still attract those elite workers needing direct “face-to-face contact.” It is quite another to develop strategies so that the vast majority will be able to find work doing anything other than servicing the needs of the upper echelons.

In turning away from the fundamental issues of economic growth and upward mobility, these cities are in danger of permanently undermining the very thing that has made great cities so attractive over the centuries. The ultimate worth of urbanity lies in its ability to deliver a better life, not only to the established affluent and the most skilled, but to that broader population who, like others over the millennia, come to a big city to create a better life.
Read Kotkin's whole essay here.


1 Response to "More Jobs, Please"

Richard Stabile Bergen County Real Estate said... 11/17/2010 9:46 AM

It seems to me that much is caused by the extreme disparity in incomes. Wall Street for instance has people earning $50-$150M. People making $5-$10M, which is in extreme contrast to large amounts of young people struggling at the $50k or less level. The tax structures and cost of living, force the low end to live together in much lesser situations than they were raised by their parents. Obscene amounts of money made by entertainers, athletes and the like also set apart the disparity. I think it is said the amount of income at the top is so much greater than the bottom than at any other time. Maybe the few Andrew Carnegie's and the Rockefeller’s had great disparity, but there were few. Now there are many.

Search Pittsblog

About Pittsblog

Pittsblog 2.0 is written by Mike Madison, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Send email to michael.j.madison[at] Mike also blogs at, on law and technology. Chris Briem of Null Space drops by from time to time.

All opinions expressed at Pittsblog 2.0 are those of their respective authors and of no one (and no thing) else, least of all the University of Pittsburgh.

Pittsblog 2.0 has a motto: "It's steel good in Pittsburgh." Say it aloud, with a Pittsburgh accent.

Comments are moderated.
Subscribe to Pittsblog comments


Blog Archive

Header Background

Header background images licensed from (left image) lemonad and (right image) plaskota under Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial - Share Alike 2.0 Generic licenses.


Copyright 2003-2010 Michael J. Madison - WP Theme by Brian Gardner - Blogger Blog Templates,