It seems like this analysis has independently identified locations of long-term concentrated high poverty in the US. It's also interesting to note how much smaller the effect of growing-up in a location has on the future earnings of those in the upper classes.
Counties are a crude way in which to break down this data, however, as many urban counties comprise a huge variance in income.
In metros like the Bay Area, where people routinely commute across county borders for work and housing, this analysis doesn't show how upper-middle-class to wealthy areas like San Mateo effectively outsource the housing of the working poor to places like Alameda county (mostly to places like East Oakland), thus compounding the concentration of poverty.
At the least, I'd like to see the actual income/wealth (and race) breakdown of the population of the counties highlighted, to give more context to the maps.
I think urbanization matters in this county level set of stats.
Look at upstate NY, counties in central NY with economies in freefall have good outcomes vs more prosperous counties with less urban population.
Having grown up in a small town in my teenage years and NYC in my younger years, it makes sense to me. People care about the neighbors in small towns. In the city, not so much.
Counties are a crude way in which to break down this data, however, as many urban counties comprise a huge variance in income.
In metros like the Bay Area, where people routinely commute across county borders for work and housing, this analysis doesn't show how upper-middle-class to wealthy areas like San Mateo effectively outsource the housing of the working poor to places like Alameda county (mostly to places like East Oakland), thus compounding the concentration of poverty.
At the least, I'd like to see the actual income/wealth (and race) breakdown of the population of the counties highlighted, to give more context to the maps.
EDIT: clarification