How women's education is contributing to income inequality

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

Of course it's been overall good for society that women have gotten more education and income since WWII, but there are consequences. I couldn't find the Economist article, but they had a chart showing marriage preferences for 1960s America. Men were more likely to marry women of similar education status (which correlates to income), but there was a decent level of "mixed education" households - maybe due to childhood sweethearts, family-encouraged marriages, etc.

In the 21st Century, dual-income households and "assortative mating" has gotten much more common. Now men with HS education almost exclusively marry women of similar status, and same goes for college or grad-school educated men. I guess it makes sense, as the modern American youth is likely to meet his or her mate at school or on the job (or through online dating sites that try to match demos). And of course there are intellectual, geographic, and class compatibility issues that make it less likely for a highly educated person to marry a poorly educated one. But this is resulting in either very rich or very poor households, and it's less likely that a lower-income family can "pull a Cinderella" and increase their wealth/quality of life through marriage.

Of course I'm not blaming women for any of this. Apart from love, I think most of us would recognize the benefits of marrying a more educated/wealthy mate. So professionals marry professionals, and blue collar/service workers marry the same. When controlling for other factors, assortative mating caused the Gini coefficient (inequality metric where 1 = perfect inequality and 0 = no inequality) to rise from 0.34 to 0.43 (+26%) over 1960-2005 in this Pew study's data.

I'm not sure what can be done about this, or if anything should be done. But the IMF and others said that income inequality is the root cause of many structural social problems. Wealthy couples tend to live in better neighborhoods with better schools. Their kids will have health, safety, social, and intellectual advantages vs. lower-income children. They will succeed in college and career, and likely marry a similarly successful person. But all this suggests that overall social mobility is on the decline in the US, with no signs of improvement.

Surprisingly, the GOP presidential candidates have spoken a lot about inequality/pressure on the middle class/American Dream so far. But it's likely lip-service, as they still want to gut social services and cut taxes for the "job creators". Obama and other Democrats have also talked a lot about the minimum wage, workplace sexism, and the unfair playing field. I wonder how much of an issue it will be in 2016, and if we can do anything about the "Great Divide".

Is the tech industry turning free love SF into a wealth-driven caste system?

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201209250900
http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/how-much-tech-can-one-city-take

This topic is quite inflammatory, but just thought I'd put it out there (I don't necessarily agree with the whole argument, and of generalizing a whole industry, but it's better than discussing reality TV!). I guess this is basically the same story as what Wall St. did to NYC. Of course the tech booms brought a lot of money and non-tech jobs to the Bay, but with some costs. Some of the guest's points:

- SF is giving preferential tax treatment to some tech firms, even though other valuable industries could use the lift
- The demand for high-paying tech jobs is driving up rent and other costs for millions of others not employed in tech (and even $100K engineers have to have roommates and can't afford a car)
- Tekkies exists in a "cocoon", as they are just working all the time, are often immigrants to SF, and therefore do not show much civic engagement with the "real SF"
- Despite some high-profile donations from super-rich execs who barely felt it, tech people are generally "selfish" and aren't giving back to the communities that enabled their careers (there is a popular trend of hipster, self-absorbed tekkie libertarianism)
-  "The unique urban features that have made San Francisco so appealing to a new generation of digital workers—its artistic ferment, its social diversity, its trailblazing progressive consciousness—are deteriorating, driven out of the city by the tech boom itself, and the rising real estate prices that go with it." - though it's unclear how much prices would have risen and culture would have changed anyway (ask the black people that used to live in SF before gentrification).
- Really, how much is the next social gaming or shopping app startup contributing to society's benefit - and is that worth the loss of SF uniqueness (it would be a shame if the city becomes just another sterile commercial zone)?

But regardless, it is against the American and San Franciscan democratic, pluralistic spirit to have an elite class of tekkies and investors dominating valuable metro areas, with the rest of the people serving as their supporting underclass but unable to afford to live within 50 miles of their jobs. That is a major social, economic, and moral problem - and one industry is not fully to blame of course.