As a native California Baby Boomer with a Wikipedia page (much improved in recent years: thanks to whomever is fighting the good fight; by the way, please note this), this map of the density of Wikipedia pages by births during the 1946-1964 Baby Boom seems plausible to me, although others seem to have methodological quibbles. Such as: what does having a Wikipedia page really mean? For example, I'm a good example of the paradoxes of having a Wikipedia page. I'm not terribly successful or notable, and I'm famous only in the post-Warholian sense that in the future everybody will be famous to 15,000 people.
But, I do have a Wikipedia page, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.
Economist Seth Stephens-Davidowitz writes:
Roughly one in 1,209 baby boomers born in California reached Wikipedia. Only one in 4,496 baby boomers born in West Virginia did. Roughly one in 748 baby boomers born in Suffolk County, Mass., which contains Boston, made it to Wikipedia. In some counties, the success rate was 20 times lower.
Baby Boom California was a place with fair amount of talent and a whole lot of opportunity. Consider that 30% of Wikipedia bios are devoted to entertainment figures (e.g., every single one of the nearly 20 movie technicians per year to be nominated for a Best Sound Oscar gets a Wikipedia page; in contrast, nominees in West Virginia for Coal Miner of the Year don't get as much Wikipedia attention). Another 29% goes to athletes, so it's hardly surprising that being born in California, with its huge entertainment industry and its big advantages in sports facilities and year-round play back during the Baby Boom, did well.
First, and this surprised me, many of these counties consisted largely of a sizable college town. Just about every time I saw a county that I had not heard of near the top of the list, like Washtenaw, Mich., I found out that it was dominated by a classic college town, in this case Ann Arbor, Mich. The counties graced by Madison, Wis.; Athens, Ga.; Columbia, Mo.; Berkeley, Calif.; Chapel Hill, N.C.; Gainesville, Fla.; Lexington, Ky.; and Ithaca, N.Y., are all in the top 3 percent.
Sci-fi writer Neal Stephenson often mentions the important role of college towns in producing high achieving people like himself. He's a classic WASP College Town-American.
Why is this? Some of it is probably the gene pool: Sons and daughters of professors and graduate students tend to be smart. And, indeed, having more college graduates in an area is a strong predictor of the success of the people born there.
But there is most likely something more going on: early exposure to innovation. One of the fields where college towns are most successful in producing top dogs is music. A kid in a college town will be exposed to unique concerts, unusual radio stations and even record stores.
When I was in Houston to attend Rice U. in the late 1970s, it was universally acknowledged that Austin, an oversized college town, was much better for popular music than Houston. Heck, I was rock guru at Rice just because I'd go home to L.A., listen to KROQ, then come back and tell people that The Pretenders were going to be big.
Among Baby Boomers, musical talent wasn't that crucial to becoming a rock star -- being in the right place at the right time was important. (I suspect rock bands today tend to be more skilled than in my day -- they have to work harder to make it big because music is less driven by the search for the Next Big Thing.)
College towns also incubate more than their expected share of notable businesspeople.
Tom Wolfe's 1983 profile of Robert Noyce, "the mayor of Silicon Valley," emphasized that he was the son of the Congregationalist chaplin of Grinnell College in Iowa. Wolfe saw in Silicon Valley a sort of Midwestern college town low church Protestant work ethic in contrast to the high church Ivy League Episcopalianism of New York City.
Being born in San Francisco County, New York City or Los Angeles County all offered among the highest probabilities of making it to Wikipedia. (I grouped New York City’s five counties together because many Wikipedia entries did not specify a borough of birth.)
Urban areas tend to be well supplied with models of success. To see the value of being near successful practitioners of a craft when young, compare New York City, Boston and Los Angeles. Among the three, New York City produces notable journalists at the highest rate; Boston produces notable scientists at the highest rate; and Los Angeles produces notable actors at the highest rate. Remember, we are talking about people who were born there, not people who moved there. And this holds true even after subtracting people with notable parents in that field. ...
Suburban counties, unless they contained major college towns, performed far worse than their city counterparts. My parents, like many boomers, moved away from crowded sidewalks to tree-shaded streets — in this case from Manhattan to Bergen County, N.J. — to raise their three children. This was potentially a mistake, at least from the perspective of having notable children. A kid born in New York City is 80 percent more likely to make it to Wikipedia than a kid born in Bergen County. These are just correlations. But they do suggest that growing up near ideas is better than growing up near backyards.
The stark effects identified here might be even stronger if I had better data on places lived throughout childhood, since many people grow up in different counties than the one they were born in.
I suspect his anti-suburban finding is just about 180 degrees backward.
I suspect this is something an artifact of the researcher focusing upon county of birth during the years 1946-1964. I wouldn't be surprised if lots of Baby Boomers with Wikipedia pages were born in New York City, but then graduated from Bergen County high schools as part of white flight. The population of Bergen County more than doubled from 1940 to 1970, much of that growth coming from upwardly mobile Jews fleeing the five boroughs.
For example, the Zuckerberg family is a near perfect model of four generations of upward mobility, from peddler to postman to dentist to Facebook. The billionaire's father, a highly successful dentist, was born in Brooklyn. The tech entrepreneur was himself born in suburban Westchester County, but that hasn't seem to hurt his career.
Moreover, outside of New York, many counties that are home to big cities include areas that were highly suburban during the Baby Boom. For example, Cook County, IL, which was the most populous county in the U.S. until overtaken Los Angeles County midway during the Baby Boom, includes high-achieving North Shore suburbs such as Wilmette and Northwest suburbs like Northbrook and Barrington. New Trier High School in Winnetka has long been a famous suburban source of movie stars, such as Ralph Bellamy, Charlton Heston, Rock Hudson, Ann-Margaret, and Bruce Dern. But it is in Cook County, so it shows up as urban in this study.
What are now considered Chicago's suburban counties such as DuPage, Kane, and McHenry Counties were, during the Baby Boom, more populated by rural and small town dwellers.
there was another variable that was a strong predictor of Wikipedia entrants per birth: the proportion of immigrants. The greater the percentage of foreign-born residents in an area, the higher the proportion of people born there achieving something notable. If two places have similar urban and college populations, the one with more immigrants will produce more notable Americans. What explains this?
Immigrants go where the money is: e.g., California rather than West Virginia. Los Angeles County has lots of celebrities and lots of immigrant servants who clean up after the celebrities, but over the generations there has been remarkably little overlap between the offspring of the two groups. The number of children of Mexicans in the L.A. entertainment industry, for example, is remarkably low. The last time I checked, the last person of Mexican descent raised in the U.S. to be nominated for an Oscar was in the 1980s. There's such a shortage that I've seen the press try to pass off as kind of Mexican the Weitz Brothers (sons of fashion designer, race car driver, and historian John Weitz).
The notion that immigrants are attracted to where the money is seems to be hard for analysts to grasp. West Virginia increasingly tends to be populated by leftover people who don't have the drive to leave tapped out coal mining towns. West Virginia isn't poor because it doesn't have many immigrants, it doesn't have many immigrants because it's poor.
Similarly, before immigration, California used to have some rich people and a very large middle class. Now it has a lot of extremely rich people, a lot of quite poor people, and a shrunken middle class.
A LOT of it seems to be directly attributable to the children of immigrants. I did an exhaustive search of the biographies of the 100 most famous white baby boomers, according to M.I.T.’s Pantheon project. Most of these were entertainers. At least 13 had foreign-born mothers, including Oliver Stone, Sandra Bullock and Julianne Moore. This rate is more than three times higher than the national average during this period.
Stone, Bullock, and Moore are all offspring of American Army guys. Stone's mother was a French war bride, Moore's father was a colonel who married a girl from Scotland, and Bullock's dad was an opera-loving soldier (or civilian employee of the Army?) from Alabama who married a German singer. That seems pretty idiosyncratic.
A lot of good points, but they have shown the children of immigrants are much more likely to start a business.
ReplyDeleteI would actually be very impressed if Boston produced more native-born scientists (or academics in general for the measure is ok) when controlled for whiteness.
ReplyDeleteThat would be interesting, but then that is probably not true, hate to be the guy bringing it up but that statement is so glaring. Boston was simply one of the whitest large cities in the entire United States through the mid 20th century. Though if I had to venture a hypothesis it would be that parts of Washington state and the DC area might legitimately be overrepresented for the Baby Boomer era for benign social reasons, actually providing opportunities and networking and the like.
Note, too, the clever use of "immigrant." Liberals love to use immigrant as a kind of generic catch-all, something that puts a Mestizo from Mexico on equal footing with a Hungarian Jew. In reality, of course, the listing of Stone, Moore, and Bullock speaks only to the possible beneficial effects of White immigrants from France, Scotland, and Germany, not to large scale immigration from, say, Honduras or El Salvador.....
ReplyDeleteThat post-Warholian defintion of fame -- 15.000 fans -- is pretty interesting. I recall that influential policy magazines back in the day, at least on the libera/left side of the divide (e.g., The New Republic, New York Review of Books) typically had around 100,000 subscribers. Not sure about publications on the right (National Review).
ReplyDeleteSo the question arises: at what point does one become influential? Sure, buys with columns at NYT have much greater readerships. But are they truly influential, or are they merely parotting ideas that have already become influential for other reasons? Recall Keynes' remark about second-rate ideas from some previous generation . . .
How influential was Orwell in his day? Of course he wrote a couple of best-selling novels. Maybe that is the key.
Anyway, I regard Sailer as the best journalist in America and, in the long run, I suspect he will turn out to be the most influential. But only after the current generation of opinion-gate-keepers dies out (or are fired, yes, I am talking about you Pinch).
It would be fun to see an analysis of above versus below the Mason-Dixon Line.
ReplyDeleteFrom the talk section on Steve Sailer's Wikepedia page one finds this Wikipedia definition of racism:
ReplyDeleteRacism refers to the beliefs and practices that assume inherent and significant differences exist between the genetics of various groups of human beings; that assume these differences can be measured on a scale of "superior" to "inferior"; and that result in the social, political and economic advantage of one group in relation to others.
Based on this definition I would like to see a list of famous people throughout history who could be characterised as racist? I guess it would start with Aristotle.
"The notion that immigrants are attracted to where the money is seems to be hard for analysts to grasp. West Virginia increasingly tends to be populated by leftover people who don't have the drive to leave tapped out coal mining towns. West Virginia isn't poor because it doesn't have many immigrants, it doesn't have many immigrants because it's poor."
ReplyDeleteThe more I read the MSM, the more I am convinced that lib idiots really struggle to identify the cause of a given effect.
I feel so inadequate.
ReplyDeleteMy stock portfolio is in good shape. The wife and I are still together twenty something years in. The kids are all at a half-decent school-UW--and doing well. (All three with me here in Jamaica today for spring break.) I thought I was doing ok. Now I realize ...
i'm still underperforming. Damn!
Re Bergen County: via Wikipedia, here's a list of notable current or former residents in one small (15k) Bergen County town, Tenafly.
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to Paul Rodriguez? He was funny. Kind of.
ReplyDeleteA lot of good points, but they have shown the children of immigrants are much more likely to start a business
ReplyDeleteBut we already had "too many chiefs not enough Indians", so this just means immigrants are taking away scarce high-income jobs away from native Americans.
>they have shown the children of immigrants are much more likely to start a business.<
ReplyDeleteThey have also shown that people start businesses in expectation of making money. Meaning, more businesses will be started in, for example, CA than in WVA. People (including people who will start a business) flock to wherever the money is; this plainly includes immigrants.
So, yes, a given area "isn't poor because it doesn't have many immigrants, it doesn't have many immigrants because it's poor."
So, yes, a given area "isn't poor because it doesn't have many immigrants, it doesn't have many immigrants because it's poor."
ReplyDeleteSometimes, true, West Virginia is far from the border. Minnesota has a lot less Mexicans than Texas. Texas is growing faster but if you adjust for poverty Minnesota is much lower. There is a lot of illegal immigrants in meat packing towns that are not that great economically because they will do meat packing at lower wages.
Actually, Cal is more gen-x even the whites in California average age 42 not 52.
ReplyDeleteLuke:
ReplyDeleteI used to be a TNR subscriber. I remember that somewhere around 1992 they ran an item noting they'd hit the 100,000 mark for the first time in their history. Throughout the '80's, when it was undoubtedly the best-written periodical in America, the number was consistently around 95k.
Luke:
ReplyDeleteI used to be a TNR subscriber. I remember that somewhere around 1992 they ran an item noting they'd hit the 100,000 mark for the first time in their history. Throughout the '80's, when it was undoubtedly the best-written periodical in America, the number was consistently around 95k.
they have shown the children of immigrants are much more likely to start a business
ReplyDeleteThere are hundreds of mexicans and central americans selling fruits and ice cream at street corners and freeway entrances in Los Angeles in direct violation of the law. The businesses help the illegals survive but contributes nothing to the quality of life or innovation.
The major opinion journals (NR, TNR, Nation) would usually strive to reach 100,000 circulation. Important journals like Commentary and New York Review of Book would typically be a fraction of that.
ReplyDeleteMagazines would usually claim a multiplier of 2 or 3 readers per copy (e.g., libraries, spouses, etc.), but I also suspect that lots of copies were never read by anybody: I can recall a reference to "a stack of New York Review of Books piling up in a surly mound of subscription guilt."
We have never had "too many chiefs and not enough Indians". And never will.
ReplyDeleteThat's not what Keynes said. He said so called practical people are in fact motivated by some dead economist. Gosh you could have just listened to that Keynes vs Hayek rap from awhile back to know that.
ReplyDelete