3 A New Kind of Segregation
A Tale of Three Cities
Austin, Texas, underwent a significant transformation from 1960 to 2000. Back in 1960, Austin had a population of just 186,545 people. It was the state capital and it was recognized for being home to the University of Texas, which helped give the city a bit of distinction. However, much like other small cities in Texas at the time, Austin's economy was primarily focused on receiving and shipping agricultural products from the surrounding areas. Some local industries manufactured brick, tile, and furniture, but that was about it for notable businesses.
In Austin, the center of activity was downtown, where both the state capitol building and the university campus were located. The city's wealthiest residents lived to the west of downtown and north of the Colorado River. These affluent neighborhoods contained only about 16 percent of Austin’s adult population, and the median family income in these areas was around $60,700—similar to what an experienced public school teacher in Austin would earn in 2010. Interestingly, even though many residents were well-off, about 35 percent of adults aged 25 or older in these affluent neighborhoods did not have a college education.
Fast forward to the year 2000, and Austin had transformed into a rapidly growing city with a population of 656,562, making it the sixteenth largest city in the entire United States. The wealthy area of the city continued to expand westward, but its demographic had changed over the forty years. By 2000, the median family income in the richest neighborhoods had increased to $106,100. The wealthiest zip code in Austin had a median income of a remarkable $211,800.
Along with the increase in wealth, education levels also grew significantly. In 2000, twelve zip codes had over 60 percent of adults with a Bachelor’s degree or higher. The wealth and education of these neighborhoods appeared to go hand in hand, as the top twelve richest zip codes also represented ten out of the twelve best-educated zip codes in Austin.
Furthermore, Austin gained recognition as a hub for high-tech industries during this time. Companies such as Dell Computer, which was ranked 48 on the Fortune 500 list, established their headquarters in Austin. Additionally, Whole Foods Market evolved from a single small store into a nationwide chain, entering the Fortune 500 in 2005. Several other major tech companies also established their presence in Austin, including Apple, Google, Intel, and Cisco Systems, among others. By 2010, Austin boasted around eighty-five biotechnology companies, which made it a leading employer in this emerging industry.
The technical jobs created by these companies required a workforce that was not only educated, but exceptionally skilled. This sometimes meant hiring top-notch college dropouts, like Michael Dell, who was a product of the University of Texas. More commonly, however, employers sought out highly educated individuals from prestigious universities, such as Stanford, Duke, and Ivy League schools. The University of Texas campus itself evolved significantly; while it had been known primarily as a party school in 1960, it gained a strong academic reputation and was designated one of the eight “Public Ivies” by 1985.
Family life in these wealthy neighborhoods of Austin also transformed over the decades. The increasing trend of educational homogamy meant that spouses typically came from similar backgrounds with comparable levels of education. As a result, family life in West Austin was changed in ways that were not solely tied to wealth but also to educational attainment.
In stark contrast to Austin stands Manhattan, New York, which is a bustling metropolis. Both in 1960 and 2000, New York City was the largest city in the country, with Manhattan being known as its crown jewel. The Upper East Side was and continues to be the symbol of wealth in New York, extending from Fifth Avenue to the East River. The area was well-off, with median family incomes exceeding $150,000 in some parts, notably across from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it reached up to $176,000.
However, Manhattan wasn’t uniformly wealthy in 1960. Just north of Central Park lay Harlem, a well-known African American neighborhood, and the Lower East Side was home to working-class Jewish and Italian immigrants. The rest of Manhattan was largely blue-collar, with 67 percent of adults north of Central Park lacking a high school diploma. The overall median income, excluding the Upper East Side, was only $39,300; below the national median at the time. Living on this amount in Manhattan proved quite challenging.
By 2000, the job landscape in Manhattan had shifted dramatically. Industrial jobs, which made up 40 percent of the city's employment in 1960, accounted for only 5 percent in 2000. Instead, nearly 15 percent of jobs were in finance, with similar proportions in professional and technical services, and information sectors. This meant that many blue-collar jobs were no longer done by residents of Manhattan. The income and educational levels in Manhattan rose dramatically—family incomes south of Ninety-Sixth Street increased to $121,400, and the percentage of adults with college degrees jumped to 60 percent. Within the Upper East Side specifically, the income rose from $55,400 in 1960 to $195,300 by 2000, with college degree attainment up from 23 percent to a striking 75 percent.
Despite these statistics, life on the streets of New York had not changed much; it still bustled with energy and diversity. The sidewalks were packed with people from various backgrounds, yet when entering workplaces or homes, individuals often found themselves surrounded by colleagues and neighbors who shared high levels of education and wealth.
Located eleven hundred miles west of Manhattan is Newton, Iowa, which offers a different narrative. Back in 1960, Newton had a small population of 15,381 and was known primarily for the Maytag Company, a major manufacturer of washing machines that ranked 326 on the Fortune 500 list.
In the 1960 census data, there wasn’t enough information to break down income and education levels by affluent census tracts, as Newton was too small. However, there were well-off residents, as executives from Maytag generally lived in a more affluent area within the town. The wealthy lived in southwest Newton, where notable residents included Maytag executives, local professionals, and business owners. However, this affluent area didn’t have a stark divide between rich and poor; local workers and teachers were part of the community.
By the year 2000, despite Maytag still being on the Fortune 500 list at number 368, significant changes had occurred. The new president of Maytag chose to live in a wealthy area in Des Moines, moving away from Newton. Many other senior executives followed this trend. The remaining executives in Newton opted to move into upscale housing developments that bred exclusivity. The community became less integrated, and the divide between the wealthy and working-class widened. Fewer executives participated in local civic activities or support community events, weakening the town's social fabric.
Despite these differences, Austin, Manhattan, and Newton all experienced what can be described as a “secession” of the successful, or the affluent separating themselves from the larger community. In Austin, the rich areas grew further away from the city’s center, while in Manhattan, many wealthy residents occupied neighborhoods that fostered both economic and educational segregation. In Newton, the affluent execs moved entirely out of the town, indicating a strong trend toward inequality.
Many elite neighborhoods across the U.S. have seen significant changes over the past fifty years in terms of income and education. To illustrate this, data from fourteen of the most famous neighborhoods in 1960 were examined to see how they had changed by 2000. In 1960, college graduates were still a minority even in these posh locations; only Beverly Hills had a median family income above $100,000. By 2000, these neighborhoods saw their median incomes almost double from around $84,000 to $163,000. The proportion of adults holding college degrees jumped from 26 percent to 67 percent. This evolution demonstrated how wealthy neighborhoods became even more affluent and educated over time, signaling a clear trend favoring those with higher education and income.
The identification of "SuperZips," which are defined as zip codes in the top 95th to 99th percentiles of income and education, reveals the extent of segregation among America's new upper class. There were roughly 9.1 million adults aged 25 and older living in SuperZips, most of whom were white or Asian. Compared to people living elsewhere, those in SuperZips experienced significantly less crime, were more likely to be married, and generally enjoyed a lower unemployment rate. This disparity highlights a major divide in American society.
In addition to this, the SuperZips tended to house individuals who graduated from elite colleges. Data from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale showed that a significant number of their graduates lived in SuperZips, revealing a strong correlation between elite education and residential location. This trend suggested that wealth and education increasingly aligned, limiting social mobility for those outside of these privileged circles. The culture surrounding residents in SuperZips often reinforced the sense of superiority over others, adding to what some have termed “elitism.”
Alongside this geographic and social separation is also a difference in political views. It is widely recognized that the new upper class leans more liberal compared to the rest of American society. The political climates in elite universities, media, and entertainment industries tend to attract liberal views, which have increasingly spilled over into the business community as well. However, regional variations exist, leading to some wealthy neighborhoods holding conservative views, especially in parts of the Midwest and South.
A key example illustrating the political divide comes from the 2004 presidential election, where there were clear patterns of voting among affluent neighborhoods. Wealthy areas in places like San Francisco overwhelmingly supported John Kerry, while many affluent towns in New Jersey tended to favor George W. Bush. This inconsistency suggests that not all wealthy neighborhoods subscribe to the same political beliefs.
In conclusion, the experiences of Austin, Manhattan, and Newton highlight the significant social and economic changes occurring in America over the last several decades. The growth of affluent neighborhoods, the rise of educational attainment, and the establishment of SuperZips demonstrate how wealth is increasingly concentrated. While the cultural identity in these elite areas may feel distinctly removed from the rest of the country, understanding these trends provides insight into the broader narrative of inequality and change in America. As the demographics continue to shift, so too will the fabric of American society and the divides that exist within it.
A Tale of Three Cities
Austin, Texas, underwent a significant transformation from 1960 to 2000. Back in 1960, Austin had a population of just 186,545 people. It was the state capital and it was recognized for being home to the University of Texas, which helped give the city a bit of distinction. However, much like other small cities in Texas at the time, Austin's economy was primarily focused on receiving and shipping agricultural products from the surrounding areas. Some local industries manufactured brick, tile, and furniture, but that was about it for notable businesses.
In Austin, the center of activity was downtown, where both the state capitol building and the university campus were located. The city's wealthiest residents lived to the west of downtown and north of the Colorado River. These affluent neighborhoods contained only about 16 percent of Austin’s adult population, and the median family income in these areas was around $60,700—similar to what an experienced public school teacher in Austin would earn in 2010. Interestingly, even though many residents were well-off, about 35 percent of adults aged 25 or older in these affluent neighborhoods did not have a college education.
Fast forward to the year 2000, and Austin had transformed into a rapidly growing city with a population of 656,562, making it the sixteenth largest city in the entire United States. The wealthy area of the city continued to expand westward, but its demographic had changed over the forty years. By 2000, the median family income in the richest neighborhoods had increased to $106,100. The wealthiest zip code in Austin had a median income of a remarkable $211,800.
Along with the increase in wealth, education levels also grew significantly. In 2000, twelve zip codes had over 60 percent of adults with a Bachelor’s degree or higher. The wealth and education of these neighborhoods appeared to go hand in hand, as the top twelve richest zip codes also represented ten out of the twelve best-educated zip codes in Austin.
Furthermore, Austin gained recognition as a hub for high-tech industries during this time. Companies such as Dell Computer, which was ranked 48 on the Fortune 500 list, established their headquarters in Austin. Additionally, Whole Foods Market evolved from a single small store into a nationwide chain, entering the Fortune 500 in 2005. Several other major tech companies also established their presence in Austin, including Apple, Google, Intel, and Cisco Systems, among others. By 2010, Austin boasted around eighty-five biotechnology companies, which made it a leading employer in this emerging industry.
The technical jobs created by these companies required a workforce that was not only educated, but exceptionally skilled. This sometimes meant hiring top-notch college dropouts, like Michael Dell, who was a product of the University of Texas. More commonly, however, employers sought out highly educated individuals from prestigious universities, such as Stanford, Duke, and Ivy League schools. The University of Texas campus itself evolved significantly; while it had been known primarily as a party school in 1960, it gained a strong academic reputation and was designated one of the eight “Public Ivies” by 1985.
Family life in these wealthy neighborhoods of Austin also transformed over the decades. The increasing trend of educational homogamy meant that spouses typically came from similar backgrounds with comparable levels of education. As a result, family life in West Austin was changed in ways that were not solely tied to wealth but also to educational attainment.
In stark contrast to Austin stands Manhattan, New York, which is a bustling metropolis. Both in 1960 and 2000, New York City was the largest city in the country, with Manhattan being known as its crown jewel. The Upper East Side was and continues to be the symbol of wealth in New York, extending from Fifth Avenue to the East River. The area was well-off, with median family incomes exceeding $150,000 in some parts, notably across from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it reached up to $176,000.
However, Manhattan wasn’t uniformly wealthy in 1960. Just north of Central Park lay Harlem, a well-known African American neighborhood, and the Lower East Side was home to working-class Jewish and Italian immigrants. The rest of Manhattan was largely blue-collar, with 67 percent of adults north of Central Park lacking a high school diploma. The overall median income, excluding the Upper East Side, was only $39,300; below the national median at the time. Living on this amount in Manhattan proved quite challenging.
By 2000, the job landscape in Manhattan had shifted dramatically. Industrial jobs, which made up 40 percent of the city's employment in 1960, accounted for only 5 percent in 2000. Instead, nearly 15 percent of jobs were in finance, with similar proportions in professional and technical services, and information sectors. This meant that many blue-collar jobs were no longer done by residents of Manhattan. The income and educational levels in Manhattan rose dramatically—family incomes south of Ninety-Sixth Street increased to $121,400, and the percentage of adults with college degrees jumped to 60 percent. Within the Upper East Side specifically, the income rose from $55,400 in 1960 to $195,300 by 2000, with college degree attainment up from 23 percent to a striking 75 percent.
Despite these statistics, life on the streets of New York had not changed much; it still bustled with energy and diversity. The sidewalks were packed with people from various backgrounds, yet when entering workplaces or homes, individuals often found themselves surrounded by colleagues and neighbors who shared high levels of education and wealth.
Located eleven hundred miles west of Manhattan is Newton, Iowa, which offers a different narrative. Back in 1960, Newton had a small population of 15,381 and was known primarily for the Maytag Company, a major manufacturer of washing machines that ranked 326 on the Fortune 500 list.
In the 1960 census data, there wasn’t enough information to break down income and education levels by affluent census tracts, as Newton was too small. However, there were well-off residents, as executives from Maytag generally lived in a more affluent area within the town. The wealthy lived in southwest Newton, where notable residents included Maytag executives, local professionals, and business owners. However, this affluent area didn’t have a stark divide between rich and poor; local workers and teachers were part of the community.
By the year 2000, despite Maytag still being on the Fortune 500 list at number 368, significant changes had occurred. The new president of Maytag chose to live in a wealthy area in Des Moines, moving away from Newton. Many other senior executives followed this trend. The remaining executives in Newton opted to move into upscale housing developments that bred exclusivity. The community became less integrated, and the divide between the wealthy and working-class widened. Fewer executives participated in local civic activities or support community events, weakening the town's social fabric.
Despite these differences, Austin, Manhattan, and Newton all experienced what can be described as a “secession” of the successful, or the affluent separating themselves from the larger community. In Austin, the rich areas grew further away from the city’s center, while in Manhattan, many wealthy residents occupied neighborhoods that fostered both economic and educational segregation. In Newton, the affluent execs moved entirely out of the town, indicating a strong trend toward inequality.
Many elite neighborhoods across the U.S. have seen significant changes over the past fifty years in terms of income and education. To illustrate this, data from fourteen of the most famous neighborhoods in 1960 were examined to see how they had changed by 2000. In 1960, college graduates were still a minority even in these posh locations; only Beverly Hills had a median family income above $100,000. By 2000, these neighborhoods saw their median incomes almost double from around $84,000 to $163,000. The proportion of adults holding college degrees jumped from 26 percent to 67 percent. This evolution demonstrated how wealthy neighborhoods became even more affluent and educated over time, signaling a clear trend favoring those with higher education and income.
The identification of "SuperZips," which are defined as zip codes in the top 95th to 99th percentiles of income and education, reveals the extent of segregation among America's new upper class. There were roughly 9.1 million adults aged 25 and older living in SuperZips, most of whom were white or Asian. Compared to people living elsewhere, those in SuperZips experienced significantly less crime, were more likely to be married, and generally enjoyed a lower unemployment rate. This disparity highlights a major divide in American society.
In addition to this, the SuperZips tended to house individuals who graduated from elite colleges. Data from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale showed that a significant number of their graduates lived in SuperZips, revealing a strong correlation between elite education and residential location. This trend suggested that wealth and education increasingly aligned, limiting social mobility for those outside of these privileged circles. The culture surrounding residents in SuperZips often reinforced the sense of superiority over others, adding to what some have termed “elitism.”
Alongside this geographic and social separation is also a difference in political views. It is widely recognized that the new upper class leans more liberal compared to the rest of American society. The political climates in elite universities, media, and entertainment industries tend to attract liberal views, which have increasingly spilled over into the business community as well. However, regional variations exist, leading to some wealthy neighborhoods holding conservative views, especially in parts of the Midwest and South.
A key example illustrating the political divide comes from the 2004 presidential election, where there were clear patterns of voting among affluent neighborhoods. Wealthy areas in places like San Francisco overwhelmingly supported John Kerry, while many affluent towns in New Jersey tended to favor George W. Bush. This inconsistency suggests that not all wealthy neighborhoods subscribe to the same political beliefs.
In conclusion, the experiences of Austin, Manhattan, and Newton highlight the significant social and economic changes occurring in America over the last several decades. The growth of affluent neighborhoods, the rise of educational attainment, and the establishment of SuperZips demonstrate how wealth is increasingly concentrated. While the cultural identity in these elite areas may feel distinctly removed from the rest of the country, understanding these trends provides insight into the broader narrative of inequality and change in America. As the demographics continue to shift, so too will the fabric of American society and the divides that exist within it.