Tag Archives: jobs

Schwinn once an important Chicago company but the industry and the world changed

Posted on by

A look at a new documentary on the bicycle company Schwinn tells of how it was once a Chicago company and then it was not:

Photo by Jess Loiterton on Pexels.com

The story starts in 1895, when German immigrants Ignaz Schwinn and Adolph Arnold founded Arnold, Schwinn & Co. in Chicago. Schwinn would subsequently buy out his partner and build an enduring family business that would reign over the bicycle industry for generations, surviving the rise of the automobile, the Depression and two world wars.

In fact, the original six-story Schwinn factory at Lake and Peoria streets in Fulton Market still stands as a monument to Chicago’s erstwhile bike company, with plans to redevelop the now-vacant building into office space…

As market share dwindled, Schwinn began outsourcing production. By 1983, Schwinn ceased its Chicago manufacturing, laying off 1,800 employees and moving most of its production overseas to Taiwan.

In 1992, struggling with debt, the storied Chicago company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy under fourth-generation owner Ed Schwinn…

The bike company has rolled on under a succession of new owners and is now part of Dutch conglomerate Pon, with Schwinn based in Madison, Wisconsin. But the movie focuses on the Chicago glory years, when the Schwinn brand ruled the sidewalks, schoolyards and bike lanes.

This might be the story of a number of companies over the years. They had success with lots of work and new ideas. They rose to become a known and popular brand. But then industries and places changed. People no longer wanted the product in the same way. They moved manufacturing overseas. They hit hard financial times and even though the brand name lives on, it has done so under the ownership of different companies and the company is now based in another city.

And this could also be the story of places. Chicago, like a number of American cities, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, were centers for manufacturing. American companies produced a lot for decades. And much of that went elsewhere by the end of the twentieth century. Sociologist William Julius Wilson describes these shifts and their effects on neighborhoods in When Work Disappears. The loss of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs was a hard blow to many cities who struggled to pursue or grow other businesses or industries in subsequent years.

In the big picture, both companies and places go through cycles and lifespans. They do not necessarily continue as they have been, even when they are successful. We tend to like the stories of their rise and it can be harder to wrestle with their falls. But both are part of the human experience.

The prevalence of industry in 19th century American suburbs

Posted on by

In recently reading The Working Man’s Reward: Chicago’s Early Suburbs and the Roots of American Sprawl, I noted this in a chapter on the Town of Lake which was annexed into Chicago in 1889:

Photo by Jon on Pexels.com

The U.S. census reported that the number of suburban jobs rose after 1850 and accelerated after 1880, so that, in the second half of the nineteenth century, suburban employment constituted one-third of all manufacturing employment in America. Ignoring those jobs beyond the central business district means ignoning blue-collar workers and ignoring one of the leading forces for suburbanization in America. (75)

A large part of the American Dream of suburbia involves single-family homes. But the story of suburbia also includes industry and jobs. In this book, historian Elaine Lewinnek highlights the move of industry to suburban areas outside of what was then the Chicago city limits and how working people followed those jobs. They often ended up in small, single-family homes close to new factories and meatpacking facilities.

Why did industry move to the suburbs? Land was cheaper. They could build large facilities. The downsides of industry – noise, smells, pollution – affected fewer people and the land uses faced fewer regulations in suburban areas.

The one statistic that jumped out at me in the paragraph above was that “one-third of all manufacturing employment” was in the suburbs. Some of those suburban areas became part of the city, as they did in Chicago. But industrial suburbs continued, such as in places like Gary, Indiana, as did suburban employment. When the most common commuting trip in the United States today is suburb to suburb, this is part of that legacy of suburban industry and work.

Some suburbs are indeed bedroom communities with limited or no commercial and industrial land uses but the suburbs as a whole have lots of business activity.

Jobs as economic engines and prestige for big cities

Posted on by

Walgreens recently announced it will move employees from Chicago’s Loop to its suburban headquarters. The Chicago Tribune discusses the consequences:

Photo by Yuugen Rai on Pexels.com

But let’s be honest: this news stings. The city loses many hundreds of workers who are downtown most days of the week. Grabbing lunch. Shopping. Going out after work.

And it loses just a little bit more prestige.

Jobs are often thought of in terms of their economic benefits. A company is hiring and paying people. Those employees then spend money in the community. Having lots of good-paying and/or stable jobs can be a sign of a strong local economy.

But jobs are also about prestige for cities. In this case, the jobs are attached to a large company founded in the city. Having jobs of prominent companies in a community suggests the community is a desirable place to be.

Politicians and leaders love to talk about gaining jobs. “We added this many jobs.” Or “major corporations added jobs here.” It is partly about economics but it is also about status; they can claim to be the one who brought the jobs to the community or they created the conditions that led to the jobs.

In other words, a region may have lots of jobs but if there are constantly stories – or even just perceptions – that companies are eliminating jobs in a city, this can be a blow to the place’s prestige. To lose jobs to another community hints that the place losing the jobs is not as desirable.

The percentage of realtors under age 30 went up 400% (*from 1% to 4%)

Posted on by

Some younger adults are moving into certain careers they feel offer them opportunities in an uncertain world. This includes becoming a realtor.

Photo by Alena Darmel on Pexels.com

Some Zoomers like Marmo are ditching four-year degrees in favor of work that unchains them from a desk, puts money in their bank accounts sooner, and — they hope — will survive the artificial intelligence boom that is already starting to change once-hot professions like software engineering, consulting, and marketing. Some are turning to blue collar work like HVAC servicing and wind turbine installation. Others are trying to start their own ventures via influencing and side hustles. And some see the lure in the licensed white-collar job, including working in real estate or insurance.

That shift in licensed jobs is slow, but growing. The share of Realtors younger than 30 grew from 1% to 4% in 2024, according to NAR’s member profile, and sits at 3% in 2025. Among insurance agents, the median age of an insurance principal who owns 20% or more of their agency is 55, with 22% of principals over the age of 66, according to a 2024 study of agencies conducted by the Big “I,” an association for independent insurance agents. Many are likely eying retirement, which could open up a huge amount of demand for young people to take up the trade.

Several Gen Zers I spoke to for this story told me they find appeal in working in real estate because there’s no ceiling on what they can earn. Rather than invest tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a four-year degree, they can spend a few weeks or months training to receive licenses and start working in fields where their hustle correlates to their payday…

Because it’s still something of a rarity to see a baby-faced real estate agent or teenager selling life insurance, the young people in licensure jobs I spoke to say that succeeding means not just learning the trade but competing against ageist stereotypes. The median age of a first-time home buyer has risen to an all-time-high of 38, according to NAR. That’s up from an average age of 33 a decade ago, according to a Zillow analysis. The idea of having a newly minted, 18-year-old real estate agent guide you through the biggest financial decision of your life is jarring. Katie Kenny, a 24-year-old Realtor in Chicago’s suburbs, says people meet her and are surprised, as they “expect the real estate agent to be like double my age,” she tells me. “They’re like, ‘oh, you’re young.’ And then when I open my mouth and start talking, they’re actually surprised because I do know a lot more, and I sound a lot more mature than what a normal 24-year-old would sound like.”

This article, like many articles, is trying to get a handle on a possible trend: younger people are pursuing different fields due to the world around them. There are numerous ways to report on this phenomena. This article uses a mix of statistics and interviews, considering broader patterns and hearing people describe their choices.

In the headline to the post, I highlight one way to report the data cited above. 400% growth in young realtors! 400% of anything sounds like a lot of change. A 100% increase or decrease would be noteworthy so 400% must mean a lot.

Another way to do this would be to take the approach above: the percentage of young realtors increased from 1% to 4%. This is not a big jump as both are small percentages. The odds of having a realtor under 30 years old is still 1 in 25.

Both of these options are factually correct. I would argue the second option is a better representation of the full context. Change happened but it is small change. If the same trend continues for 5 to 10 years, then there might be big change to report. Imagine the 30% of realtors under age 30 or 50%.

Someone will continue to track this data. It makes for interesting stories: “In an age of AI, college debt, and global crisis, more young adults in the United States are choosing to be realtors.” How big of a story it becomes partly depends on how it is told.

The reasons Americans move to exurbs – including economic opportunities

Posted on by

An overview of some booming American exurbs explains why they are growing:

Photo by Ruslan Burlaka on Pexels.com

Exurbs are areas typically located 40 to 60 miles from city centers and are often appealing to families seeking more space, affordable homes and a quieter way of life.

The trend has transformed once-sleepy rural towns into thriving cultural communities with booming populations and housing markets…

The COVID-19 pandemic has played a significant role in the shift to the exurbs, with many people now able to make a living from home thanks to an increase in remote work opportunities. 

This means they are no longer tied to big hubs where offices are based.  

Skyrocketing housing costs in major cities have also pushed many families to seek more affordable and spacious alternatives.

Finding affordable housing is a significant issue across American metropolitan areas. The thought often goes that the further one moves out from the center the more house a buyer can get. (This can ignore the pockets of cheaper housing that do often exist closer to the center of regions but the assumption is those who want these cheaper homes also want a particular kind of suburban community or way of life.)

But there is another component to the growth of exurbs and the suburban fringe. There are jobs and other economic opportunities on the edge of regions. Commuting to the big city is arduous from these far-out locations. The article above hints at the possibilities of working from home but numerous exurbs grew before this. Where are people working?

They are often working at companies and organizations in the suburbs. If I live 60 miles outside the big city, I may commute to a job 45 miles from the big city. Those edge cities spread throughout regions can provide thousands of good jobs accessible to those living in the exurbs. Or the new growth generates jobs and opportunities in the exurbs. Yes, some people can work from home but these are particular kinds of jobs and new growth leads to medical jobs, service jobs, and jobs in other industries that also find it attractive to locate in exurbs.

In other words, you cannot have the cheaper housing of the exurbs without also having jobs and opportunities in and near the exurbs.

Given the importance of jobs reports for policy and the economy, why are there so many later revisions to the data?

Posted on by

The number of jobs gained in the United States is expected to be revised:

Photo by Vojtech Okenka on Pexels.com

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. economists expect the government’s preliminary benchmark revisions on Wednesday to show payrolls growth in the year through March was at least 600,000 weaker than currently estimated — about 50,000 a month.

While JPMorgan Chase & Co. forecasters see a decline of about 360,000, Goldman Sachs indicates it could be as large as a million.

These are not just numbers; this data has implications for policies and economic conditions. Why are they being revised?

Once a year, the BLS benchmarks the March payrolls level to a more accurate but less timely data source called the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which is based on state unemployment insurance tax records and covers nearly all US jobs. The release of the latest QCEW report in June already hinted at weaker payroll gains last year…

For most of the recent years, monthly payroll data have been stronger than the QCEW figures. Some economists attribute that in part to the so-called birth-death model — an adjustment the BLS makes to the data to account for the net number of businesses opening and closing, but that might be off in the post-pandemic world…

Ronnie Walker at Goldman Sachs says the QCEW figures are likely to overstate the moderation in employment growth because they will strip out up to half a million unauthorized immigrants that were included in the initial estimates.

In other words, this is a measurement issue. The first measure comes from a particular set of data and the revision utilizes a different set of data that takes more time to put together. There might also be discrepancies on what is included in each set of data, not just differences in the sources of data. This mismatch leads to later revisions.

Given our data and analysis abilities today, isn’t there some way to improve the system? Could we get (a) more complete data quicker or (b) better estimates in the first place or (c) even new data sources that could provide better information? To have an initial set of figures that people respond to and then a later set of figures that people respond to seems counterproductive given the stakes involved. .

Those with the right jobs and resources can move where they want in the United States

Posted on by

In a story about people leaving Texas (even as the state gained population last year), I was struck by the patterns in the stories of people moving out the state: they could do so. Here is what I mean:

Photo by Terrance Barksdale on Pexels.com

While people have been moving into the Lone Star state to take advantage of its relatively affordable real-estate market, political atmosphere, and work opportunities, some of those same qualities are driving others out. Over 494,000 people left Texas between 2021 and 2022 (though the state gained a net population of 174,261.) It’s a trend that could intensify as housing costs surge and the state’s political landscape becomes more polarized…

For Texans, “the Midwest has emerged as popular recently because it is just by and large the most affordable region,” Hannah Jones, Realtor.com’s economic research analyst, told Business Insider in October. “We’re seeing this trend of buyers looking for affordability really explode.”…

In Austin, some tech workers who flocked to the city during the pandemic just can’t seem to get out fast enough…

Jules Rogers, a reporter who relocated from Portland, Oregon, to Houston in 2018 for a position at a local newspaper, left Texas less than two years after moving to the city…

Theoretically, Americans can move wherever they like. In reality, the ability to move is constrained by a variety of factors, including financial resources and jobs.

In this story, people can move in and out of Texas relatively easily. Some came in recent years and want to move back out. Others are leaving Texas for cheaper housing elsewhere.

This may be possible for some. But, it is not easy for everyone to do this. Americans do not just move to places where housing is cheaper. People have numerous reasons for locating in certain places and not others. Those with resources and particular jobs that are in demand or available in many places have some flexibility that others may not have. White-collar workers, in particular, may be able to more easily move from big metro region to big metro region (or even out of these regions as some did during COVID-19).

This would be hard data to collect but it would be interesting to compare people moving for different reasons and how long they stay. Do retirees who move to certain places stay longer than those who move for jobs or cheaper housing?

“Stuck between the hot housing market and the hot job market”

Posted on by

Housing values are up and there are jobs to be had – but many of the jobs to work are in places where housing is expensive. What gives?

Photo by Ron Lach on Pexels.com

All over the country, employers like McDonnell are finding themselves stuck between the hot housing market and the hot job market. In Oregon, rural school districts have puzzled over how to provide enough housing for teachers. In rural Arizona, hospitals are renting out rooms to staff members. In Massachusetts, the state has helped support temporary housing for summer workers on Cape Cod.

The result is a kind of tug-of-war between two of the economy’s main pillars. On a small scale, these transactions are just business owners and employees working things out in one-to-one agreements. But the underlying tension caused by the housing market could permanently shape how people decide where to live, what jobs to take — and whether the economy is working for them.

No one thinks a lack of housing is enough to spoil momentum in the labor market. Employers have added workers for 34 consecutive months, after all, and the job market is still churning. But some economists still worry about the knock-on effects of the country’s housing challenges. Until enough homes get built in the places that need it most, more companies will have to get creative — through higher pay, remote work options or other perks — to ensure their workers can find a place to live…

Martin estimates that offers don’t work out more than half the time, largely because of housing issues. And even when they do, Martin said, she’s never seen so many professionals in mid-level management roles, earning $60,000 or $75,000 per year, who still need roommates to make it work.

I remember a presidential candidate suggesting people should be able to live near where they work…

The most interesting part of the article above is that it sounds like at least a few employers are getting creative in providing housing so they can have workers and stable employees. If the market or government cannot provide housing, employers and organizations can help.

This is a long-term issue in the United States that sometimes goes by the name of “spatial mismatch.” This refers to the situations where the jobs available do not line up with where people live. Particularly with jobs scattered throughout metropolitan regions, workers have difficulty finding housing near work opportunities and/or need to commute long distances.

Since job growth has continued for a while now, does this mean only certain workers have been able to take advantage of certain jobs? For example, those with more resources or housing equity in their current location or an ability to commute long distances could have an advantage for jobs. At some point, will there not be enough workers to fill some of these spots?

Almost all new American jobs in recent decades in urban areas

Posted on by

Urban areas in the United States – cities and suburbs – contain over 80% of residents in the country. Yet, new job growth happens even at even higher rates in these areas:

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Pexels.com

Meanwhile, researchers at Cornell University estimate that 94% of the nation’s job growth since 2000 happened in urban counties.

Many would not be surprised to hear that cities are job centers. Whether thinking about offices, industry, or service sectors, cities are often viewed as centers of innovation and economic activity.

But, one of the lesser known aspects of suburban growth in the United States is the amount of jobs in the suburbs. As part of a complex suburbia where suburbs are more than bedroom suburbs dependent on urban centers, suburbs are full of work and business activity. When I wrote the Oxford Bibliographies entry on Suburbanism, I made sure to include “Economic Activity in the Suburbs” as one of the sections.

It sounds like this also means that rural areas are not experiencing much job growth. The job growth is not close to the percent of Americans who live in rural areas. Without seeing historical data, it is hard to know whether this is a big change from the past or whether this has been the case for a long time. At the same time, it is hard to imagine that many rural areas can thrive when they experience little new job growth.

The importance of statistics on college campuses

Posted on by

Within a longer look at the fate of the humanities, one Harvard student suggests statistics dominates campus conversations:

Photo by Markus Spiske on Pexels.com

I asked Haimo whether there seemed to be a dominant vernacular at Harvard. (When I was a student there, people talked a lot about things being “reified.”) Haimo told me that there was: the language of statistics. One of the leading courses at Harvard now is introductory statistics, enrolling some seven hundred students a semester, up from ninety in 2005. “Even if I’m in the humanities, and giving my impression of something, somebody might point out to me, ‘Well, who was your sample? How are you gathering your data?’ ” he said. “I mean, statistics is everywhere. It’s part of any good critical analysis of things.”

It struck me that I knew at once what Haimo meant: on social media, and in the press that sends data visualizations skittering across it, statistics is now everywhere, our language for exchanging knowledge. Today, a quantitative idea of rigor underlies even a lot of arguments about the humanities’ special value. Last school year, Spencer Glassman, a history major, argued in a column for the student paper that Harvard’s humanities “need to be more rigorous,” because they set no standards comparable to the “tangible things that any student who completes Stat 110 or Physics 16 must know.” He told me, “One could easily walk away with an A or A-minus and not have learned anything. All the STEM concentrators have this attitude that humanities are a joke.”…

Haimo and I turned back toward Harvard Square. “I think the problem for the humanities is you can feel like you’re not really going anywhere, and that’s very scary,” he said. “You write one essay better than the other from one semester to the next. That’s not the same as, you know, being able to solve this economics problem, or code this thing, or do policy analysis.” This has always been true, but students now recognized less of the long-term value of writing better or thinking more deeply than they previously had. Last summer, Haimo worked at the HistoryMakers, an organization building an archive of African American oral history. He said, “When I was applying, I kept thinking, What qualifies me for this job? Sure, I can research, I can write things.” He leaned forward to check for passing traffic. “But those skills are very difficult to demonstrate, and it’s frankly not what the world at large seems in demand of.”

I suspect this level of authority is not just true on a college campus: numbers have a particular power in the world today. They convey proof. Patterns and trends. There can often be little space to ask where the numbers came from or what they mean.

Is this the only way to understand the world? No. We need to consider all sorts of data to understand and explain what is going on. Stories and narratives do not just exist to flesh out quantitative patterns; they can convey deep truths and raise important questions.

But what if we only care today about what is most efficient and most able to directly translate into money? If college students and others prioritize jobs over everything else, does this advantage numbers and their connections to STEM and certain occupations that are the only ways or perceived certain ways to wealth and a return on investment? From later in the article:

In a quantitative society for which optimization—getting the most output from your input—has become a self-evident good, universities prize actions that shift numbers, and pre-professionalism lends itself to traceable change.

If American society prizes money and a certain kind of success above all else, are these patterns that surprising?