Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> [been meaning to send this...]
>
> Financial Times - September 20, 2003
>
>
> In fact, there are already signs that the New Sunbelt is merely going
> through the California migration schedule a few decades late. Las
> Vegas, the archetypal New Sunbelt metropolis, was flooded with
> upper-middle-class American-born college graduates in the 1990s. Its
> college-educated population more than doubled in the course of the
> decade. But at the same time, the number of its residents living in
> poverty nearly doubled too, an indication that its quest for low-wage
> labour will be unable to avoid the class polarisation that marks
> Melting Pot states.
>
One thing puzzles me. I should think that for all those people to move to Las Vegas there must have been jobs there (and perhaps not elsewhere?). But this article utterly ignores any reason for moving except reasons internal to those moving. What gives?
Carrol