Alleged brain drain isn't straining Hub

Thomas M. KEANE, Jr.
24 October 2003
Boston Herald

There's a new crisis in Boston.

It's the "brain drain." Preoccupied as you may be with terrorism, the recession and John Kerry's plummeting presidential chances, this particular calamity may have eluded you.

But fear not. The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce is on the case. The centerpiece of a new study it just released? Fifty percent of all graduates from local college and universities end up leaving the area. This has the chamber in a tizzy. "If this trend continues," it frets, "the loss of college graduates will have serious implications for the Greater Boston area."

Meanwhile, the chamber's study has city officials in a tizzy as well. Just as the chamber was releasing its report, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, not coincidentally, was shipping out its own counter-study, enthusiastically declaring, "Boston's bursting with 20-34 year olds!"

In fact, the chamber's crisis is overblown. Even if it were not, it's not clear it would matter. And the solutions the chamber offers up to solve its calamity are the same tired prescriptions we seem to hear for every local problem: more jobs and cheaper housing.

Oh yes, and keep the bars open later.

Let's start with the chamber's claim that 50 percent of graduates leave the area. That sounds terrible until you realize that about 80 percent of college students originally came to Boston from outside the area. Eighty percent in; 50 percent out. By my read, that's a net gain of 30 percent.

It's been that way for a while, which is why, far from losing young adults, Boston has more of them than almost anyone else does. In fact, we rank second - just behind Austin, Texas - in terms of the percentage of our population that is aged 20-34. It was that way in 1990; it's that way in the 2000 census as well.

True, in those 10 years the percentage of young adults in Boston's population declined from 36 percent to 33 percent. But that happened everywhere: The U.S. population is aging and there's been a temporary drop in the number of young adults (nationwide, just 21 percent of the population in 2000 was aged 21-34; 10 years earlier, it was 25 percent).

Still, the chamber worries about the 50 percent who leave. Most leave for what it called "avoidable" reasons: affordability (27 percent), jobs (30 percent) and the "feel" of the city (22 percent).

Sure, Boston is an expensive place in which to live; over the last few years, for example, housing prices have risen dramatically. But is it affordability that drives graduates away?

Doubtful. In fact, the most popular destinations for graduates leaving Boston are New York, Washington, D.C.; San Francisco and Los Angeles. All four places are expensive. So why are graduates flocking to those cities? Either affordability isn't the real issue or the young adults who are leaving are pretty dumb - if you really want cheap, move to Indiana. (I also can't figure out the policy implications of this issue. Would the chamber really support, for example, cutting subsidies for senior housing in favor of subsidies for housing aimed at young adults?)

How about jobs? According to the study, graduates leave for jobs in fields like entertainment, government and law.

The first two are hardly surprising. Anyone attracted to a career in entertainment would be smart to move to New York or Los Angeles, which is exactly what happens.

The same is true of government: those interested in politics end up in Washington, D.C. It's either that or stay in Boston and make your career as a staffer to a city councilor.

And law? Let 'em leave. We've got too many lawyers as it is.

Then, of course, there's the chamber's worry about the "feel" of the city, which essentially translates into a desire to have bars and nightclubs open all night.

For lack of a 3 a.m. beer, it seems, we're losing our best and brightest.

Maybe. Nevertheless, most of the chamber's members don't live in Boston. If they did, I suspect they'd react much differently to the idea of having the bars next to their homes open until the wee hours.

The chamber's study (and even the BRA's counter-study) has a kind of demographically-driven, MTV-ish feel to it. Young adults, with all of their disposable income, are marketers' obsession. Now, apparently, they've become an obsession for the chamber.

I don't buy it.

New York City - with far fewer young adults as a percent of its population - seems to have more than its share of the intelligence, excitement and creativity that the bureau craves.

Favoring one population segment over another might work for TV or radio, but it's bad public policy for a city.

Young adults eventually grow into older adults. Knowing that the city will care as much about them when they're over 35 might be the best reason for those who are under 35 to stick around.

Talk back to Tom Keane at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.