LSAT 80, RC Passage 2, The Great Migration, LSATHacks

Paragraph Summaries

1. Between 1915-1960, 40% of the African-American population of the South left to migrate to the American North. This was called the Great Migration. The reasons were: 1. WWI increased labor demand 2. WWI cut off immigration, so Northern companies sent recruiters south. 3. Boll weevils destroyed cotton and reduced southern labor demand.
2. The North-South income gap in 1915 is what started the migration. But it’s not clear why migration continued and increased, even though the North-South income gap went down.
3. The authors propose that migration gets momentum. People migrate when expected income gains outweigh the costs of moving. And previous waves of migration lower these costs. The costs fall into three categories: 1. Uncertainty about housing and job markets in the new place 2. The time and money cost of moving 3. The effort required to learn about the new local market and culture once migrants arrive.
4. Early migrants during the Great Migration reduced all three of these costs for later migrants.  Letters read by many provided labor market information. Migrants home on visits transported others back with them, reducing costs. And old migrants provided new migrants with temporary housing, food, etc, reducing arrival costs.

Analysis

Note the text at the top of the passage that says this is an article by economists. It’s always important to read that text for context on the passage. What are economists interested in? Money, finance, and jobs. So, you should be thinking about financial factors when reading this.

This passage is almost like a paradox LR question. The Economists are trying to explain increased migration at a time that the income gap went down. 

First, what’s an income gap? Well, imagine that lawyers were paid $80,000 in NYC and $170,000 in Los Angeles. What do you think would happen? You’d see an exodus of lawyers from NYC to LA, seeking more money. That’s the income gap.

The puzzling thing in this passage is that as the income gap has gone down, migration went up. So now NYC pays $100,000, and LA $160,000, but even more people are migrating. What gives?

The economists point out that when you migrate, you have costs. Let’s suppose that for the first migrant lawyers, a cross-country move costs $80,000 in lost wages, transport, extra housing costs, mistakes, etc. 

So in the first year, you’re actually only gaining $10,000. You have a long run gain after that, but the upfront cost is steep.

But as time goes on, NYC lawyer colonies send back information to NYC. They tell people in the home city what job and housing markets are like. When migrant lawyers visit home, they bring new lawyers back to LA with them. And when newcomers arrive, the NYC-lawyer community in LA helps the newcomers by giving them a place to stay, food, etc.

This lowers the costs of migration to $20,000. So now in the first year a migrant NYC-lawyer can expect to gain $40,000, even though the wage gap is lower!

Here’s that in chart form 

Extra Income: 90,000

Cost: 80,000

Advantage: 10,000

Extra Income: 60,000

Cost: 20,000

Advantage: 40,000

That’s pretty much the whole story of the passage. Though it’s nominally about African-Americans, this passage is actually a test of your ability to imagine yourself as a migrant in general, and what the costs might be that offset any income gains.

Note that all this is just the economists’ theory. They’re merely proposing an argument for why the Great Migration increased. They’re not saying “we know with 100% certainty that the Great Migration is explained by these factors”. This is different than a passage without an argument where the author simply tells us what’s true.

In terms of the questions, the most important facts to know are:

• That the income gap increased in 1915 and started the great Migration (lines 7-19)
• That it’s not clear why the Great Migration continued even as the income gap went down (lines 19-22)
• That the economists believe migration continued because migration costs lowered, meaning that the expected gain still exceeded the expected cost.
• The network of previous migrants is what lowered costs.
• There still was an income gap in later years. It was just smaller than it used to be. If a gap is “narrowing”, there is still a gap.

---