Owing to the observed patterns of neighborhood selection displayed in figure 2, we focus on identifying the effects of moving from the first to the second decile of neighborhood quality.18 Table 2 characterizes some of the changes in neighborhood characteristics that would typically accompany a move from $D=1$ to $D=2$. On average, the poverty rate would decline from 33% to 22%, BA attainment would go from 7% to 11%, the share of single-headed households would drop from 52% to 38%, and the female unemployment rate would drop from 16% to 10%. While these changes in neighborhood characteristics are nontrivial, it is worth pointing out that they are still far worse than the unconditional median neighborhood in the United States in 2000, and changes of these magnitudes would have to occur several times to achieve the characteristics of the highest-quality neighborhoods. As discussed in Aliprantis (2017a) and elsewhere, these are moves from the most extreme areas of the left tail of the distribution of quality to neighborhoods that are still within the left tail of quality.19
 Neighborhood Characteristic Mean $|D=1$ Mean $|D=2$ Unconditional Median Mean $|D=10$ Poverty rate (%) 33 22 9 3 High school diploma (%) 55 65 83 95 BA (%) 7 11 19 52 Single-headed households (%) 52 38 24 11 Female unemployment rate (%) 16 10 5 2 Male EPR (⁠$×100$⁠) 55 65 79 89
 Neighborhood Characteristic Mean $|D=1$ Mean $|D=2$ Unconditional Median Mean $|D=10$ Poverty rate (%) 33 22 9 3 High school diploma (%) 55 65 83 95 BA (%) 7 11 19 52 Single-headed households (%) 52 38 24 11 Female unemployment rate (%) 16 10 5 2 Male EPR (⁠$×100$⁠) 55 65 79 89