American hinterlands fact of the day

by on May 7, 2017 at 3:16 pm in Current Affairs, Political Science | Permalink

…the most egalitarian places, like Utah, tend to be largely Trump-friendly. Among the 10 states (and D.C.) with the most income inequality, seven supported Clinton in 2016, while seven of the 10 most equal states supported Trump.

That is from Joel Kotkin, acerbic throughout.

1 Thiago Ribeiro May 7, 2017 at 3:34 pm

“The Confederates wanted to draw themselves into a cocoon so they could enslave and exploit people. The blue state secessionists want to draw themselves into a cocoon so they can ignore the exploited people of America.”
Exploited by whom? By their fellow Reds? They are chosing that (I think I have to remember Americans that slaves could not vote, enslaving people is wrong and, as annoying as Liberals may be, being a snob is not the same as fighting a war to preserve the “peculiar institution”). By the departing Blues? They, their NPR, PBS and arugula salads will be gone. By the international globalist system who has enriched the “cognitive aristocracy” at the expense of everyone else? Do anyone, Red or Blue, has a plan to deal with it?
Seriously, do you really have to go through it every four years, people? If you do not know how to play together, maybe you need a time-out and go to your rooms think about the matter. You already think the country would be better without the other half? Why do not go ahead once and for all?

2 Harun May 7, 2017 at 3:58 pm

The whole red state / blue state thing is dumb.

3 Brett May 7, 2017 at 4:09 pm

It really is. There are some states that seem to be pretty heavily in favor of one party or another, but most of them are divided between “blue” cities, “red” rural and exurban areas, and suburbs that can be squishy.

4 Thiago Ribeiro May 7, 2017 at 4:21 pm

So we are not even talking Union vs Confederacy, we are talking India’s Partition or Singapore’s riots.

5 Pshrnk May 8, 2017 at 9:49 am

“The Confederates wanted to draw themselves into a cocoon so they could enslave and exploit people. The blue state secessionists want to draw themselves into a cocoon so they can ignore the exploited people of America.”

If this were true it would be an idea that should appeal to red staters who claim to value self-sufficiency. If you refuse to help yourself we will quit helping you.

6 The Engineer May 7, 2017 at 3:36 pm

I think education explains all. Despite the conventional wisdom, more education creates more inequality, because not everyone can be educated. As you have more educated people in a region, wages rise for the educated, but that doesn’t help the uneducated at the bottom.

And providing services to the educated elite attracts unskilled immigrants, which itself exacerbates inequality.

7 Daniel Weber May 7, 2017 at 6:15 pm

Everything you say is right. “Inequality” really is a stupid thing to worry about, and this factoid just rams home why.

If you make your city attractive to both rich and poor, you will have a lot of inequality.

I wonder if “income diversity” would be a good counter-meme.

8 improbable May 8, 2017 at 6:34 am

That is beautiful, “income diversity” needs to catch on widely as a term.

Which was recently in my mind thanks to Christopher Caldwell’s article:

Guilluy describes twenty-first-century France as “an ‘American’ society like any other, unequal and multicultural.” It’s a controversial premise—that inequality and racial diversity are linked as part of the same (American-type) system and that they progress or decline together. Though this premise has been confirmed in much of the West for half a century, the assertion will shock many Americans, conditioned to place “inequality” (bad) and “diversity” (good) at opposite poles of a Manichean moral order.

link?

https://www.city-journal.org/html/french-coming-apart-15125.html

9 Brian May 7, 2017 at 9:28 pm

It’s not education. Utah is very well educated. California has the most high school dropouts.

Like most political variation in the USA, this is entirely about race and migration. Equal places are equal because they have less racial and national origin diversity. Unequal places are unequal because they have a lot of ethnocultural diversity. And places without diversity vote Republican because they’re full of white people and the Republicans are the party for white people.

That doesn’t explain international inequality or politics around the world, but it pretty much explains politics and inequality within America.

10 Jonathan May 7, 2017 at 11:05 pm

Should it ever be surprising that the most populous state has the most of any category? The number of people California has more than Texas would be the 8th most populous state. It would be a shocking indictment of any other state’s education system if they did have more dropouts than California.

The race truthers are self refuting by their own stupidity.

11 Careless May 8, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Should it ever be surprising that the most populous state has the most of any category?

Per capita? yes.

12 Agra Brum May 10, 2017 at 9:00 pm

California has vastly more farms and a much larger agricultural sector than Utah. It is the job distribution that matters. Also, the mormon church, which provides a pretty heavy support network (to the faithful) and pushes education which matters as well. Utah is always a bit sui generis…

13 Lord Action May 8, 2017 at 9:10 am

This isn’t incompatible with what The Engineer and Daniel Weber wrote.

Places vary in their endowment of IQ. Education is a force-multiplier for IQ. If you start with a fairly uniform population (e.g., Utah, or Japan), adding a bunch of education isn’t going to be able to spread things out much. If you start with a high variance population, adding education is going to produce much more income diversity than you’d otherwise have (e.g., Massachusetts).

14 Anonymous May 8, 2017 at 10:42 am

If we believe cities are talent meccas, then using Utah and California borders for comparison produces a large sampling error.

Compare Provo to Cedar City. Compare Sunnyvale to Fresno.

15 Kevin Burke May 7, 2017 at 4:00 pm

Utah is an odd state to make that point with, as Trump only got 45.5% of the vote there; Evan McMullin, a candidate with no hope of getting elected, won 21.5%.

16 Kevin Burke May 7, 2017 at 4:01 pm

Trump also got 13% of the vote share in the Republican primary, well behind Ted Cruz and John Kasich.

17 Brett May 7, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Utah conservatives tend to have a very strong sense of family-friendly propriety and dislike for “crudeness”, at least in my experience living here.

18 Jan May 7, 2017 at 5:19 pm

But that didn’t stop them from voting to allocate all of the state’s electoral college votes for the crudest candidate to run in modern history. Weird.

19 Randy May 7, 2017 at 6:14 pm

Yeah, I played a small part in that. Two of my Mormon co-workers were initially Never Trumpers because of the “crudeness” issue, but I told them that if Clinton won Mormonism would get caught up in the purge of so-called “bigots.” Two days before the election, they told me they thought I was right and that they were voting for Trump.

20 Cooper May 7, 2017 at 6:24 pm

Trump had the lowest share of the vote for a Republican candidate in Utah since 1944!

He is widely disliked in Utah and by Mormons more generally.

If Hillary Clinton had received only 70% of the African American vote (instead of 90%+ as she actually did), nobody would think it weird to talk about how much blacks hated Clinton even though she won them decisively.

That’s the magnitude of the swing we saw in Utah. Republicans usually win 65%-70% of the vote in Utah. The Republican nominee couldn’t even win a majority of the vote in Utah last year.

21 Art Deco May 7, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Your idea of refinement is the woman who reamed out one of her husband’s campaign managers, calling him a ‘fu**ing Jew b**tard’?

22 Randy May 7, 2017 at 6:49 pm

“Your idea of refinement is the woman who reamed out one of her husband’s campaign managers, calling him a ‘fu**ing Jew b**tard’?”

I think Hillary is a rt but that’s just Fake News.

23 Jan May 7, 2017 at 7:23 pm

Clinton and liberals hate Mormons because they are *all* immoral bigots. Rightly so.

But you got Trump and according to the polls those who voted for him you don’t regret it one bit. Given his historically disgraceful performance so far, wow. Congrats to Macron!

24 Clark May 7, 2017 at 7:36 pm

@Jan: “But that didn’t stop them from voting to…”

Who is “them” ?

Trump received votes from only 26.3% of the Utah Electorate (VEP)

About 3/4 of eligible Utah voters did NOT vote for Trump. Ain’t democracy great !

_______________________________________

Last November, 57.7 percent of Utah’s voting-eligible population cast ballots, compared with 55.5 percent in 2012. Utah was lower than the average national voter turnout of 60.2%.

In comparison, the highest 2016 turnout in the nation was in Minnesota at 74.8 percent, followed by Maine at 72.8 percent and New Hampshire at 72.5 percent. Lowest turnout was in Hawaii at 43 percent, followed by West Virginia at 50.8 percent and Texas at 51.6 percent.
Among the most common reasons eligible-voters cite for not voting are lack of real competition and lack meaningful choices on the ballot.

25 Potato May 7, 2017 at 8:52 pm

Certainly the crudest. Has to be near the lowest IQ as well. To give Utah credit where it’s due, he had a historically low %.

100% of the blame can be laid at the feet of the Supreme Court. We’ve collectively decided that democracy is good, unless some locale somewhere within this country disagrees with our beliefs. Then they’re evil and must be destroyed, and it’s up to the Supreme Court to do it.

Even though i side against the Art Decos of the world in the religious sense, it definitely is strange that this suicide pact isn’t recognized as widely. Not only must abortion and gay marriage be illegal/legal, it must be so everywhere. Trans bathrooms must be illegal/legal, and it must be so everywhere. Nutcase gay conversion nonsense must be illegal/legal and it must be so everywhere. Gun rights must be attacked/defended everywhere, death penalty must be stamped out everywhere, etc etc ad nauseam.

Collective disarmament is the right course. I would have to (gasp!) accept that some states have different values, morals, mores than I do as a coastal professional. This isn’t jim crow and slavery, it’s late term abortions and gun rights.

Pushing hot button issues out of the federal purview would be such a positive sea change in the US.

It will never happen, alas. And people that hate a candidate will hold their nose due to the Supreme Court seat, since otherwise their values will be trampled upon.

And thus begat Trump.

26 TMC May 7, 2017 at 11:28 pm

Or he was just lucky enough to run against the most dishonest candidate in history.

Being the second most vile choice in the race still makes you the winner.

27 msgkings May 8, 2017 at 1:15 am

+1 to Potato for more federalism.

28 Anonymous May 8, 2017 at 10:48 am

This subthread dissolved into paranoia about what Clinton wanted/could have achieved. That paranoia is why Trump won.

It would be nice if more of you introspected on that. Your unreasonable fears produced a concrete (and realistically worse) outcome.

29 Careless May 8, 2017 at 10:00 pm

Whose paranoia? Where?

No one even mentioned the absolute fact that she wanted to eliminate the freedom of the press through Constitutional Amendment.

30 Brian May 7, 2017 at 9:39 pm

Utah’s Republicans are a lot more conservative than the rest of the country’s Republicans and Trump ran as a liberal pro-health care, anti-dumb wars, pro-worker, pro-health and safety, pro-(or at least not anti-) environment, deal maker and compromiser.

Remember that Utah Republicans mostly have a cultural protective wall built around them. The Church protects them from the raw competition of the cultural and sexual marketplace that gentiles have to suffer with. Their birthrates are higher, their social trust is off the charts, they’re healthier, their marriages survive rough patches because of community support, their drug problems get treated with firm loving support, if they don’t get married young, the Church sets them up in a singles ward to get hitched long before they hit the wall and become bitter single losers.

Money income just doesn’t matter as much when the real values in life are taken care of for you. And national cultural collapse by mass immigration is less threatening when you don’t depend on the national culture because you have an extra safety net that provides much more support and guarantees than the gentile American people get from each other.

31 Islander May 9, 2017 at 3:16 pm

What a wonderful explanation of Mormonism, thank you.

I’ll just add to that by explaining why their religion is so weird, namely the function is to serve as a ‘ cultural tattoo’. Historically, cultures have separated themselves from others with unique customs, styles etc that outsiders find weird. It gives group cohesion and guards against cultural drift and erosion.

The Mormons beliefs are very weird, but ultimately not so much that it interferes with their productivity or intelligence. They’ve hit upon a great recipe for success in life, which makes me think they’ll be around for a long time to come.

32 Brett May 7, 2017 at 4:06 pm

Kotkin is like some ideology-flipped version of Dean Baker, writing the same essay over and over again for more than a decade. It’s very strange to see him attacking the “blue bourgeoisie”, when said folks also dominate the cities in the “red states” that he praises. Austin is a prominent example of that, but Salt Lake City as well – considering how Republican Utah is, you’d never guess that Salt Lake City is so democratic that it hasn’t elected a mayor who identifies as a Democrat (the races are non-partisan) since the 1970s.

But there are a few good points in there. Housing costs definitely are a chronic issue for the major coastal cities, that doesn’t seem to be resolving itself fast enough (rental prices have gone down slightly in places like NYC because of heavy construction, but they’re still high). Manufacturing is still quite important, although IIRC the manufacturing export data is much less impressive if you remove “refined oil” from the manufacturing export category.

33 Brett May 7, 2017 at 4:07 pm

Bloody typos. “you’d never guess that Salt Lake City is so democratic that it hasn’t elected a mayor who identifies as a Republican (the races are non-partisan) since the 1970s.”

34 Jason Bayz May 7, 2017 at 4:10 pm

“It’s very strange to see him attacking the “blue bourgeoisie”, when said folks also dominate the cities in the “red states” that he praises”

They are blue, but they aren’t “bourgeoisie.”

35 Brett May 7, 2017 at 4:13 pm

It’s the same type of people, though. Upper-middle-class to affluent liberal professional-class folks – staunchly socially liberal, strong emphasis on good governance, very protective of property values once they’re a powerful enough constituency, highly educated, etc.

36 Jason Bayz May 7, 2017 at 4:18 pm

No, the point is that those cities are blue because minorities live there.

Think upper middle class people are more likely to vote for Democrats? Check out exit polls, even in the 2016 election.

37 Harun May 7, 2017 at 5:18 pm

This fits in with my view of Blue state/Red State narrative being designed to obfuscate red taxpayers who live in blue states funding blue voter welfare in red states.

Its designed to imply blue state voters are all well-off educated types who would lead us to perfect socialism except for these knuckle-dragging red state voters who are dumb and poor and vote against their interests.

In reality, while these types exist, there are also a ton of well-educated taxpayers who are

38 Harun May 7, 2017 at 5:20 pm

conservative-leaning.

39 Jan May 7, 2017 at 5:27 pm
40 Ricardo May 8, 2017 at 12:23 am

See Andrew Gelman’s work. Upper-income people in blue states are just *slightly* more likely to vote for Republicans and, in places like Connecticut and Massachusetts, they still ultimately lean Democratic. Red states are where income is a much stronger predictor of one’s party affiliation.

41 Kenneth Carlson May 7, 2017 at 4:59 pm

This paper reached exactly the opposite conclusion

http://bruegel.org/2016/11/income-inequality-boosted-trump-vote/

42 mpledger May 7, 2017 at 5:12 pm

7/10 is so close to 5/10 (and essentially random) that the point isn’t even worth making.

43 Barkley Rosser May 7, 2017 at 5:24 pm

This piece by Kotkin is a hodge-podge of contradictions and non-facts, some pointed out already such as that the booming supposedly red cities Kotkin praises are all pretty much blue, including all of those in Texas. He decries the blue bourgeoisie supposedly exploiting the poor reds, but then claims the reds are doing well while the blues are not. No contradictions there. I do think he is right that the biggest growth is in suburbs, and they are neither clearly one or the other.

While it is true that lots of high income inequality states went for Clinton while lots of high equality states went for Trump, some of this is tied to per capita income levels, with some of those that are poor also being quite equal. So, I just looked, and all the ten poorest states in the US in per capita income terms went for Trump and pretty strongly Republican, although West Virginia only recently became so. At the other end, of the ten highest per capita income states, only #10, Alaska, is pretty strongly red, with VA and NH more or less purple. The others are all blue.

Probably the weakest part of his argument is the apparent claim that somehow the bb’s are exploiting the poor reds in their states. The one case he has is maybe in Calilfornia with its high energy prices hurting those in the interior, where there are indeed several urban areas doing very poorly, even as he touts agriculture in the interior as one of the great boomers of the whole US economy (cant’ seem to avoid those pesky contradictions). But I am at a loss to understand how people in New York City are exploiting up state New York, which looks more like it is suffering from having an old industrial base that has done poorly against foreign competition, not done in by some awful policies pushed by big city New Yorkers.

Really, this is a pretty pathetic article, kind of a joke more than anything else.

44 Viking1 May 7, 2017 at 8:33 pm

This is very consistent with the lefts attempt at narrative control. When describing how red states are welfare queens, for some arbitrary reason, the unit of measure is the state, blue states subsidize red states. If the unit is the household, the story is on average the opposite, conservative households having higher income, and thus paying more taxes and getting a lesser ROI on social security taxes.

There of course are numerous exceptions, Ben Affleck contributes a lot, and racist white poor Appalachians might belong to the red tribe without positive net contributions to the treasury. These exceptions don’t alter the fact that the average trump primary voter came from a household outearning the average Clinton primary voter by at least 15K per year, and thus is much more likely to be a net contributor. It would be very interesting to know how much stronger this effect would have been, if controlling for factors like also being a net taker by doing government make work like TSA, diversity officer, human resources, welfare case worker etc.

Rosser of course decides to change the unit from state to city when the data don’t support his pre conception.

45 Potato May 7, 2017 at 9:05 pm

Barkley,

The article is not well written. When viewed in the aggregate, NYC sends taxes to Albany and gets fewer dollars in return. However, they also mandate a lot of costly things and force massive costs on low income counties and cities. An easy solution to this would be local governance. Let people vote with their feet. If NYC wants to ramp up Medicaid then they can pay for it without mandating it upon others. If NYC wants to fund very expensive special ed requirements, let them pay for it without forcing others to do the same.

Lower income counties and cities may prefer lower threshold mandates that they can more easily afford. And fewer business, personal income, sales, and “fee” taxes (auto registration, property tax, licensing fees).

Imagine if upstate NY could fashion itself as a special economic zone, free from NYC diktats. Would still be poor, but perhaps less so.

That’s a specific example I’m more familiar with. Cheers

46 Sure May 8, 2017 at 8:15 am

Upstate New Yorkers have a few problems with the city running their politics, little things like:

A fracking ban that lead to massive economic boons to those just miles away in Pennsylvania. A few billion in direct revenue is not as valuable to NYC as virtue signalling, but it might have actually helped out those upstate.

The fourth highest gasoline taxes in the country, set largely by voters who do not own cars. This also in a state which makes extensive use of toll roads.

New York state has one of the highest cost Medicaid programs in the country. It costs about double that of California. It is odd in that 25% of Medicaid’s revenue must come from local revenues. Albany has elected to spend huge amounts of upstate revenue and force the upstate localities to collect it, while offering inferior health outcomes to California Medicaid.

New York is in the top six states in the country for sales, income, and property tax. This results in the highest tax burden of any state in the union. Business preferentially locate in VT, PA, and MA as they have around 20% lower tax burdens.

This is all without getting into the weeds of environmental regulations, funding priorities, and the like.

47 mpowell May 8, 2017 at 12:27 pm

It’s true that many of these cities in red states are blue, but you want to compare the politics of Austin or Houston to SF? The economic health of those cities is a pretty good indicator that there is probably a lot of wisdom in a more balanced political view (truly, the political middle doesn’t get nearly enough credit).

48 Eric May 7, 2017 at 5:55 pm

This is nonsense. None of these facts hold together to make any sort of point.

49 Meets May 7, 2017 at 6:08 pm

Progressive policies aren’t very good for the lower classes. That seems a pretty clear point.

Ties in with studies such as the one that showed the disemployment effects of minimum wage hikes.

50 Barkley Rosser May 7, 2017 at 6:36 pm

Yeah, like expanding Medicaid under Obamacare. That sure was bad for poor people in those well off states, unlike all those ten poorest states where by and large they helped out their poor people by not oppressing them with inexpensive health insurance.

51 Meets May 7, 2017 at 7:03 pm

How valuable is that compared to cheap housing and a good job?

52 Borjigid May 7, 2017 at 8:27 pm

Money is fungible, so probably 1:1.

More broadly, it is not clear that inexpensive health insurance vs. cheap housing and a good job is the relevant tradeoff.

53 Harun May 7, 2017 at 11:12 pm

Venezuela must be a paradise by now.

54 Eric May 8, 2017 at 1:04 pm

I don’t have time to go through this point by point, but if you are using Utah as your example of red state trumpism, a state where nearly a third of people who should have voted Republican voted for a protest candidate, it sure looks like you are cherry picking. Especially when you don’t mention their submerged welfare state – the downtrodden rural types would be easy to take care of nationwide if we would just agree to an extra %10 income tax devoted mostly to social spending.

He also claims that California restricts suburban sprawl (it doesn’t, at least not effectively) in the same article that he praises San Jose as a sprawling dynamic area.

There’s some sort of point that could be made out of some subset of these facts, but this isn’t it.

55 Tom T. May 7, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Isn’t inequality basically a measure of where the richest people live? There are probably just very few billionaires in Utah

56 Sure May 7, 2017 at 10:39 pm

No.

Alabama is the sixth most unequal state in the union just ahead of California. Louisiana is tied with Massachusetts above them. Internationally, Norway has a much lower Gini than France or the UK, but is wealthier than either. Switzerland is also both more equal and wealthier than the UK or France.

The most unequal places are those where one set of people (e.g. London, NYC, Paris) sell to a global market while the other places sell to a local market (e.g. Utah, Scotland, and the French periphery). Countries where everyone sells to a global market (e.g. Switzerland) or where the only global scale transactions come from common property (e.g. Norwegian oil revenue) tend to have much lower Ginis.

Ultimately, I have seen few things more convincing than the “foot vote”. In the US, at least, it does seem to be from more liberal to less liberal areas.

57 Hazel Meade May 8, 2017 at 11:52 am

I suspect Alabama’s inequality is for different reasons.

58 Evans_KY May 7, 2017 at 10:04 pm

As a resident of “Red America” I must respond. The inequality gap may be smaller here but we face similar trends. Blue cities versus red counties. College educated against high school dropouts. Religious versus secular. America’s Most Trusted News has thoroughly convinced many of their victimhood. In some rural areas of Kentucky, the anger and resentment is pervasive.
I find myself sympathetic while recognizing that a failure of personal responsibility is at the heart of their victimization. They blame Obama for the decline of coal while neglecting to recognize a whole host of reasons why the jobs have dwindled since the 1950s. Some fall prey to alcohol and drugs. Others game the system to get on disability. Generation after generation fall behind. The story is the same irrespective of the color of America you are in.
Perhaps we need to stop playing the victim by seeking labels to define ourselves and realize that we are participants in our own story. We can move, go back to school, learn a hobby, or find spiritual purpose. We are Americans and what we really need is a good dose of gratefulness.

59 Amigo May 8, 2017 at 2:22 am

Evans, I am familiar with KY also and agree with much of what you post. I grew up there both in a on a farm and in a small town in a small county. When I go back to visit now I almost don’t recognize the tone present in these rural areas. Maybe it comes from my living in a city for a long time. Yes there are good people in smaller communities, but the views and beliefs I hear are no longer compatible with my life experience.

“Pervasive” is a good adjective describing the anger and resentment. It’s also why I roll my eyes when people here and elsewhere make comments about the “mainstream media” as if conservative views are not represented. If you come from a rural area, Fox is not only the mainstream media, it is the _only_ media. The two are intertwined and I think make the places feel more dismal and depressing than they really are.

60 Hazel Meade May 8, 2017 at 11:50 am

It’s worth remembering that to be a working class white guy in America, you have to have achieved poverty in spite of all the advantages of being born white and male in the latter half of the 20th century in the United States. So not exactly the cream of the white male crop.

The hidden truth is that these guy are largely former union guys that killed off their own industries by making them uncompetitive in global markets. Hence the free-trade rhetoric. Entitled little whiners who still haven’t learned that there is no free lunch, and never will.

61 Benjamin Cole May 7, 2017 at 11:29 pm

Yes, parts of the coasts are expensive to live in. Primarily due to property zoning, and then government.

For some reason, property zoning is never mentioned.

62 prior_test2 May 7, 2017 at 11:53 pm

So, there would seem to be a business opportunity in getting two articles for the price of one, with just the smallest amount of rewriting, like this – ‘In the wake of the Trump triumph, many in the deepest red cores have turned on those parts of America that opposed the president’s election, developing oikophobia—an irrational fear of their fellow citizens.’ Then just throw in whatever supports that statement, and you can sell to two audiences with minimal effort.

63 Hazel Meade May 8, 2017 at 11:44 am

Poor shithole backwaters do tend to be more “egalitarian”. As nearly everyone has noted “inequality” tends to increase with increasing prosperity. Extremely rich people live in New York, they don’t live in rural Utah.

Essentially the parties are in roughly the reverse positions from what they might be in (say) Latin America. In this case, Trump is Hugo Chavez with the support of the barrios and the Democrats are the middle-class/upper-class elites. None of this is really surprising. It’s completely in keeping with the reorientation of the political axes cause by Trump’s election.

64 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ May 8, 2017 at 12:32 pm

Harsh, but fair.

65 Millian May 8, 2017 at 2:52 pm

In the ancient times, before the Great Reckoning, people used to have these things called coefficients and R-squareds.

66 David Nash May 9, 2017 at 7:42 am

It may not be financial inequality that drives voters it could be wellbeing inequality.

This analysis found those areas with the highest inequality of wellbeing were more likely to vote leave.

Even if two areas are equally happy, that didn’t indicate which way they would vote.

https://whatworkswellbeing.org/2016/07/08/what-wellbeing-inequalities-tell-us-about-the-eu-referendum-result/

67 Andrew May 13, 2017 at 4:56 am

NYC and other dense coastal cities are uniquely expensive and unequal because:
1. Lots of wealthy people want to live there.
2. Land is scarce.
3. There are onerous zoning restrictions.

If Kotkin wanted to focus on the 3rd point, that would make sense. But to cast this all as some sort of moral failure on the part of liberals is completely absurd. This article is click-bait masquerading as analysis.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: