patrick.net

Is it easier for the ultra rich to manipulate someone who doesn't see them? They can assimilate into the conservative society.

"I'm just like you." I don't like immigrants or hippies either. And I love me some Jesus, the founding fathers, and Abe Lincoln. Got a whole bunch of guns too. And I really hate smart people. I'm just like you.

So let's band together, you give me your support, (and I'll keep taking your money) and together we'll make sure none of them queers can get married. See, we even talk the same.

You PRESUME this to be the case without showing it.

Please prove to me it's a universal law. If NYC is such a "liberal" place why is Bloomberg the mayor instead of William Thompson?

There are plenty of "liberal" or "hippy" communities that don't have a large wealth disparity either. Rupert Murdoch and ilk often have houses all over the place big cities and small. If your billionaire has a huntlng lodge in Iowa among the many places he trots between, are they adding to the wealth disparity there? Billionaires are slippery fish for this sort of comparison as so many of them don't have an actual "home" city and in some cases not much attachment to a nationality either. If they are politicians their "home" is whichever of their many addresses is the best official one for election purposes.

The gap between the richest folks and everybody else is much, much smaller in the most conservative places (e.g., suburbs and rural areas of Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, etc.). Not sure what to make of this.

Obviously liberals and rich people are smart enough to avoid living in places like that.

Rich people cluster around other rich people. These clusters can be in the Hamptons for reasons of relaxation, or around financial centers for the money. Rich people are statistically much more likely to be "conservative", and have Little People to isolate them from the rabble where they happen to be. The rest of your analysis is quite thin.

bob2356 says

The gap between the richest folks and everybody else is much, much smaller in the most conservative places (e.g., suburbs and rural areas of Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, etc.). Not sure what to make of this.

Is that really true though? There are some epicly rich robber barrons in Mississippi, Alabama, and Arizona and other states like that. It's just a smaller percentage than say California or Texas.

The top ten states with worst income disparity seem evenly distributed between red and blue:

NY
CT
TX
LA
AL
MS
FL
GA
IL
MA

From:
http://247wallst.com/2011/04/21/the-states-with-the-worst-income-inequality/2/

Rich people prefer to be called "job creators."

The top ten states with worst income disparity seem evenly distributed between red and blue:

NY

CT

TX

LA

AL

MS

FL

GA

IL

MA

From:

http://247wallst.com/2011/04/21/the-states-with-the-worst-income-inequality/2/

I really hate when you spoil a good ideological rant with facts. It's just not fair to the people who would never stoop to actually knowing what they are talking about.

The only political agenda the rich have is to get richer. They have no party line because they own both parties. The middle class is to fucking stupid to see this and allows the rich to keep the division going.

... That said, I think the OP does have a point. I've wondered this myself often. Its true- look at all of the cities that tend to be more liberal leaning: Boston, NYC, SF, LA, and so on. Even Austin TX. They are ALL grossly more expensive in comparison to some of the more conservative leaning cities. However, I think its not really a purely political thing. Its just circumstantial. So no- I wouldn't say that these cities have huge disparity issues because they are liberal. But its pretty much true that all of the liberal cities in the US just so happen to cost more.

But if I were to entertain the notion that at least some of the cost comes from "liberals"- and I say this as "A" liberal person- well I've experienced this firsthand and have some observations. As mentioned before I came from the rural South so I've lived in "Both" types of areas. Whenever I visit my folks I inadvertently get some sort of comments from people about how awful Cali is- that oh, its full of crazy people and this and that. Totally ridiculous assumptions. But likewise I have met way more than a fair share of liberals who wouldn't dare step their small toes outside the narrow confines of what they perceive to be liberal paradise. They call places where my parents live "Flyoverland", or assume that everyone there is uneducated or worse- a conservative. They also have this fear of not being somewhere that has whatever super fancy, glutten-free, free-range, hocus-pocus fancy food eateries and various foodie type establishments. The irony is that after seeing how both "sides" behave they're both equally close-minded. Thus if you're some die-hard liberal and you believe that 99% of the country is a wasteland then of course you're gonna' do ANYTHING to pay for the privilege of living in a somewhat sheltered utopia. So in reality nothing changes. People that want to live around others that think like themselves- either real or perceived- will willingly and eagerly pay doing so and that usually means expensive real estate, expensive rent, and generally expensive everything else.

edvard2 says

I've wondered this myself often. Its true- look at all of the cities that tend to be more liberal leaning: Boston, NYC, SF, LA, and so on. Even Austin TX. They are ALL grossly more expensive in comparison to some of the more conservative leaning cities.

But that's because they're cities. The old rural-urban issues still apply in this day and age, even if the rural-urban coalition is largely broken. Even somewhere like Atlanta is far more "liberal" than other parts of Georgia. Somewhere like San Diego is far more "conservative" than LA or SF, and can be just as expensive in some cases, but is far more "conservative" because of the huge military presence. There are a number of factors that cause a city in general to be more "liberal" -- in some cases, more universities, more minorities, more immigrants, etc. It's not really about money per se. There are plenty of oil money rich in Texas (and Louisiana, which also comes up as a state with much disparity).

But the thing is that not all cities are expensive and the latest migratory trends shows this to be somewhat true. All of the major cities in TX are getting a lot of domestic in-migration. So too are cities in GA, NC, TN, and so on. All of these cities are comparatively cheaper than their east and west coast counterparts. All of them are considerably less liberal.

However, there's more to the expensive aspect of old stalwart cities like NYC and SF than their political leanings. It doesn't at all help that the aforementioned cities have very strict anti-growth regulations that makes building new houses unaffordable. But then in turn swinging the pendulum back to politics, one keen observation of mine is that of all the liberally-leaning places I've lived, these areas have far stronger "NIMBY" ( Not in my back yard) attitudes than the more conservative areas I've lived in. Its this sort of snotty attitude that their house had better be the last house built. Otherwise building more houses would create more congestion or otherwise "ruin" their quality of life.

So when you have that sort of friction against growth, of course these areas will become pricey.

edvard2 says

All of the major cities in TX are getting a lot of domestic in-migration. So too are cities in GA, NC, TN, and so on. All of these cities are comparatively cheaper than their east and west coast counterparts. All of them are considerably less liberal.

Sure, but NC voted for Obama and so did VA. That influx has made them vote more liberal. These are both states with lots of newcomers. Even traditionally hardcore Republican cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, and Nashville have voted more liberal more recently. The Tennessee 5th is likely a safe seat for the Democrats, for example.

edvard2 says

But then in turn swinging the pendulum back to politics, one keen observation of mine is that of all the liberally-leaning places I've lived, these areas have far stronger "NIMBY"

Yeah, I would agree with that. It's people trying to make sure that no one else can move in. People in the Bay Area are often the worst about this. It can be a brake on economic growth. The Bay Area's housing prices are probably much more about growth restrictions than they are about other stuff.

I dont think there is any question that the disparity of wealth in the country is the most striking in the most liberal places, particularly Manhattan and San Francisco, where incredibly wealth people live literally blocks from those at the very bottom of the economic ladder. A poster above notes that, on a state-wide basis, wealth disparity is fairly evenly split between between so called red and blue states. I have no reason to doubt that, but it does not change the fact that the places where voters tend to be the most liberal (Manhattan and SF) have far greater wealth disparities than anywhere else in the country, even if the effect on a state- wide basis is nullified by the non-urban areas in NY and CA.

tjjenkins says

"the rich" in Manhattan and San Francisco

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal

Limousine liberal is a pejorative American political term used to illustrate perceived hypocrisy by a political liberal of upper class or upper middle class status; including calls for the use of mass transit while frequently using limousines or private jets, claiming environmental consciousness but driving low MPG sports cars or SUVs, or ostensibly supporting public education while actually sending their children to private schools.

Al Gore is often called a Limousine Liberal for his use of private jet planes and SUVs, while giving speeches telling Americans must cut back on their lifestyles. In the May 16, 2007 edition of TIME magazine, it was reported that "His (Gore's) Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the electricity used by the average American home" On October 30, 2010, under the headline A VERY inconvenient truth, the UK Telegraph reported that "Al Gore 'left car engine running during hour-long environment lecture"

Cities tend to have a larger proportion of educated people.

I also think that people who live away from the larger urban areas or certain coastal enclaves don't really understand what "Rich" really means.

For example, I knew somebody from Montana who went to SoCal, visited Beverly Hills, and was absolutely blown away. I've never been to BH but I imagine if I could give some folks from the Heartland a tour of the Hamptons or parts of Coral Gables or Bal Harbor (Miami Beach), they'd be truly shocked.

I think that may be a factor in why urban areas are cognizant of the wealth divide - they see stretch limos, stores with $10,000 dresses in the display cases, VIPs landing in Helicopters on that pad around the 30s off the East River, etc. on a daily basis. I used to work on Madison Ave across from an exclusive day care center and it was a people-watching fiesta, as well as a luxury vehicle enthusiast's dream. Alfa-Romeos, Porsches, etc. pulling up to pick up children. You knew just by eyeballing what clothes they wore who the nannies were and who the parents were. Somebody from Green Bay or Little Rock doesn't encounter evidence this kind of wealth disparity very often.

Liberals tend to appreciate walkable and dynamic urban areas with good public transportation more than conservatives. However, only a handful of areas in the US provide such an urban environment for liberals, and the supply can't keep up with the demand. Many wealthy people have moved to urban areas in the past decade, which has led to gentrification and increased wealth disparity in certain coveted urban areas.