Is Chicago mainly a blue-collar city? (Manhattan: job market, school, university)

[tb4000]

The farther you go up North Michigan, the less blue collar it gets. That's pretty much the gauge.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

#2: Some political/social attitudes. Yes, Chicago is left of center. But even among those you find with gentrified attitude, you do find a lot of conservative-like ideas I just wouldn't expect in a place like Seattle, Austin, or Madison, WI. To me, I think a lot of the "strong fiscal conservatism" that you find among a lot of white collared people here to me speaks of a blue-collared background.

I dunno, most of the blue collar people in Chicago I know (and I know hundreds of them) are trade unionists and quite left wing economically. Hell, how can you be more left wing than being a unionist?

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

I think someone mentioned about how blue-collar roots run deep, even if people don't actually live a "blue-collared" lifestyle and work a traditional "blue-collared job."

Even though my experience in other major cities may only be limited to visiting, and I admit I do live in the Chicago 'burbs, I think there are many examples where you get a sense that blue collar values run deep even in Chicagolands white collared workers.

#1 example: SPORTS. Seriously sports. I mean is a huge sports city. Now granted sports aren't in and of itself solely blue-collared pasttimes. There are major sports teams in every city we all know that. But in Chicago, the sports stadiums take a huge front seat as their main attractions. From what I know about geography: None of New Yorks teams are in Manhattan at all. In Chicago Wrigley Field is THE prime attraction to the north side, where people pay an arm and a leg for Old style or bud. When they serve wine at Wrigley Field (remember this is one of the most gentrified areas) then I'll say that the blue collared roots are dead. At least on the south side, the sox fans are a little more "clear cut". Soldier Field, is right there smack in the middle of everything, and two years ago, the lights downtown where lit up in Bears logos, etc. To me at least, the obsession with sports, and a strong preference for beer over wine, seems like a good example of how the blue collared roots run deep.

#2: Some political/social attitudes. Yes, Chicago is left of center. But even among those you find with gentrified attitude, you do find a lot of conservative-like ideas I just wouldn't expect in a place like Seattle, Austin, or Madison, WI. To me, I think a lot of the "strong fiscal conservatism" that you find among a lot of white collared people here to me speaks of a blue-collared background.

(I think of an ad that Jack Ryan (that "cross between a Kennedy and Ryan Howard from the office" type yuppy that ran against Obama a few years ago for Senate, but lost the race because a sex scandal was uncovered. The ad had people coming up to someones door asking for funding for some academic project, but got the door slammed in their face. Jack Ryan said "every year the government supports ridiculous programs such as these!" That type of attitude is prevalent. Unless you produce something that has an obvious economic value and is not supported by grants, then it doesn't have much value.

I think you get the picture.

These are my examples of how blue collared values run deep even in "yuppy" places.

I would agree with the sports portion, although that is very similar to northeastern cities such as Boston, Philadelphia, and even New York (remember that the tabloids that splash sports stories about the Yankees and Knicks vastly outsell the New York Times in NYC - the Knicks and Rangers do play in Madison Square Garden in the heart of Manhattan, BTW) - there is a certain "blue collar" tinge to the fandom in Chicago and those cities that doesn't exist on the West Coast. All of those towns are going to almost straight beer drinking places in terms of watching sports (unlike Sf and Seattle). That being said, the beer culture around Wrigley is more of the post-collegiate frat boy variety (definitely more white collar) as opposed to the hard scrabble blue collar types. Also, while Chicago loves its beer, it's definitely a diverse drinking city with an abundance of wine-and-martini options (unlike, say, Milwaukee or St. Louis).

The second portion about politics is really something about suburbs that applies nationally (not just Chicago). Nearly all of the suburbs outside of major cities have strong strains of fiscal conservatism. Look at Orange County outside of LA, the Connecticut suburbs of NYC, or Northern Virginia outside of DC - all of those places are mirror images of Lake County and DuPage County from a political standpoint. In fact, the Chicago suburbs are much more like the East Coast and West Coast suburban areas in this regard than any of its Midwestern neighbors (and especially compared to the South and Southwest).

[coldwine]

Some of us would sooner die of thirst before we considered beer as a drink. In fact I'm pretty sure the **** from a bum would taste better than any beer. European, Canadian, British, I don't care. It's all the same crap.

Vodka, now. That's special. Rum, various liquors?

Martinis? Yes. Thank you.

Anyways, no, Chicago isn't a blue collar city. And you'd be surprised at how "blue collar" places like Seattle, San Fran and Los Angeles actually are.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I would agree with the sports portion, although that is very similar to northeastern cities such as Boston, Philadelphia, and even New York (remember that the tabloids that splash sports stories about the Yankees and Knicks vastly outsell the New York Times in NYC - the Knicks and Rangers do play in Madison Square Garden in the heart of Manhattan, BTW) - there is a certain "blue collar" tinge to the fandom in Chicago and those cities that doesn't exist on the West Coast. All of those towns are going to almost straight beer drinking places in terms of watching sports (unlike Sf and Seattle). That being said, the beer culture around Wrigley is more of the post-collegiate frat boy variety (definitely more white collar) as opposed to the hard scrabble blue collar types. Also, while Chicago loves its beer, it's definitely a diverse drinking city with an abundance of wine-and-martini options (unlike, say, Milwaukee or St. Louis).

The second portion about politics is really something about suburbs that applies nationally (not just Chicago). Nearly all of the suburbs outside of major cities have strong strains of fiscal conservatism. Look at Orange County outside of LA, the Connecticut suburbs of NYC, or Northern Virginia outside of DC - all of those places are mirror images of Lake County and DuPage County from a political standpoint. In fact, the Chicago suburbs are much more like the East Coast and West Coast suburban areas in this regard than any of its Midwestern neighbors (and especially compared to the South and Southwest).

Well . . . OK, but

I still insist the Wheaton area, probably has more in common with the southern metro areas, because of Wheaton college. I do know several people in other suburbs who will not budge on their insistance that the earth is only serveral thousand years at most.

Chicago, compared to L.A. or New York has little in terms of the media/celebrity presence.

The East Coast has exurban towns ALL OVER THE PLACE with prestigious historic liberal arts colleges. Chicagoland, with the exception of Evanston, and Oak Park area has almost none of that college town, we-buy-fair trade coffee-and are vegetarian vibe.

But on the east coast you have countless places in New Jersey, Virginia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and upstate New York. Vassar, Yale, Princeton, thats just a couple.

Maybe those places overshadow east coast exurbs, but because there is relatively few of those old, liberal arts college areas outside Chicago, I just can't agree that Chicagos suburbs are like those of the east or west coast, I think they are more "sunbelty" in many ways.

Case in point, I'm sorry, but my suburban community college students are way to provincial for being so close to such an international city.

If people in my area are not educated on world events, etc., I should have the right like someone from Indiana or Michigan to write off the people in my home area as being ignorant and provincial, just like they sometimes do. I don't care if the "schools are good" they and parents do not encourage well-rounded education.

[coldwine]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Well . . . OK, but

I still insist the Wheaton area, probably has more in common with the southern metro areas, because of Wheaton college. I do know several people in other suburbs who will not budge on their insistance that the earth is only serveral thousand years at most.

I know several people in Los Angeles and Manhattan who insist upon the same things. And?

Chicago, compared to L.A. or New York has little in terms of the media/celebrity presence.

My response to this, as a born and raised Chicagoan, is "thank god". The mediocrity of American media and American celebrities is thankfully banished to the coasts.

The East Coast has exurban towns ALL OVER THE PLACE with prestigious historic liberal arts colleges. Chicagoland, with the exception of Evanston, and Oak Park area has almost none of that college town, we-buy-fair trade coffee-and are vegetarian vibe.

The east coast is a vertical line. The midwest is a horizontal line. Within city limits Chicago itself has several of the nation's top universities. As you go from Chicago to Detroit, you pass several more small college towns with top tier universities.

It's highly illogical to compare the entire northeast to one metro region in one state.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the midwest and near-south are home to several universities that have much higher recruitment standards than any Ivy League college... And they do not consider the Ivy League to be within their league.

But on the east coast you have countless places in New Jersey, Virginia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and upstate New York. Vassar, Yale, Princeton, thats just a couple.

University of Chicago (better than anything found in the northeast), Colombia, UoM, Purdue...

Maybe those places overshadow east coast exurbs, but because there is relatively few of those old, liberal arts college areas outside Chicago, I just can't agree that Chicagos suburbs are like those of the east or west coast, I think they are more "sunbelty" in many ways.

Again, you are not correct. There is nothing "sunbelty" about Chicago suburbs, any more than suburbs across the nation tend to look exactly alike. You're saying this just to provoke an inflammatory response. So in response, take some aspirin to work on the inflammation in your skull.

Case in point, I'm sorry, but my suburban community college students are way to provincial for being so close to such an international city.

Well imagine that, community college students are not cosmopolitan world travelers! I guess by implication we may also assume that you are not fit to teach at a real university, from your stellar logic skills?

If people in my area are not educated on world events, etc., I should have the right like someone from Indiana or Michigan to write off the people in my home area as being ignorant and provincial, just like they sometimes do. I don't care if the "schools are good" they and parents do not encourage well-rounded education.

I have no idea where you're going with this one.

[Avengerfire]

God some of you people are such delusional elitist pompous jerks when it comes to some issues.

[Irishtom29]

Well let's see, the Southwest Side is strongly blue collar as is the Northwest Side and the East Side. Most of the cities Blacks and Mexicans have blue collar jobs which means most of the workers on the South and West sides are blue collar too.

The city appears to be pretty strongly blue collar to me, as blue collar as white.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Well . . . OK, but

I still insist the Wheaton area, probably has more in common with the southern metro areas, because of Wheaton college. I do know several people in other suburbs who will not budge on their insistance that the earth is only serveral thousand years at most.

By this logic, the fact that Rick Warren's church is a stone's throw from Los Angeles means that Hollywood and the rest of California must obviously be a bastion for evangelicals. You're taking some anecdotal evidence of a select group of people and then applying it to an entire community that lives around them (which is simply ridiculous). If one takes two seconds to look at the Presidential election returns in the Chicago suburbs over the past decade, he or she will see that they are pretty much the same as the East Coast and West Coast suburbs (and very different from the suburbs around other Midwestern and Southern cities). I'm not denying that social conservatives live in the Chicago area or any other part of this country - I'm simply pointing out that in terms of relative numbers, Chicago looks a lot more like an East Coast city than a Midwestern or Southern city on that particular front. Even Wheaton as a specific town has changed a whole lot over the past decade - it might be conservative relative to the rest of the Chicago area, but it would likely be considered a middle-of-the-road town in Texas or Georgia.

Chicago, compared to L.A. or New York has little in terms of the media/celebrity presence.

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with whether a city is "blue collar" or not. Seattle and Portland have pretty much a zero celebrity presence, yet I'm sure they are near the top of the list in terms of "white collar" cities. Every city in the country outside of NYC and LA has very few celebrities (maybe you can throw in Miami and Las Vegas, but those are more celebrity vacation spots as opposed to hometowns). I'm not going to ever argue that Chicago is a celebrity haven, but I'd be remiss to neglect pointing out that the most powerful person in television (Oprah), the top selling recording artist of the past four years (Kanye West), and the most famous athlete of all-time (Michael Jordan) all make this city their home (not to mention that the 2nd-highest grossing film of all-time, The Dark Knight, happened to be filmed here). Not too shabby for a town with "little" media or celebrity presence.

The East Coast has exurban towns ALL OVER THE PLACE with prestigious historic liberal arts colleges. Chicagoland, with the exception of Evanston, and Oak Park area has almost none of that college town, we-buy-fair trade coffee-and are vegetarian vibe.

But on the east coast you have countless places in New Jersey, Virginia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and upstate New York. Vassar, Yale, Princeton, thats just a couple.

Maybe those places overshadow east coast exurbs, but because there is relatively few of those old, liberal arts college areas outside Chicago, I just can't agree that Chicagos suburbs are like those of the east or west coast, I think they are more "sunbelty" in many ways.

Vassar, Yale, and Princeton are NOT located in exurbs. They are located in college towns that are not connected to any metropolitan area. By your definition, Madison (probably the most liberal town on Earth that's not named Berkeley), Champaign, Grinnell, and Iowa City, which are all towns that love "fair trade" liberalism, would be considered exurbs of Chicago. Also note that the size of one Madison or one Champaign is equal to several of those East Coast college towns that you alluded to. Go another geographic ring outward and you'll run into Ann Arbor and Bloomington (Indiana), two other huge liberal college towns that dwarf anything that you'll find on the East Coast. I'm not exactly sure how you can think that there aren't multitudes of towns within 2 or 3 hours of Chicago that are as liberal as any college town on the East Coast unless you have a predisposed notion on this issue.

Case in point, I'm sorry, but my suburban community college students are way to provincial for being so close to such an international city.

If people in my area are not educated on world events, etc., I should have the right like someone from Indiana or Michigan to write off the people in my home area as being ignorant and provincial, just like they sometimes do. I don't care if the "schools are good" they and parents do not encourage well-rounded education.

My mother spent her life teaching at a suburban community college, so I have a lot of respect for people in your position. However, do you actually believe that the students at the City College of New York or the LA Community College District (or their suburban equivalents) are actually going to be educated on world events or not provincial in manner that you're speaking of compared to Chicago kids??? Let's be realistic here - a large percentage of community college students (not all of them) finished in the bottom half of their high classes. This isn't exactly fertile ground for NPR listeners or subscribers to The Economist. I'd seriously love for you to show me how the kids that finished in the bottom half of their high school classes in Westchester County or Orange County would be more worldly or less provincial than the comparable kids in DuPage County.

[advocatusdiavoli]

coldwine wrote:

My response to this, as a born and raised Chicagoan, is "thank god". The mediocrity of American media and American celebrities is thankfully banished to the coasts.

You probably ment "decent media and celebrities could not care less about living in Chicago" so instead you get the journalistic might of Tribune that is unineteresting to anyone outside of the region, Oprah, Jerry and "Broadway in Chicago" leftovers. It also means that it is very hard to get decent professors of let's say journalism or anythinig related to media in Chicago. That explains a lot.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the midwest and near-south are home to several universities that have much higher recruitment standards than any Ivy League college... And they do not consider the Ivy League to be within their league.

It does not surprise me, there is nothing more precious than selfproclaimed superiority.

University of Chicago (better than anything found in the northeast), Colombia, UoM, Purdue...

Really? All those Harvards, Princetons, Yales, NYU's could go to hell in comparison to U of C? So, what would make Obama go to New York's Columbia and then Harvard. He just couldn't get to U fo C?

It always amazing to watch a Midwesterner struggle to explain the region's shortcomings. Selfproclaimed superiority and deep denial.
Keep it up. Go Cubs!