U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-06-2018, 03:32 PM
 
11,314 posts, read 7,316,395 times
Reputation: 4479

Advertisements

Have better economies than conservative rural areas?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2018, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
8,845 posts, read 2,663,209 times
Reputation: 6791
All of the most prosperous, wealthy big US cities are run by democrats
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 06:20 PM
 
11,314 posts, read 7,316,395 times
Reputation: 4479
(crickets)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 06:23 PM
 
23,862 posts, read 11,851,588 times
Reputation: 10068
You mean like Chicago where you might stop a bullet on any given day?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 06:24 PM
 
16,681 posts, read 8,520,005 times
Reputation: 9538
Don’t feed the troll
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 06:26 PM
 
11,314 posts, read 7,316,395 times
Reputation: 4479
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltine View Post
Donít feed the troll
Just asking a question. Whatís the problem?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 06:35 PM
 
29,605 posts, read 16,347,469 times
Reputation: 13734
What is the criteria for "better economy"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 06:36 PM
 
17,537 posts, read 19,712,218 times
Reputation: 7291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Have better economies than conservative rural areas?
Capitalism by numbers? You know, the thing liberals hate...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 06:46 PM
 
1,680 posts, read 577,075 times
Reputation: 1291
Because the economy is driven by a small number of star workers at each firm. The 80/20 rule, which is probably the 90/10 rule in the age of computers, etc. Most of the population could disappear overnight and productivity would not suffer. Demand would fall, meaning most people are more valuable as consumers than workers. Cities have network effects regardless of politics, and these star workers are attracted to each other.

Meanwhile a lot of people want to make it so they move to the city. But in reality they have no chance. The super productive workers have a lot of surplus income so they inflate asset prices and price the normal people out. As a result the normal people turn to liberal politics to try to eak out a living in the city.

It's debatable whether normal people would have better lives in less dense, less economically vibrant places since those places are cheaper. But simply looking at incomes without comparing costs is mistaken. A good example of this is the supplemental poverty measure that includes cost, under which California has the most poverty of any state, because of the high incomes of a tiny sliver of Californians.

So cities' liberal politics is an effect of the productivity of a small section of their workforce, not the cause of the productivity. We see this dynamic playing out as we speak, as increasingly expensive cities like Houston become more liberal over time.

I will not discount the liberating effects a city can have on some people (rural areas are very socially conformist), so the city can be a magnet for social dissidents who are more productive than average. However that also makes them a magnet for layabout dissidents, who arguably outnumber the hardworking dissidents. I will also not discount the effects of more public funding for education in improving the productivity of the population, but the big gains to be had from education occurred in the mid 20th century. We seem to be in a regime of diminishing returns on educational spending.

I still consider my first theory to be better, and it's borne out by the revenue profiles of cities like New York, where a handful of Wall Street people fund most of the city's operations, or the state of California which is similarly propped up by technology money.

If these super productive workers could have a city all to themselves that normal people could not live in, believe me they would. That's called gentrification. The problem is that once a city becomes prosperous and starts spewing out money everyone wants to move there and the liberal wannabe cycle starts again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 07:04 PM
 
Location: minnesota
6,299 posts, read 2,092,510 times
Reputation: 2157
Urban areas are where the businesses and jobs usually are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:29 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top