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.
On the OP, liberal cities have a wealthier population due to having a higher concentration of high paying jobs.
Those people want to have a nice place to live and due to getting paid more, they will pay more for it. Due to them being willing to pay more, developers, realtors, etc., ensure they are provided the types of homes that they want. This causes property values to increase and makes a place more wealthy/expensive.
ETA: Cities themselves are usually more likely to be liberal because of the higher population. Conservatism IMO is moreso based on an individualistic outlook where one's personal decisions and actions are more important than the community. Conservatism is more popular outside of cities due to this as many conservatives live in sparsely populated areas. Liberalism is seen much more in cities due to having a very large population and individuals having to live with the personal decisions and actions of their neighbors/community members more often. As such, Liberals IMO have a much more community focused outlook as they realize that they are not in a "bubble" so to speak and they HAVE to deal with other people who usually live within close vicinity to them so they will create laws as a reflection of wanting to do what is best for a community. And they will be more likely to have a wide amount of movement and gentrification over the years.
Go to sleep after losing the argument. This is so far your best idea on this thread. Thumbs up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
So true.
The cities you mention went in big for high tech. That explains a lot of the wealth.
Yes. And?
Are you going to connect the dots or not? Or do you even see the dots?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
SF very deliberately got rid of most of its blacks in the 1950s and 1960s.
Irrelevant. Unless you think we're still in the 50s and 60s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Now it's getting rid of the Latinos as whites gentrify the Mission District.
Again, an oversimplification of what's happening. Over simplifying to the point that it's laughable. Using your logic, you can also say anyone who watches Youtube is helping Google employees gentrify Latino neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Asians are also a big factor.
Big factor what? You have a tendency to not carry out your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
San Francisco is a city for whites and Asians.
I don't know about the other two cities.
This is probably your most factually correct statements in this entire thread. Bravo.
.
I did a search for wealth in liberal cities and the first result directly addressing it was this thread. I don't know where you're getting your data.
Likely because they were born in better circumstances than the disenfranchised or just have a simpler and harder way of thinking about things that doesn't take into consideration a lot of the problems with our economy such as global corporations and the rich buying favor with the politicians against the will of the people.
There's a lot of people who think Trump's supporters are racist, sexist, violent, stupid, and uninformed or misinformed.
Even if this is true, you have to keep in mind that liberals tend to like to congregate in cities where there are more people, more market transactions, and more wealth generated naturally because of that.
Oddly enough in regards to Trump, he is exactly the bold lol.
So it is crazy that conservatives support him IMO. He is just a spoiled little rich kid IMO and is only "successful" due to his dad's prowess and discrimination in real estate for many decades during the 20th century.
Nope, I can't. But when you talk about Liberal cities, it's funny how they do not set examples in "causes" they supposedly champion for. For example, a lot of these cities had historical minority neighborhoods, but white liberals don't seem to have any issues with gentrication and kicking these people out of their homes. Pretty sure all the Black People in Harlem and Brooklyn are there because the displaced blacks and hispanics. But you won't hear any white Liberals crying for that, now would you?
This is true. It is not so much a matter is what a person is classified by looks, as much as how a person manages with wealth. Denzel Washington may live anywhere and be more than welcome.
Why do so many Trump supporters think that liberals and progressives are all lazy people that want everything for free?
Seems like the most liberal cities are the ones with the highest incomes.
Not really, you're both just making hugely stupid generalizations.
I'm also a little surprised that with all the complaining about how the 1% have so much of the wealth in this country that someone would turn around and look at an urban area and assume that because it's voter base is maybe 60% liberal that they're the ones with the money because "on average" there is money in the city.
P.S. When your party has a stated platform of taxing the rich more and expanding social programs it implies that you intend to offer subsidy for some at the expense of others. Now that doesn't mean they're lazy but it does imply that they are getting something at least partially free....and of course we all know that's not just libs and progs on the public dole either.
In regards to Atlanta even poor white neighborhoods, as late as the 1980s were declared to be a "slum" (Cabbagetown was the last). And the area was renovated/rebuilt and subsequently gentrified with wealthier white people. FWIW, due to the past activities in this regard, the City of Atlanta statistically doesn't even have poverty stricken whites. They were displaced out of the city the burbs and "ex-urbs" (where green_mariner lives if I remember correctly). There is still a large poverty stricken black population in the city of Atlanta.
I got to the Atlanta area in the mid 1990s(just before the Olympics). I never knew there had been poor White areas in Atlanta proper until I read a National Geographic from the 1970s. I go into Atlanta proper to hang out, and I have never seen poor Whites there. I've seen poor Blacks though. Most poor Whites that I see live way out in the exurbs. I lived in Marietta for a time. In 1980, Marietta was around 94% White. When I was living there in the mid 90s, it was around 50-60% White.
Paulding County is something else. First time I ever saw several people with foodstamp cards was out there. Mostly White people. As recent as the late 1990s, Paulding County was 95% White. Now it's 75% White. I live in the exurbs. I've noticed that more Blacks have moved out there, both middle class and poor. One major reason is the cheap housing and relatively cheap places to rent. Now, many poor Whites are heading further and further out. Some have moved to Alabama.
Go to sleep after losing the argument. This is so far your best idea on this thread. Thumbs up!
I didn't lose it. You did.
Quote:
Yes. And? Are you going to connect the dots or not? Or do you even see the dots? Irrelevant. Unless you think we're still in the 50s and 60s. Again, an oversimplification of what's happening. Over simplifying to the point that it's laughable. Using your logic, you can also say anyone who watches Youtube is helping Google employees gentrify Latino neighborhoods. Big factor what? You have a tendency to not carry out your thoughts. This is probably your most factually correct statements in this entire thread. Bravo.
.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
You don't know which big businesses the Left criticizes do you?
Hint: It's generally not the innovative tech companies that are bringing wealth to the area.
.
But other businesses don't bring wealth.
Okay.
And tech companies have no connection to Wall Street, globalization, etc.
I got to the Atlanta area in the mid 1990s(just before the Olympics). I never knew there had been poor White areas in Atlanta proper until I read a National Geographic from the 1970s. I go into Atlanta proper to hang out, and I have never seen poor Whites there. I've seen poor Blacks though. Most poor Whites that I see live way out in the exurbs. I lived in Marietta for a time. In 1980, Marietta was around 94% White. When I was living there in the mid 90s, it was around 50-60% White.
Paulding County is something else. First time I ever saw several people with foodstamp cards was out there. Mostly White people. As recent as the late 1990s, Paulding County was 95% White. Now it's 75% White. I live in the exurbs. I've noticed that more Blacks have moved out there, both middle class and poor. One major reason is the cheap housing and relatively cheap places to rent. Now, many poor Whites are heading further and further out. Some have moved to Alabama.
Yes the history in regards to Atlanta and development is an interesting one. IMO Atlanta is a great city due to its development culture. It is always attempting to build and define itself and make itself better.
However, I do believe in regards to the lack of poor white people in the city that there is a stigma (similar to the nationwide stigma) of "poor" in that area being synonymous with only black people. That is one of the reasons I didn't like Atlanta and one of the reasons why I didn't want to stay there. I didn't want my kids to grow up believing (like many people I knew/know in Atlanta) that only black people are poor or poverty stricken. I grew up and we now live in an area where poverty affects every demographic and ethinicity. Even thought Atlanta, like all other cities, has a pretty large black middle class, it also has one of the highest poverty rates for black people in the country and due to it not having any poverty stricken whites at all statistically, in Atlanta, poverty is only associated with black people.
You mentioned Boston earlier in the thread and it is interesting IMO that the demographic with the highest poverty rate in Boston is not black people, it is Asians (last I read about 40% of Asians in Boston lived in poverty). Asians are actually the fastest growing demographic in regards to poverty statistics nationwide, but since they are not usually associated with being poor, both Asians and whites who face the issues and circumstances related to being poverty stricken are ignored.
You don't know which big businesses the Left criticizes do you?
Hint: It's generally not the innovative tech companies that are bringing wealth to the area.
.
Yeah, instead it's usually the companies that provide their electricity. And their defense. And their fuel. And their food.
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.
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.
