The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local
#2This all speaks to a calcification of opportunity in the USA where coming from a good family background (with strong educational opportunities) means opportunities abound. If you come from a disadvantaged background, you are likely to stay there.
This is essentially meritocratic feudalism.
Re: The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local
#3This seems like an obvious consequence of globalism and the nature of the labor market. Also seems consistent with Picketty’s thesis about capital growth. The days when being a US citizen gauranteed affluence are coming to a close. To see the future look at California; refugees from Guatemala living amongst young millionaires, mostly immigrants also. A global community, sliced into ever narrower tranches by the invisible hand. It’s the future we choose.
Re: The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local
#4I’m amazed the article didn’t mention the political correlation between the “big metros” and everywhere else. We know that increasingly “Blue America” is exclusively these major metros and “Red America” is everywhere else. But all these better outcomes are correlated to living in Red America, which they say is mostly due to affordable housing.
I don’t really know what to make of that, but it’s interesting to me.
Re: The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local
#5This all speaks to a calcification of opportunity in the USA where coming from a good family background (with strong educational opportunities) means opportunities abound. If you come from a disadvantaged background, you are likely to stay there. This is essentially meritocratic feudalism.
How did you get that from the article?
Re: The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local
#6I’m amazed the article didn’t mention the political correlation between the “big metros” and everywhere else. We know that increasingly “Blue America” is exclusively these major metros and “Red America” is everywhere else. But all these better outcomes are correlated to living in Red America, which they say is mostly due to affordable housing. I don’t really know what to make of that, but it’s interesting to me.
The current city = Blue and rural = Red division is a relatively recent one; so across the timescale of people born in the 80s to now you'd have a lot of political shifts that would be hard to account for. Just look at the 1996 election results by county seems unimaginable now, but it wasn't that long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
Re: The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local
#7I’m amazed the article didn’t mention the political correlation between the “big metros” and everywhere else. We know that increasingly “Blue America” is exclusively these major metros and “Red America” is everywhere else. But all these better outcomes are correlated to living in Red America, which they say is mostly due to affordable housing. I don’t really know what to make of that, but it’s interesting to me.
The current city = Blue and rural = Red division is a relatively recent one; so across the timescale of people born in the 80s to now you'd have a lot of political shifts that would be hard to account for. Just look at the 1996 election results by county seems unimaginable now, but it wasn't that long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
That’s a good point I hadn’t really considered. You can still see the beginning of the trend toward today’s polarized map, but you’re right, over the span of time the article is covering that dichotomy is more recent.
Re: The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local
#8This seems like an obvious consequence of globalism and the nature of the labor market. Also seems consistent with Picketty’s thesis about capital growth. The days when being a US citizen gauranteed affluence are coming to a close. To see the future look at California; refugees from Guatemala living amongst young millionaires, mostly immigrants also. A global community, sliced into ever narrower tranches by the invis…
Much of Piketty's work has been widely debunked, especially r > g, so I'm not sure why one would start with his thesis. Top 1% income earners are typically business founder-owners, and reams of evidence from the Forbes 400 to tax data show that the wealthiest in US society are entrepreneurs who again created their own business- not rentiers living off of inherited wealth. (Anecdotally, children of inherited wealth they didn't earn burn through cash so fast that r I have no idea what 'globalism' means in this context, or what type of alternate reality could exist where foreigners would be polite enough to not, like, turn a wrench or run an assembly line for cheaper than Americans did in the 50s. We as a country don't have the option of 'choosing' an alternate economic reality where developing country wages aren't cheaper than ours
Re: The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local
#9I’m amazed the article didn’t mention the political correlation between the “big metros” and everywhere else. We know that increasingly “Blue America” is exclusively these major metros and “Red America” is everywhere else. But all these better outcomes are correlated to living in Red America, which they say is mostly due to affordable housing. I don’t really know what to make of that, but it’s interesting to me.
The current city = Blue and rural = Red division is a relatively recent one; so across the timescale of people born in the 80s to now you'd have a lot of political shifts that would be hard to account for. Just look at the 1996 election results by county seems unimaginable now, but it wasn't that long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
If you are going to use the 1996 county map you need to factor out Perot. Louisiana for example is much bluer Parish by Parish in 1996 than any of the elections going back to 1980.
Re: The Biggest Economic Divides Aren’t Regional, They’re Local
#10This seems like an obvious consequence of globalism and the nature of the labor market. Also seems consistent with Picketty’s thesis about capital growth. The days when being a US citizen gauranteed affluence are coming to a close. To see the future look at California; refugees from Guatemala living amongst young millionaires, mostly immigrants also. A global community, sliced into ever narrower tranches by the invis…
Much of Piketty's work has been widely debunked, especially r > g, so I'm not sure why one would start with his thesis. Top 1% income earners are typically business founder-owners, and reams of evidence from the Forbes 400 to tax data show that the wealthiest in US society are entrepreneurs who again created their own business- not rentiers living off of inherited wealth. (Anecdotally, children of inherited wealth th…
i think by globalism he means that free trade brings with it the free movement of labor across countries
>what type of alternate reality could exist where foreigners would be polite enough to not, like, turn a wrench or run an assembly line for cheaper than Americans did in the 50s. We as a country don't have the option of 'choosing' an alternate economic reality where developing country wages aren't cheaper than ours
the illusion of non-choice on this issue began when bill buckley reformed the right wing into free-traders. we could vote to not let foreigners in to our country and to establish high tariffs on foreign goods. we choose not to. not saying whether that's right or wrong. just saying it is a choice.