Income Inequality!

[scottagibson]

Thank you, NYT paywall!

[Matt_W]

That article is paywalled so I don’t know what it says but I can guess.

If it’s saying that inequality tends to be high in blue states, I suspect that there’s a correlation vs causation effect going on. Blue states tend to be wealthier and more urban overall, which drives up housing prices, which is the principle contributor to inequality.

This chart from the Urban Institute suggests to me that it’s not lack of social service spending that’s causing whatever effect the NYT is describing:

[Perky_Goth]

Ah, well, I can’t link to the video. Don’t even know why I’m not paywalled.
The small blurb is this:

In many states — including California, New York and Illinois — Democrats control all the levers of power. They run the government. They write the laws. And as we explore in the video above, they often aren’t living up to their values.

In key respects, many blue states are actually doing worse than red states. It is in the blue states where affordable housing is often hardest to find, there are some of the most acute disparities in education funding and economic inequality is increasing most quickly.

Instead of asking, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” Democrats need to spend more time pondering, “What’s the matter with California?”

@Matt_W

That article is paywalled so I don’t know what it says but I can guess.

You miss, actually. The issue is not the volume of funding, and it’s not that progress doesn’t happen at all, it’s to who it goes. And not at the fault of the party, but of the voters. From denying rezoning in California, to supporting gerrymandering poorer neighborhoods away from redistribution of school funding, equal opportunities are great, but not in my backyard, and certainly not at the expense of my property values.

[scottagibson]

@Perky_Goth

It is in the blue states where affordable housing is often hardest to find, there are some of the most acute disparities in education funding and economic inequality is increasing most quickly.

@Matt_W

If it’s saying that inequality tends to be high in blue states, I suspect that there’s a correlation vs causation effect going on. Blue states tend to be wealthier and more urban overall, which drives up housing prices, which is the principle contributor to inequality.

Doesn’t look like a complete miss.

[scottagibson]

It’s the wages, man.

Paul Krugman

[Matt_W]

@Perky_Goth

And not at the fault of the party, but of the voters.

Ah, yes, that’s definitely a problem. NIMBYism abounds, even or even particularly among blue-state liberals. White flight, residential zoning, parking regulations, direct democracy initiatives, etc all contribute to inequality in blue states. So I guess I agree?

[Perky_Goth]

@scottagibson

Doesn’t look like a complete miss.

I didn’t say complete, but they’re not the same argument without the theory that property ownership corrupts the desire for equality.
Which I don’t want to accept, but, damn.

[scottagibson]

@Perky_Goth

…they’re not the same argument without the theory that property ownership corrupts the desire for equality.

Yeah. People are bad.

[Telefrog]

Yup. Like I wrote previously, people want to help the homeless, just not in their neighborhoods. In their own neighborhoods, people just want them gone.

[Telefrog]

Just to follow on with that Starbucks story, this bit is amazing.

[Strollen]

It is an awesome video. I’m currently a NY Times subscriber, NPR donation premium gift. You can get 10 articles per email address/month, it is definitely worth checking out.

The director took a look at the DNC platform, and then states where they have complete control and found that Democrats don’t live up to their asperations.

1. So for example Washington St. is the most regressive state in the Union regarding taxes, beating out Texas. They rely on sales taxes, property tax, and have no income tax.
2. Property taxes are the major source of school funding in the country. Ideally all the property taxes should go to a single school districts. What does Chicago do, divide the city in 100+ school districts, to ensure the nice areas get great schools, that look like prep academies and the poor south side, gets duct tape to keep the cold out.
3. California is one of the worse NIMBY place in the country. So example there 675,000 jobs added in the Palo Alto area (didn’t say what cities/counties) but only 175,000 house have been built. So the Palo Alto city council zones, a 2 acre from single family to multifamily to build 60 affordable house for seniors. Lots of teeth gnashing, and complaints (Mind you about seniors WTF) ruining the neighborhood. Result a city wide vote overturns the city council. Instead of affordable house being built, a small number of single family houses that sell for $5 million are built.

[scottagibson]

I mean, Howard Schultz could by one shitload of blankets. No need for anyone to share.

[Matt_W]

@Strollen

The director took a look at the DNC platform, and then states where they have complete control and found that Democrats don’t live up to their asperations.

I agree with all of those points, but disagree with this framing. “The Democrats are hypocrites” is sensational. The realities are that Democrats contain a huge constituency with a lot of competing interests, policies are constrained by jurisdiction and public support, and Democrats do far better at actualizing Democratic principles than Republicans do.

Also, it’s a bit funny to see people decrying Democrats’ non-popular messaging (e.g. CRT) in other threads while suggesting they should adopt non-popular messaging (zone for density) in this one. It’s not very hard to see how championing zoning for density would be hijacked by the Republican propaganda machine.

[Timex]

It’s more that the they have no problem championing zoning for density… as long as it’s somewhere else, and not near them personally.

And yeah, that’s hypocrisy.

Rich liberals have long been hypocrites on a ton of things… Like when I worked in wind mapping in Massachusetts, the biggest obstacles to expanding wind power off the coast were the rich liberals who lived on the beach. Those folks all wanted to do environmentally friendly stuff… but not if they had to actually SEE it. (funny enough, they wouldn’t have even been able to see it)

[Enidigm]

When rich liberals and rich conservatives have to choose between being liberal or conservative and being rich, it’s pretty clear what most will choose.

[Perky_Goth]

@Matt_W

The realities are that Democrats contain a huge constituency with a lot of competing interests

Right, I don’t think the issue is so much the party (or parties, it’s not a US exclusive), but the voters of the party.
And I don’t think it’s the upper class either, they only have so many votes (and megaphones). It must include people like us, just mostly well enough.

[Sharpe]

There is a real problem with NIMBY Dems, or “light blue” Dems or whatever label you want to apply, as has been discussed, but I want to make two points about this:

1)The NIMBY Dems are rarely solely responsible for the bad election outcomes on these issues: it’s almost always NIMBY Dems joining with the GOP voters to vote against good policies and for bad policies

For example, CA is about 60% Dem, and 35% GOP in recent elections, with a few percent of third party / other. But if you look at the votes where the liberal position got beaten, like with the Uber Initiative, it’s often like 40% to 45% voting for the liberal position and 55% to 60% for the other position, and the composition of those voters tends to be ALL of the GOP voters vote in what I consider the worse way, and then maybe a quarter to a third of the Dem voters join the GOP voters to create a majority for bad policy. So the NIMBY Dems can’t screw things up by themselves; they are a problem b/c they add to the already existent problem of GOP voters voting for bad policies.

So NIMBY Dems are a problem but the GOP is also a problem.

2)Messaging - even when the Dems do stick to their principles, the GOP will attack, often using mis-information and mal-information, manipulating and distorting fairly straightforward policies into horri-bad extreme scenarios (“denser zoning means BAD PEOPLE WILL LIVE NEXT TO YOU AND RAPE YOUR FAMILY!!!” etc.) Oft times, self interested NIMBY Dems will also feed into this messaging BS and so are a part of the problem. But as in #1 above, the GOP is ALSO part of the problem in almost every one of these cases.

The TLDR version of this post is: yes, NIMBY Dems are a problem, but they are a problem b/c when added to the existing problem of GOP voters, they pass bad laws. The GOP voters are a huge part of the problem, also.

Edit: Note, this underlines the reality of America as a patchwork of red, blue and purple rather than big swathes of just one thing or another. Even in CA, there are strong red areas, and even in blue areas within CA, there are red neighborhoods, etc. It’s all a patchwork.

[Tortilla]

@Sharpe

2)Messaging - even when the Dems do stick to their principles, the GOP will attack, often using mis-information and mal-information, manipulating and distorting fairly straightforward policies into horri-bad extreme scenarios (“denser zoning means BAD PEOPLE WILL LIVE NEXT TO YOU AND RAPE YOUR FAMILY!!!” etc.) Oft times, self interested NIMBY Dems will also feed into this messaging BS and so are a part of the problem. But as in #1 above, the GOP is ALSO part of the problem in almost every one of these cases.

It’s like the old saying. Democrats run on their platform. Republicans run on attacking the Dem platform.

[Strollen]

It is not even that complicated. The Republicans at the national level and increasingly at the state and local level are completely incapable of governing, Appelbaum makes this point at the beginning.

However, politics should not play a role in these deep blues states. For instance, in Hawaii, one of the 25 senators is a Republican, and four of the 51 House members are Republican. It doesn’t matter what they say or do.

[Matt_W]

@Strollen

It doesn’t matter what they say or do.

Sure. And I agree, not every Democrat is equally committed to furthering Democratic ideals.

My question is: are blue states worse at this than red states? If not, then why are we even talking about it? I’m under no illusion that Democratic governance in blue states is as good as it could possibly be. Nor do I think that every Democrat is an uncompromised ally in the fight against income inequality. Democrats do, however, have reduction of income equality as a policy objective, and we do have at least limited success in that arena. OK, yes, we can do better. I’m not sure that shaming parents for moving into better school districts is a solid political strategy though.