I’m not going to get into the whole minimum wage thing (I’m against it, as is all reputable economic research, but I swear I will not respond to any post about it because it is a goddamn quagmire), but I’m pretty sure I don’t buy this theory about home prices having such a major impact on political affiliation. Or at least I don’t buy that it is universally applicable, however well (or otherwise) it explains both California and Texas.
For instance, consider Michigan, the Dakotas, and Chicago. All of these areas are cold, terrible places. No sane person wants to live in them-- remember Fargo? Michigan and the Dakotas have both been gripped by regular recession for years. Both Dakotas consistently rank in the bottom twenty for PCI, and Michigan currently has the highest unemployment rate in the nation.
None of these states (protip: Chicago is not a state, I’ll come back to them!) experienced a major population boom or housing price increase – Detroit is well known for being Fallout-esque in its emptiness and slightly dystopian air.
And yet all three are solidly blue. How does that work with the model?
Chicago, on the other hand, is wealthy, educated, liberal to a fault, and corrupt as hell. Despite being in the middle of a frozen nowhere (cut me some slack, I’ve mostly lived in Hawaii or below the M-D, everywhere is a freezing hell hole), people want to live there – it experienced a pronounced housing boom, even though it isn’t coastal or anything. Again, solidly blue.
On the other hand, I can’t really think of any prominent Red cities that I, as a young, single, and rather liberal male, would be willing to move to. Even Atlanta is fairly Blue, despite its position in the midst of a solidly Red state. So perhaps there is something to it after all.
I dunno, Science!