[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
- Status
No, no, please, no more! *goes down to his knees with clasped hands* I'll even put on the Russian Crimea avatar if it makes you stop.
I think he means that at least Nicky Minaj can be looked at.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Nicky Minaj looks too fake for me.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
She's a Homunculus. Hopefully not Lust.
*Nicki Minaj can be looked at
*Nicki Minaj's backup dancers can be looked at
...and Nicki Minaj is a very talented rapper, easily top 5 in the current mainstream set. Though I suppose Anaconda isn't the best song for demonstrating that
Anyway here's a graph...
Spoiler :
Income inequality is in a part a function of population size and population density. So are liberal politics.It would be reasonable on top of everything else, a rise in inequality and being wise to it would make your politics shift left.
Nope, read the text. The validity remains even adjusting for cost of living, so it's not about desirability. It's also not about size, since some of the US's biggest cities are quite affordable (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc).
It's actually about concrete policies that left-wing cities pass and screw the poor, like restrictive zoning and tough housing regulations. The result is keeping the supply of new housing low, forcing prices up, and thus either locking poor people up in decrepit ghettos or kicking them out of the city altogether by gentrification (and thus making them spend half their time and money commuting).
By contrast, Houston (which has no zoning laws) has abundant supply of new housing and poor people can live virtually anywhere in the city. In fact, all over Houston you see really rich neighborhoods side by side with poor ones. This means a poor person can find work anywhere, and live near work.
So this is actually about left-wing politics hurting the poor, and "free-market" ones helping them. No way around it.
I'm always a fan of arguments that Houston is the ultimate form of urbanism to which all other places on the planet should aspire.
This is mostly because I've been to Houston. LET'S HAVE EVERYONE BE TEXAS is possibly the most human-hating thing I've ever heard. Forget Berlin, Barcelona, Singapore, Boston, Melbourne, Tokyo, New York, Vancouver, Sydney, London, Wellington, Copenhagen, Los Angeles, Malmo, Dublin, Prague... some regulations might not work, let's torch it all, everyone else is doing it wrong let's be Texas they can have roller coasters everywhere IT'S ALL ABOUT TEXAS!
This is mostly because I've been to Houston. LET'S HAVE EVERYONE BE TEXAS is possibly the most human-hating thing I've ever heard. Forget Berlin, Barcelona, Singapore, Boston, Melbourne, Tokyo, New York, Vancouver, Sydney, London, Wellington, Copenhagen, Los Angeles, Malmo, Dublin, Prague... some regulations might not work, let's torch it all, everyone else is doing it wrong let's be Texas they can have roller coasters everywhere IT'S ALL ABOUT TEXAS!
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Let's not forget that with these zoning laws in Houston, you can hunt poor people while you're on your daily commute!
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Pack up your rifle and shoot at them.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
As in, while you're on your overpriced car to your comfy job whose CEO is also your father, bring out your rifle and shoot random poor people, or alternatively, your poorer colleagues.
(Although, I guess it's kind of my fault. Guess "pack out" isn't the best word to accomply "your rifle").
(Although, I guess it's kind of my fault. Guess "pack out" isn't the best word to accomply "your rifle").
Who's saying everyone should be like Texas? What I'm saying is that Houston is more poor people-friendly than NY or San Francisco, and this is not because those cities are richer, but because they actually enact laws and regulations that screw poor people. Do you have anything to counter this or just want to let everyone know you don't like Texas?
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Texas still has restrictive covenants that limit land use, which can be more restrictive than the zoning laws in many other areas.
Even when you try to adjust for cost of living, differences in land values (which are the biggest factor in housing costs) do make a difference. In more left leaning states, individuals are less likely to be home owners and more likely to be renters. Even though homeowners in red sates may be deep in dept for their homes, they still benefit from rising land prices in the long run and often view their housing as speculative investments. In blue states a larger fraction of the common person's income is taken by landlords and unable to be invested as the individual would otherwise choose. While a landlord in the common parlance is also a capitalist who provides services in maintaining the building, many don't provide nearly enough such service to justify their existence. The role of a landlord in the classical economic sense is one of a parasitic rent seeker, whose income is unearned but subsidized by a legal system which recognizes his dominion over resources he did not produce. The rich in more left leaning areas are often a small class of privileged landlords and FIRE sector businessmen who work with landlords. It is less likely to encounter those who got rich due to the kind of entrepreneurship that helps people at large.
Things would be very different if replaced our complex tax system with a simple land value tax and used it to fund a citizen's dividend rather than a complex safety net that if rife with perverse incentives.
Even when you try to adjust for cost of living, differences in land values (which are the biggest factor in housing costs) do make a difference. In more left leaning states, individuals are less likely to be home owners and more likely to be renters. Even though homeowners in red sates may be deep in dept for their homes, they still benefit from rising land prices in the long run and often view their housing as speculative investments. In blue states a larger fraction of the common person's income is taken by landlords and unable to be invested as the individual would otherwise choose. While a landlord in the common parlance is also a capitalist who provides services in maintaining the building, many don't provide nearly enough such service to justify their existence. The role of a landlord in the classical economic sense is one of a parasitic rent seeker, whose income is unearned but subsidized by a legal system which recognizes his dominion over resources he did not produce. The rich in more left leaning areas are often a small class of privileged landlords and FIRE sector businessmen who work with landlords. It is less likely to encounter those who got rich due to the kind of entrepreneurship that helps people at large.
Things would be very different if replaced our complex tax system with a simple land value tax and used it to fund a citizen's dividend rather than a complex safety net that if rife with perverse incentives.
The big factor here is that left-leaning cities make the building of new housing, particularly new affordable housing, very difficult. So poor people are either locked in decrepit ghettos or kicked out of the city entirely. Not rocket science.
Which exact "left-leaning cities" do you mean? The building of affordable housing is very much a left wing position here, and the nimby, protect my house prices restrict building is much more of a right wing position.
American left-leaning cities. Read the article I linked to right below the graph. And this isn't my opinion, or a tongue-in-cheek observation of some journalist, but a statistical analysis. Even controlling for size and cost of living, left-leaning cities are still more unequal. And it's not hard to see why.
Maybe it's the other way around, and because of the inequalities in their cities voters tend to choose candidates who at least include trying to even out ora t least diminish those inequalities in their electoral platforms.
The much more plausible and measurable explanation are the zoning laws and building restrictions that drive up the price of homes and rent.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
