By Tim Worstall
Sunday, January 04, 2015
One of the great conundrums of the American political
scene is why the poorer states, colloquially known as “red” states, tend to
vote Republican or conservative, while the richer states, the “blue” ones (and
let it be said that this is very confusing for this European, for over here the
colours tend to work the other way around, red is Labour, or left wing) tend to
vote Democrat. We would think that it should be the other way around, the poor
people voting for more from that Great Big Pinata which is government. But it
seems that there’s a simple solution to this: the red states aren’t actually
poorer in terms of the way people live.
If we measure by consumption patterns then it’s the blue
states that are poor, the red states that are
rich:
Blue states, like California, New
York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are
generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah,
have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living
relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why
the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm
elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.
Red state economies based on energy
extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher
poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue
states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For
a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a
couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue
Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing
costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in
red markets ($119).
That particular piece then goes on to chunter away about
how appalling it is that people aren’t willing to vote for more blue state type
of policies and how this will be the end of America. However, the really
interesting part of it is that part quoted above. For it speaks to something
that economists just keep trying to point out to people. Yes, sure, income
inequality might be important in a way, wealth inequality should have a place
in our thoughts. But what really matters to people about how life is lived is
consumption. Levels of consumption and also consumption inequality. That last
is important in a political sense currently because consumption inequality just
hasn’t widened out as much as income and wealth inequality have. And levels of
consumption: well, that’s really what income or wealth is, the ability to
purchase consumption. And if you’re in a place where prices are lower, leading
to greater consumption (whether of food, or square feet of housing, or leisure,
or whatever), well, then you’re richer, aren’t you?
And thus is our conundrum solved. The red states aren’t
in fact poorer than the blue states. They’re richer: that’s why they vote more
conservative and more right wing.
We could, of course, take yet another point from this
essay:
For blue state urbanites who toil
in low-paying retail, food preparation and service jobs, for the journeyman
tradespeople who once formed the heart of the middle class, for teachers, civil
servants, students and young families, the American dream of homeownership — or
even an affordable rental apartment — is increasingly out of reach. Adding
insult to injury, rapid gentrification in these larger knowledge hubs brings
the constant threat of displacement of creative workers. For even the much
better paid techies, engineers, financiers and managers who are displacing
them, the metropolitan version of the American dream is a cramped condo or a
small house and a long commute. Many are opting to move to cheaper red states
instead, further driving their growth.
That rather shows that the way that the blue states are
run isn’t conducive to good living standards for the poorer half of the
population, doesn’t it? Or, as we might put it, blue, liberal, policies don’t
actually do what they say on the tin, aren’t in fact pro-poor. All of which is
something that ties in nicely with something we noted from Joe
Stiglitz yesterday. Restrictive zoning is very much more common in those
blue states than it is in the red. And housing is still a family’s largest
single expense. Meaning that by artificially pushing up the cost of housing
those blue states are indeed making life worse for the poor. The adoption of
build anything anywhere (almost, we’re not quite ready for a steel plant in
Manhattan) policies would thus improve the lives and fortunes of the poor
substantially.
But that is to become perilously close to snark about all
of this. That basic and first observation still stands though. That puzzle of
why people in places with lower incomes tend to vote right wing is solved.
Because those lower income places have even lower prices, making consumption
standards higher. There is therefore no conundrum. The richer people, by the
only standard that actually matters, that consumption, are voting right wing,
the poorer are voting left.
What we now need to go on and explain is why those
nominally left policies, those blue ones, are so to the disadvantage of the
poor they’re supposedly helping….
No comments:
Post a Comment