3 ms·

I have the same feelings but have trouble finding good statistics that help tell this story. Do you know where to start looking?

maxsilver 10y ago
Not really. I wish I did though. --- Here's one example: There's been a lot of talk about how "Trumps supporters are slightly more wealthy than Clintons" (as in, the absolute poor voted more towards Clinton, but the lower-middle-class voted more towards Trump). But I'm not so sure about that. I know in my town if you are "absolute poor" (below 60% avg income -- roughly $12/hr or less) you are allowed to live downtown in luxury apartments at little cost, because a combination of various government subsidies exist. Apartments that would cost HN readers $1,800/month to rent, cost these folks only $400-$800 (depending on income, family size, etc). These residents also get all the benefits of a gentrifying urban neighborhood without paying for it (crime is slowly dropping, public transit is slowly improving, what few nicer jobs that are being created, usually appear right there, etc). However, if you "make too much money" (read, $12-16/hr, still poor, but not "absolute poor") you don't qualify for any of this. These folks must pay $700-$1,000/month for run down apartments in the far edges of town. These apartments have effectively zero public transit (everyone here must also own a car) and are not near any "nicer" jobs, but are usually sandwiched between buildings like WalMart and Home Depot. - - - If you are sitting in NYC, and do a quick map of "census reported income by zip code across voters by zip code", you'd probably conclude something like "In Michigan, the poorest people voted Clinton, and the middle class voted Trump". But in terms of real-world wealth here, the "absolute poor" (by income) are actually wealthier (in terms of opportunity, access, quality of life, diversity of neighbors, and amount of paycheck left over they can spend/save) than those who are "lower-middle class" (have slightly higher income) but lack all of that. The real world is a bit more complicated than just plugging census data into maps -- it's tempting and convenient, but wildly inaccurate to make broad assumptions using that methodology. I don't know how to get all of these factors into easily-usable statistics, but I am seeing these sort of discrepancies happening in person somewhat often.

maxsilver 10y ago

Not really. I wish I did though. --- Here's one example: There's been a lot of talk about how "Trumps supporters are slightly more wealthy than Clintons" (as in, the absolute poor voted more towards Clinton, but the lower-middle-class voted more towards Trump). But I'm not so sure about that. I know in my town if you are "absolute poor" (below 60% avg income -- roughly $12/hr or less) you are allowed to live downtown in luxury apartments at little cost, because a combination of various government subsidies exist. Apartments that would cost HN readers $1,800/month to rent, cost these folks only $400-$800 (depending on income, family size, etc). These residents also get all the benefits of a gentrifying urban neighborhood without paying for it (crime is slowly dropping, public transit is slowly improving, what few nicer jobs that are being created, usually appear right there, etc). However, if you "make too much money" (read, $12-16/hr, still poor, but not "absolute poor") you don't qualify for any of this. These folks must pay $700-$1,000/month for run down apartments in the far edges of town. These apartments have effectively zero public transit (everyone here must also own a car) and are not near any "nicer" jobs, but are usually sandwiched between buildings like WalMart and Home Depot. - - - If you are sitting in NYC, and do a quick map of "census reported income by zip code across voters by zip code", you'd probably conclude something like "In Michigan, the poorest people voted Clinton, and the middle class voted Trump". But in terms of real-world wealth here, the "absolute poor" (by income) are actually wealthier (in terms of opportunity, access, quality of life, diversity of neighbors, and amount of paycheck left over they can spend/save) than those who are "lower-middle class" (have slightly higher income) but lack all of that. The real world is a bit more complicated than just plugging census data into maps -- it's tempting and convenient, but wildly inaccurate to make broad assumptions using that methodology. I don't know how to get all of these factors into easily-usable statistics, but I am seeing these sort of discrepancies happening in person somewhat often.