2 ms·
That was kind of my "meta" point. Social liberalism and economic liberalism have diverged. "Blue states" are more socially tolerant and liberal but have become
by api 8y ago
That was kind of my "meta" point. Social liberalism and economic liberalism have diverged. "Blue states" are more socially tolerant and liberal but have become strongholds for Plutocrats where everyone below the upper middle or "professional" class is paying >50% of their income to real estate or is priced out entirely. "Red states" tend toward the socially reactionary but offer an economic environment that's overall better for average working middle class people. You can afford a place to live and the general cost of living tends to be a lot lower.
- metalliqaz 8y agoThis is an over generalization. Red state or blue state, where wealth centralizes, poor people are priced out. Notice that the cities with the highest wealth gaps are not exclusively in blue states.[1] Likewise, expensive blue states like MA and CA have plenty of places to find affordable housing, they just don't happen to be in the middle of Boston or San Francisco. [1] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/06/21/25-US-Cities-Worst-Income-Inequality http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/06/21/25-US-Cities-Worst-...
- adamwong246 8y agoBut this has nothing at all to do with social issues or land use policies- the land is cheaper, simply because the demand is lower and the supply is higher.