8 ms·

Cities can’t overcome national policy that is directed at broadly destroying social safety net programs, disenfranchising large percentages of the population, d

Cities can’t overcome national policy that is directed at broadly destroying social safety net programs, disenfranchising large percentages of the population, driving income and asset concentration, eliminating collective bargaining and facilitating automation and international supply chains all of which rob local communities of the resources and opportunities necessary to rebound. A mayor has no chance of fixing the city when the tax base is decimated because of these national policies. For example, consider the housing and mortgage policies over the last 50 years where redlining literally systematically destroyed the real estate and tax base of the very cities you cite as examples of the democratic parties failure to effectively manage city services. When no one can get a mortgage to buy property in a city, prices drop, which means the tax base erodes, which means social services are reduced, which means property values drop further; very nasty negative cycle. Then add a national highway bill that gives preference to suburbs and exurbs and you should clearly see that the cause is not local party mismanagement but broad national policies.

rayiner 7y ago
Sure, cities can’t make up for federal labor laws. But they should be able to run basic municipal services, like schools, transit, etc., that in other countries are overwhelmingly paid for by municipal and local governments. Median household income in Baltimore is about double that of Spain or Italy. Median household of African American households in Baltimore, though much less than that of white households in the city, is still about as much as Spain or Italy. There is an ample tax base there to support good municipal services if the government was capable of doing so efficiently.
- rayiner 7y ago
  (I should clarify—I’m not trying to diminish the magnitude of the problem that black households have half the income of white households in Baltimore. That’s a separate issue from whether Baltimore’s tax base is sufficient to support decent public services—somehow, Spain and Italy make due with less.)
- digitaltrees 7y ago
  Economics usually work in ratios not absolute dollars. Comparing services in Spain and Baltimore can only go so far as the cost of those service have drastically different inputs and those inputs may comprise very different ratios making the unit economics worse in what otherwise appears to be a wealthier area.
CryptoPunk 7y ago
>>Cities can’t overcome national policy that is directed at broadly destroying social safety net programs, 1. Some of these cities spend huge amounts of money per capita on public services. You need to actually look at the statistics and not just make assumptions that fit your preconceived ideological narrative. 2. Social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP has massively grown since the 1950s, which totally contradicts this idea that the social safety net has been dismantled. Before 1967 there wasn't even a Medicare in the US. 3. The most dysfunctional major cities in the US have been strongholds of the Democratic Party for decades. If the problems in Democrat-run cities are attributable to federal policy then Republican-run City should be doing just as poorly but they're not. For all these reasons, I repeat my charge you're inventing conspiracy theories to blame Republicans instead of accepting facts that condemn the Democratic Party
- digitaltrees 7y ago
  1. You need to cite statistics instead of just saying they exist and systematically disprove my argument. In fact I think cities spend a lot per capita exactly for the reason I describe. Federal policies that hollow out city centers and job opportunity means more people will need services and per capita spending will increase as those that can afford to relocate (and don’t need services leave). Those that stay by definition need more services; this distorts the per capita spending and decouples it from causation. You have to look at all government policy for accurate causation not just local government policy. 2. Yes, some government social safety net programs are new. But they weren’t designed to fix or replace local services or bring the cost of those services down. In fact since they were enacted elderly and child poverty is drastically lower. Generally very successful result as what they were intended to address. But other many programs like food stamps, Medicaid, housing benefits have been drastically cut. Those that haven’t have been tied to work requirements that end up pushing people out of the system. The US has among the lowest social mobility among peer nations because the safety net isn’t there when people need it. So my point stands. 3. I did not refer to any conspiracy theory. - Republicans policies have been clear and public. Reagan vilified welfare queens and said government was the problem. - The rhetoric about “starve the beast” is as out in the open as you could ever have. - The recent tax bill that explicitly targeted democratic states is easy to find. - The history of the damage from highways cutting through minority neighborhoods and destroying their business districts is as clear and documented as anything in social science as is the racist motive and attitude of the leadership that pushed the actual design. - Redline mortgages to prevent lending in minority communities was explicitly in the contract and you can read examples. You can find actual maps that were used to approve or reject loan origination based on race. - There is a Supreme Court case dealing with property covenants that made it impossible to sell property to non-white buyers. Many suburbs were +90% white until these provisions were ruled unconstitutional. -Should I go on? You’re telling me Baltimore should be able to single handedly fight these trends? By all means hold the Democratic Party accountable. But first be accurate and complete in was is causing the problem. I never even said these were republican policies. I merely said federal vs local. However, In reality only the Republican Party is on record saying they want to literally destroy the government because it shouldn’t exist in its present form. Only the Republican Party is on record supporting policies that target “takers” and target people based on race. I don’t have a preconceived ideological narrative. I have an informed, descriptive theory of political economy based on years of fact gathering, research, and predictive testing. I was a libertarian when I started, now I am here.

rayiner 7y ago

Sure, cities can’t make up for federal labor laws. But they should be able to run basic municipal services, like schools, transit, etc., that in other countries are overwhelmingly paid for by municipal and local governments. Median household income in Baltimore is about double that of Spain or Italy. Median household of African American households in Baltimore, though much less than that of white households in the city, is still about as much as Spain or Italy. There is an ample tax base there to support good municipal services if the government was capable of doing so efficiently.

rayiner 7y ago
(I should clarify—I’m not trying to diminish the magnitude of the problem that black households have half the income of white households in Baltimore. That’s a separate issue from whether Baltimore’s tax base is sufficient to support decent public services—somehow, Spain and Italy make due with less.)
digitaltrees 7y ago
Economics usually work in ratios not absolute dollars. Comparing services in Spain and Baltimore can only go so far as the cost of those service have drastically different inputs and those inputs may comprise very different ratios making the unit economics worse in what otherwise appears to be a wealthier area.

CryptoPunk 7y ago

>>Cities can’t overcome national policy that is directed at broadly destroying social safety net programs, 1. Some of these cities spend huge amounts of money per capita on public services. You need to actually look at the statistics and not just make assumptions that fit your preconceived ideological narrative. 2. Social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP has massively grown since the 1950s, which totally contradicts this idea that the social safety net has been dismantled. Before 1967 there wasn't even a Medicare in the US. 3. The most dysfunctional major cities in the US have been strongholds of the Democratic Party for decades. If the problems in Democrat-run cities are attributable to federal policy then Republican-run City should be doing just as poorly but they're not. For all these reasons, I repeat my charge you're inventing conspiracy theories to blame Republicans instead of accepting facts that condemn the Democratic Party

digitaltrees 7y ago
1. You need to cite statistics instead of just saying they exist and systematically disprove my argument. In fact I think cities spend a lot per capita exactly for the reason I describe. Federal policies that hollow out city centers and job opportunity means more people will need services and per capita spending will increase as those that can afford to relocate (and don’t need services leave). Those that stay by definition need more services; this distorts the per capita spending and decouples it from causation. You have to look at all government policy for accurate causation not just local government policy. 2. Yes, some government social safety net programs are new. But they weren’t designed to fix or replace local services or bring the cost of those services down. In fact since they were enacted elderly and child poverty is drastically lower. Generally very successful result as what they were intended to address. But other many programs like food stamps, Medicaid, housing benefits have been drastically cut. Those that haven’t have been tied to work requirements that end up pushing people out of the system. The US has among the lowest social mobility among peer nations because the safety net isn’t there when people need it. So my point stands. 3. I did not refer to any conspiracy theory. - Republicans policies have been clear and public. Reagan vilified welfare queens and said government was the problem. - The rhetoric about “starve the beast” is as out in the open as you could ever have. - The recent tax bill that explicitly targeted democratic states is easy to find. - The history of the damage from highways cutting through minority neighborhoods and destroying their business districts is as clear and documented as anything in social science as is the racist motive and attitude of the leadership that pushed the actual design. - Redline mortgages to prevent lending in minority communities was explicitly in the contract and you can read examples. You can find actual maps that were used to approve or reject loan origination based on race. - There is a Supreme Court case dealing with property covenants that made it impossible to sell property to non-white buyers. Many suburbs were +90% white until these provisions were ruled unconstitutional. -Should I go on? You’re telling me Baltimore should be able to single handedly fight these trends? By all means hold the Democratic Party accountable. But first be accurate and complete in was is causing the problem. I never even said these were republican policies. I merely said federal vs local. However, In reality only the Republican Party is on record saying they want to literally destroy the government because it shouldn’t exist in its present form. Only the Republican Party is on record supporting policies that target “takers” and target people based on race. I don’t have a preconceived ideological narrative. I have an informed, descriptive theory of political economy based on years of fact gathering, research, and predictive testing. I was a libertarian when I started, now I am here.