6 ms·

Coastal America and rest of America might be a better way to cut it.

by kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago

geogra4 6y ago
I don't think its so geographically aligned like that. Plenty of rich areas in Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix etc.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  While that is true, I think that some of these things are tied to local culture too, which is why the Coastal distinction does have some merit. If you generally are in the Bay Area or LA you rarely see the level of obesity you see in say Houston despite the fact that both areas despite being rich have their fair share of the poor too. Similarly for smoking. It's exceedingly rare to see public smoking in the Bay Area. Similarly for diets. When traveling in the South I was amazed at just how ridiculously unhealthy the average food eaten by the average person there was. Everything deep fried, laden with calories, consumed along with sugary drinks.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    It's still regional rather than simply everyone vs. coastal. Not sure if it's fair to lump in the wealthier Rocky Mountain states like Colorado or Utah in with say the butter and cornfed Midwest.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Data is 5 to 6 years old: County level: https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-by-county https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-by-c... State and county level: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/life-expectancy/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/life-expectancy/...
  - geogra4 6y ago
    At the county level I dont think it neatly lines up to coasts vs interior. There's definitely a serious problem of the interior southeast though
_delirium 6y ago
It's a bit more intermingled. For example, Williamson County, TN (Nashville suburbs) is one of the 10 highest-income counties in the entire country. The Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, and Denver suburbs are also very affluent. Wikipedia's collected some of the recent per-county census data here, although that isn't a perfect metric since states vary a lot in county size: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie... In general there's a good/bad outcomes split within (almost?) every major American city between the affluent and the poor neighborhoods. I haven't verified this with the life-expectancy data, but I would bet it differs more between rich vs. poor areas within each state, than it does between coastal and non-coastal states.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Tennessee is a tax haven for the wealthy who don't want to be in Florida. These states have a more regressive economy because the un-wealthy have to shoulder more of the burden of financing their government.
Technically 6y ago
Living in Denver this never made much sense compared to urban/rural.
pembrook 6y ago
Not really, there’s countless cities with tons of well off upper middle class people in the middle of the country. Metro-Denver, Metro-Austin/Dallas/Huston, Metro-Atlanta, Metro-Nashville, Metro-Chicago, Metro-Detroit, Metro-Minneapolis, etc. etc. etc. I’d say it’s more city/suburban vs rural. This doesn’t account for the poor & homeless in all of America’s inner cities, but does a better job explaining. Maybe “Fortune 500 headquarters adjacent” is the better indicator. The towns with big global companies almost always have affluent suburbs surrounding them. Even Cincinnati has tons of affluent people due to P&G.
- perardi 6y ago
  I think you have to go even finer grained than that. Chicago, for example. My old stomping grounds. The inequality within that city is stark. Glaring. The South and West sides are a world apart from the North side.
  - pembrook 6y ago
    I guess the easiest way to slice it would be knowledge labor vs. unskilled labor. Regardless of where you live.
  - vidanay 6y ago
    One side of the street is Little Italy, the other side is not someplace to hang out after dark.
    - perardi 6y ago
      That Andersonville to Uptown transition can be a shock.
majormajor 6y ago
Not really, no. Many of the coastal cities are more stratified and economically segregated than many of the non-coastal ones, but they still have a sizable lower-class population. So the precarious people in the high-poverty areas are much more hidden from the "typical" view of someone with some money. Food deserts and gang violence - both accelerated by concentrated poverty - are a couple of ways this manifests in some of the "elite" cities.
nostromo 6y ago
I know a few multi-millionaires in Idaho and Utah that live very nicely. In SF or LA they'd be middle-class. It's not just about wealth in dollars, it's about purchasing power.
- jcims 6y ago
  Hell of a lot of farmers buying $75k diesel trucks for cash, rotating quarter million dollar equipment through the inventory, sitting on 100 head of cattle and 1000+ acres and wearing carhartts, wranglers and beat up boots. Every now and again a friend of a friend posts a pic on facebook from their 40' boat up on the lake.

Coastal America and rest of America might be a better way to cut it.

geogra4 6y ago

I don't think its so geographically aligned like that. Plenty of rich areas in Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix etc.

kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
While that is true, I think that some of these things are tied to local culture too, which is why the Coastal distinction does have some merit. If you generally are in the Bay Area or LA you rarely see the level of obesity you see in say Houston despite the fact that both areas despite being rich have their fair share of the poor too. Similarly for smoking. It's exceedingly rare to see public smoking in the Bay Area. Similarly for diets. When traveling in the South I was amazed at just how ridiculously unhealthy the average food eaten by the average person there was. Everything deep fried, laden with calories, consumed along with sugary drinks.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  It's still regional rather than simply everyone vs. coastal. Not sure if it's fair to lump in the wealthier Rocky Mountain states like Colorado or Utah in with say the butter and cornfed Midwest.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
Data is 5 to 6 years old: County level: https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-by-county https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-by-c... State and county level: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/life-expectancy/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/life-expectancy/...
- geogra4 6y ago
  At the county level I dont think it neatly lines up to coasts vs interior. There's definitely a serious problem of the interior southeast though

_delirium 6y ago

It's a bit more intermingled. For example, Williamson County, TN (Nashville suburbs) is one of the 10 highest-income counties in the entire country. The Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, and Denver suburbs are also very affluent. Wikipedia's collected some of the recent per-county census data here, although that isn't a perfect metric since states vary a lot in county size: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie... In general there's a good/bad outcomes split within (almost?) every major American city between the affluent and the poor neighborhoods. I haven't verified this with the life-expectancy data, but I would bet it differs more between rich vs. poor areas within each state, than it does between coastal and non-coastal states.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Tennessee is a tax haven for the wealthy who don't want to be in Florida. These states have a more regressive economy because the un-wealthy have to shoulder more of the burden of financing their government.

Technically 6y ago

Living in Denver this never made much sense compared to urban/rural.

pembrook 6y ago

Not really, there’s countless cities with tons of well off upper middle class people in the middle of the country. Metro-Denver, Metro-Austin/Dallas/Huston, Metro-Atlanta, Metro-Nashville, Metro-Chicago, Metro-Detroit, Metro-Minneapolis, etc. etc. etc. I’d say it’s more city/suburban vs rural. This doesn’t account for the poor & homeless in all of America’s inner cities, but does a better job explaining. Maybe “Fortune 500 headquarters adjacent” is the better indicator. The towns with big global companies almost always have affluent suburbs surrounding them. Even Cincinnati has tons of affluent people due to P&G.

perardi 6y ago
I think you have to go even finer grained than that. Chicago, for example. My old stomping grounds. The inequality within that city is stark. Glaring. The South and West sides are a world apart from the North side.
- pembrook 6y ago
  I guess the easiest way to slice it would be knowledge labor vs. unskilled labor. Regardless of where you live.
- vidanay 6y ago
  One side of the street is Little Italy, the other side is not someplace to hang out after dark.
  - perardi 6y ago
    That Andersonville to Uptown transition can be a shock.

majormajor 6y ago

Not really, no. Many of the coastal cities are more stratified and economically segregated than many of the non-coastal ones, but they still have a sizable lower-class population. So the precarious people in the high-poverty areas are much more hidden from the "typical" view of someone with some money. Food deserts and gang violence - both accelerated by concentrated poverty - are a couple of ways this manifests in some of the "elite" cities.

nostromo 6y ago

I know a few multi-millionaires in Idaho and Utah that live very nicely. In SF or LA they'd be middle-class. It's not just about wealth in dollars, it's about purchasing power.

jcims 6y ago
Hell of a lot of farmers buying $75k diesel trucks for cash, rotating quarter million dollar equipment through the inventory, sitting on 100 head of cattle and 1000+ acres and wearing carhartts, wranglers and beat up boots. Every now and again a friend of a friend posts a pic on facebook from their 40' boat up on the lake.