8 ms·

Why is it that the deepest blue areas of the country have some of the most abject inequity and poverty? It seems that there's a fine line between compassion an

by asow92 4y ago

Why is it that the deepest blue areas of the country have some of the most abject inequity and poverty? It seems that there's a fine line between compassion and enablement when it comes to the deep blue municipalities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, etc. Sure the rustbelt, deep south, and Appalachia are areas with similar problems and mixed politics, but they also somehow feel different.

mehphp 4y ago
Do they though? I think the problem is just more visible in densely populated areas (which tend to lean blue). Red states are filled with poverty/inequity it’s just more spread out. Drive through the derelict areas in rural America and you will see similar issues.
- asow92 4y ago
  In my personal experience of living in both rural New York and Pennsylvania and NYC for decades, the ratio seems to skew more towards the city. But I can't say as much for the west.
vlovich123 4y ago
City vs rural have different challenges for one. Cities as a whole seem to lean left but it’s unclear if the policies are to blame or if it’s just a problem of unrelated political factors (eg bussing homeless into cities from red areas to “clean up your streets”)
- asow92 4y ago
  NYC has started bussing people to my rural area in Upstate NY because there isn't enough section 8 housing available and they're on a waiting list.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    this is a very a different sort of "bussing", it is state wide allocation of section 8 housing. they're not bussing people if they don't have section 8 already. Massachusetts does the same thing but from Boston to places like Fall River. Homeless are being bussed to SF without any housing arrangements.
    - asow92 4y ago
      At the end of the day we have more people coming into our community of who don't feel inclined to contribute to it. The pedantic semantics of the difference is immaterial to my peers and neighbors.
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        I can guarantee you it would not be immaterial to you if the state was shipping people there without housing already lined up. It is the state's prerogative to distribute this as it seems fit.
        asow92 4y ago
        As it is our prerogative to protest it either way.
        vlovich123 4y ago
        Yeah. God forbid poorer live next to me. You know who else has that mentality? People who are much better off than you and view you as the pots. You know what’s demonstrably shown to improve moral and connectedness of a society? Being forced to live next to people who are worse off than you so that your self-interest is to vote and advocate on their behalf so that you’re not living in a shithole.
        asow92 4y ago
        As it’s their prerogative to see us as “the pots(?)”.
d23 4y ago
Inequality is pointless to talk about in a vacuum. Blue states tend to have higher wealth overall, so it's unsurprising there's a bigger measure of "inequality." On basically every economic point, blue states are better: https://appliedsentience.com/2020/07/30/economics-are-red-or-blue-states-better/ https://appliedsentience.com/2020/07/30/economics-are-red-or... For this reason, blue states also end up essentially subsidizing the red ones: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/01/22/blue-states-pay-more-than-their-fair-share-here-are-the-receipts-column/ https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/01/22/blue-states-pay-...
- asow92 4y ago
  Better economically, with more tent cities too.
galdosdi 4y ago
The destitute are merely more visible in "big dense blue cities" but statistically there are more of them in rural red places like Mississippi and Oklahoma. After all, in OK or MS you need a car, which is a $2000+ asset, just to even access any public space or resource or make yourself visible at all. There's much more poverty in those places, but it is hidden away. You can see a slight bit of it at gas stations that are walking distance to poor areas, but for the most part, those are the lucky ones, and the unlucky ones are walking distance to nothing. I would much rather be destitute in a big city where I can access all kinds of formal and informal resources like temp agencies or subways to sleep on, than in a rural area where I am totally dependent on rides to anywhere. The advantage of the rural poverty accrues solely to the wealthier, who don't have to look at the poor as much as the urban wealthy and middle classes do. And perhaps that is why we are kinder (well, ok, slightly less unkind) to the deeply poor here, because we actually see them regularly rather than having locked them away so securely we can actually trick ourselves into thinking we don't have them here. It is deeply ironic that you came to the opposite conclusion by accepting superficial appearances. The trick of hiding the poor by means of car culture sure worked on you.
- asow92 4y ago
  In my personal experience of living in both rural New York and Pennsylvania and NYC for decades, the ratio seems to skew more towards the city. But I can't say as much for the west. A $2k car is a lot less than higher average taxes and housing costs.
  - galdosdi 4y ago
    The rural places you lived in probably genuinely didn't have as much extreme poverty. I'm familiar with some of the types of places you probably mean. I was thinking of the rural South, where maintaining some degree of radical poverty even in the face of all kinds of modern development has been a strange national sport of sorts for hundreds of years. The OP seemed to be pitting southern red state rural vs northern cities based on their list. $2000 is a lot for plenty of poor people. And it's not even that easy to get a reliable car at that price anymore, you know. I'm glad it's hard for you to imagine that, but having to constantly either deal with the lack of a car (which usually means being unable to get to work, and thus earn money to feed the car...) or struggle to keep a car (worrying about a surprise bill) is a huge, huge pain for the poor.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nemo44x 4y ago
The rustbelt, deep south, and Appalachia are not some beautiful, middle class paradises. They're full of towns littered with heroin and meth addicts subsidized by welfare and petty crime. You just don't see it or read about it because it's across thousands of small towns and not concentrated in major cities, where media also tends to live. These places have a lot of violence, social issues, drug overdoses, etc. They may not have homelessness at the same level because housing is cheaper and in many cases involves a trailer or an old house in disrepair.
- asow92 4y ago
  Not disagreeing with that, and both city and rural have their problems.
- Zanneth 4y ago
  Whether they exist or not, the fact that the normal working population don't have to see or deal with it sounds like a significant upgrade.
  - bsder 4y ago
    So, it's perfectly okay for the poor to suffer terribly as long as it's out of your sight. Got it.
    - Zanneth 4y ago
      I'm saying that it sounds like they are suffering equally in both environments, so living in a place where it is hidden is a net benefit for everyone.
      - baud147258 4y ago
        well, it is a net benefit for those who are not suffering from poverty, not everyone
      - skinnymuch 4y ago
        How is it benefiting the people suffering?
drewrv 4y ago
Other comments mention that it's more visible in cities, but I'd like to add that "abject inequity and poverty" are national problems that cities cannot solve individually. Rural areas are given disproportionate political power in our national elections while cities go underrepresented. So national problems that affect cities go ignored.
- asow92 4y ago
  If rural areas are given disproportionate political power, why can't political parties that feel this disadvantage do better in those areas? Why change the rules of the game instead of winning it?
  - juve1996 4y ago
    Because the two-party system limits choice to voters and polarizes camps. A democrat could have genuinely good policy that would make an enormous difference for a lot of republican voters. But stances on social issues like gay marriage, gun control, etc, will make them unviable as a candidate. If they switch and support these issues, then they'll lose their primary.
    - asow92 4y ago
      While I don't think Yang has a shot, I really appreciate his attempt to find a new, level-headed middle. Finding middle ground is our best hope. I think there are ideas from both sides that could help both city and rural constituents, and believe that the culture war has gotten out of control on both sides with irreconcilable differences that disqualify the other. However, I also believe that rural voters could be won by Dems if they were engaged on their level instead of flown-over.
      - Der_Einzige 4y ago
        Damn, yang was making people think he was a centerist? He's by far the furthest left candidate who ran (yes, even further that Bernie sanders!)
raldi 4y ago
Show me a place that lacks inequality and I'll show you a place that drove out all their poor people.
- asow92 4y ago
  Nowhere is without inequality. Hierarchies form naturally and cannot be abolished regardless of the system in which they form.
throwayyy479087 4y ago
Because those things are a result of progressive policies.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  I used to be a progressive and used to campaign for candidates. Then I stayed where I am and the rest of the bandwagon moved way way left. So, I will probably vote against any of the "progressive" policies, politicians and elections. At this point, Florida and Texas have record net in-flux migration from California. Can't wait to see this competition completely kick California's butt. It is a shame, I am stuck here, I'd move otherwise. With all my heart, I want to improve California. I just don't see a way.
  - asow92 4y ago
    I as well used to be more progressive, but it's gone too far. The center-left of 20 years ago feels center today.
    - lupire 4y ago
      And the right-right of 20 years ago feels center today. The left is progressive intentionally by branding. The "conservative" right wing keeps gets more extremist, opposing things as fundamental as elections.
      - asow92 4y ago
        Yeah, and the Democratic party is funding their campaigns https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/democrat-ad-spending-republican-trump/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/dem... It's almost as if they prefer their opponents to be extreme.
googlryas 4y ago
Because cities tend to go blue and tend to have their problems crammed into a small area, where a single person can observe it. Taking a photo of 10 junkies strung out on a city street corner tells a more compelling story than taking a picture of a rural junkie on their porch, then driving 10 minutes and taking another picture of a rural junkie on their porch, and then driving another 15 minutes...
- asow92 4y ago
  Why do they congregate in cities and not rural areas? /s Wouldn't it make more sense for them to ramshackle up together in bobbies place down the road? I hear he's got the good meth.
yadaeno 4y ago
Chicago and New York do not belong in the same category as Seattle and SF. Chicago is orders of magnitude better than seattle wrt inequality and poverty
- pyuser583 4y ago
  Chicago is orders of magnitude worse with crime.
  - Der_Einzige 4y ago
    Ya, the blue cities that people poo poo on really do have low violent crime. Chicago does not.
kelnos 4y ago
> Why is it that the deepest blue areas of the country have some of the most abject inequity and poverty? Because urban areas tend to be blue, and urban areas attract more poverty (costs are higher, easier to get into poverty; but also there are plenty of public services around that make it "easier" to be poor). Poverty is also just much more visible in areas with denser populations. I assure you that there's plenty of poverty in right-leaning areas in the US. They're just usually not as visible.
- asow92 4y ago
  And I assure you there's in fact more poverty in right-leaning areas. Yet they are cleaner, safer, and overall more beautiful places to live.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    Safer for who? I’m sure enough of the disproportionate minority men in prison and jail or who get harassed by police would disagree with safer. Same with transgender people or people not fitting into traditional social norms.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - asow92 4y ago
      Safer for people who prefer less violent crime and criminal mischief.
      - troon-lover 4y ago
      - ryan_lane 4y ago
        Red areas are poorer and have more crime (and especially more violent crime) than blue areas, almost unconditionally. It's very easy to find stats on this. Crime has been dropping for decades, and cities are safer than ever. Hell, San Francisco is one of the least violent cities in the country.
asow92 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRuhiMDOjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRuhiMDOjo

by asow92 4y ago

mehphp 4y ago

Do they though? I think the problem is just more visible in densely populated areas (which tend to lean blue). Red states are filled with poverty/inequity it’s just more spread out. Drive through the derelict areas in rural America and you will see similar issues.

asow92 4y ago
In my personal experience of living in both rural New York and Pennsylvania and NYC for decades, the ratio seems to skew more towards the city. But I can't say as much for the west.

vlovich123 4y ago

City vs rural have different challenges for one. Cities as a whole seem to lean left but it’s unclear if the policies are to blame or if it’s just a problem of unrelated political factors (eg bussing homeless into cities from red areas to “clean up your streets”)

asow92 4y ago
NYC has started bussing people to my rural area in Upstate NY because there isn't enough section 8 housing available and they're on a waiting list.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  this is a very a different sort of "bussing", it is state wide allocation of section 8 housing. they're not bussing people if they don't have section 8 already. Massachusetts does the same thing but from Boston to places like Fall River. Homeless are being bussed to SF without any housing arrangements.
  - asow92 4y ago
    At the end of the day we have more people coming into our community of who don't feel inclined to contribute to it. The pedantic semantics of the difference is immaterial to my peers and neighbors.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      I can guarantee you it would not be immaterial to you if the state was shipping people there without housing already lined up. It is the state's prerogative to distribute this as it seems fit.
      - asow92 4y ago
        As it is our prerogative to protest it either way.
        vlovich123 4y ago
        Yeah. God forbid poorer live next to me. You know who else has that mentality? People who are much better off than you and view you as the pots. You know what’s demonstrably shown to improve moral and connectedness of a society? Being forced to live next to people who are worse off than you so that your self-interest is to vote and advocate on their behalf so that you’re not living in a shithole.
        asow92 4y ago
        As it’s their prerogative to see us as “the pots(?)”.

d23 4y ago

Inequality is pointless to talk about in a vacuum. Blue states tend to have higher wealth overall, so it's unsurprising there's a bigger measure of "inequality." On basically every economic point, blue states are better: https://appliedsentience.com/2020/07/30/economics-are-red-or-blue-states-better/ https://appliedsentience.com/2020/07/30/economics-are-red-or... For this reason, blue states also end up essentially subsidizing the red ones: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/01/22/blue-states-pay-more-than-their-fair-share-here-are-the-receipts-column/ https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/01/22/blue-states-pay-...

asow92 4y ago
Better economically, with more tent cities too.

galdosdi 4y ago

The destitute are merely more visible in "big dense blue cities" but statistically there are more of them in rural red places like Mississippi and Oklahoma. After all, in OK or MS you need a car, which is a $2000+ asset, just to even access any public space or resource or make yourself visible at all. There's much more poverty in those places, but it is hidden away. You can see a slight bit of it at gas stations that are walking distance to poor areas, but for the most part, those are the lucky ones, and the unlucky ones are walking distance to nothing. I would much rather be destitute in a big city where I can access all kinds of formal and informal resources like temp agencies or subways to sleep on, than in a rural area where I am totally dependent on rides to anywhere. The advantage of the rural poverty accrues solely to the wealthier, who don't have to look at the poor as much as the urban wealthy and middle classes do. And perhaps that is why we are kinder (well, ok, slightly less unkind) to the deeply poor here, because we actually see them regularly rather than having locked them away so securely we can actually trick ourselves into thinking we don't have them here. It is deeply ironic that you came to the opposite conclusion by accepting superficial appearances. The trick of hiding the poor by means of car culture sure worked on you.

asow92 4y ago
In my personal experience of living in both rural New York and Pennsylvania and NYC for decades, the ratio seems to skew more towards the city. But I can't say as much for the west. A $2k car is a lot less than higher average taxes and housing costs.
- galdosdi 4y ago
  The rural places you lived in probably genuinely didn't have as much extreme poverty. I'm familiar with some of the types of places you probably mean. I was thinking of the rural South, where maintaining some degree of radical poverty even in the face of all kinds of modern development has been a strange national sport of sorts for hundreds of years. The OP seemed to be pitting southern red state rural vs northern cities based on their list. $2000 is a lot for plenty of poor people. And it's not even that easy to get a reliable car at that price anymore, you know. I'm glad it's hard for you to imagine that, but having to constantly either deal with the lack of a car (which usually means being unable to get to work, and thus earn money to feed the car...) or struggle to keep a car (worrying about a surprise bill) is a huge, huge pain for the poor.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nemo44x 4y ago

The rustbelt, deep south, and Appalachia are not some beautiful, middle class paradises. They're full of towns littered with heroin and meth addicts subsidized by welfare and petty crime. You just don't see it or read about it because it's across thousands of small towns and not concentrated in major cities, where media also tends to live. These places have a lot of violence, social issues, drug overdoses, etc. They may not have homelessness at the same level because housing is cheaper and in many cases involves a trailer or an old house in disrepair.

asow92 4y ago
Not disagreeing with that, and both city and rural have their problems.
Zanneth 4y ago
Whether they exist or not, the fact that the normal working population don't have to see or deal with it sounds like a significant upgrade.
- bsder 4y ago
  So, it's perfectly okay for the poor to suffer terribly as long as it's out of your sight. Got it.
  - Zanneth 4y ago
    I'm saying that it sounds like they are suffering equally in both environments, so living in a place where it is hidden is a net benefit for everyone.
    - baud147258 4y ago
      well, it is a net benefit for those who are not suffering from poverty, not everyone
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      How is it benefiting the people suffering?

drewrv 4y ago

Other comments mention that it's more visible in cities, but I'd like to add that "abject inequity and poverty" are national problems that cities cannot solve individually. Rural areas are given disproportionate political power in our national elections while cities go underrepresented. So national problems that affect cities go ignored.

asow92 4y ago
If rural areas are given disproportionate political power, why can't political parties that feel this disadvantage do better in those areas? Why change the rules of the game instead of winning it?
- juve1996 4y ago
  Because the two-party system limits choice to voters and polarizes camps. A democrat could have genuinely good policy that would make an enormous difference for a lot of republican voters. But stances on social issues like gay marriage, gun control, etc, will make them unviable as a candidate. If they switch and support these issues, then they'll lose their primary.
  - asow92 4y ago
    While I don't think Yang has a shot, I really appreciate his attempt to find a new, level-headed middle. Finding middle ground is our best hope. I think there are ideas from both sides that could help both city and rural constituents, and believe that the culture war has gotten out of control on both sides with irreconcilable differences that disqualify the other. However, I also believe that rural voters could be won by Dems if they were engaged on their level instead of flown-over.
    - Der_Einzige 4y ago
      Damn, yang was making people think he was a centerist? He's by far the furthest left candidate who ran (yes, even further that Bernie sanders!)

raldi 4y ago

Show me a place that lacks inequality and I'll show you a place that drove out all their poor people.

asow92 4y ago
Nowhere is without inequality. Hierarchies form naturally and cannot be abolished regardless of the system in which they form.

throwayyy479087 4y ago

Because those things are a result of progressive policies.

systemvoltage 4y ago
I used to be a progressive and used to campaign for candidates. Then I stayed where I am and the rest of the bandwagon moved way way left. So, I will probably vote against any of the "progressive" policies, politicians and elections. At this point, Florida and Texas have record net in-flux migration from California. Can't wait to see this competition completely kick California's butt. It is a shame, I am stuck here, I'd move otherwise. With all my heart, I want to improve California. I just don't see a way.
- asow92 4y ago
  I as well used to be more progressive, but it's gone too far. The center-left of 20 years ago feels center today.
  - lupire 4y ago
    And the right-right of 20 years ago feels center today. The left is progressive intentionally by branding. The "conservative" right wing keeps gets more extremist, opposing things as fundamental as elections.
    - asow92 4y ago
      Yeah, and the Democratic party is funding their campaigns https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/democrat-ad-spending-republican-trump/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/dem... It's almost as if they prefer their opponents to be extreme.

googlryas 4y ago

Because cities tend to go blue and tend to have their problems crammed into a small area, where a single person can observe it. Taking a photo of 10 junkies strung out on a city street corner tells a more compelling story than taking a picture of a rural junkie on their porch, then driving 10 minutes and taking another picture of a rural junkie on their porch, and then driving another 15 minutes...

asow92 4y ago
Why do they congregate in cities and not rural areas? /s Wouldn't it make more sense for them to ramshackle up together in bobbies place down the road? I hear he's got the good meth.

yadaeno 4y ago

Chicago and New York do not belong in the same category as Seattle and SF. Chicago is orders of magnitude better than seattle wrt inequality and poverty

pyuser583 4y ago
Chicago is orders of magnitude worse with crime.
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  Ya, the blue cities that people poo poo on really do have low violent crime. Chicago does not.

kelnos 4y ago

> Why is it that the deepest blue areas of the country have some of the most abject inequity and poverty? Because urban areas tend to be blue, and urban areas attract more poverty (costs are higher, easier to get into poverty; but also there are plenty of public services around that make it "easier" to be poor). Poverty is also just much more visible in areas with denser populations. I assure you that there's plenty of poverty in right-leaning areas in the US. They're just usually not as visible.

asow92 4y ago
And I assure you there's in fact more poverty in right-leaning areas. Yet they are cleaner, safer, and overall more beautiful places to live.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  Safer for who? I’m sure enough of the disproportionate minority men in prison and jail or who get harassed by police would disagree with safer. Same with transgender people or people not fitting into traditional social norms.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - asow92 4y ago
    Safer for people who prefer less violent crime and criminal mischief.
    - troon-lover 4y ago
    - ryan_lane 4y ago
      Red areas are poorer and have more crime (and especially more violent crime) than blue areas, almost unconditionally. It's very easy to find stats on this. Crime has been dropping for decades, and cities are safer than ever. Hell, San Francisco is one of the least violent cities in the country.

asow92 4y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRuhiMDOjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRuhiMDOjo