As a new article from Bloomberg News explains, Democrats aren’t benefiting from hammering on inequality because almost all the areas with the worst inequality are already controlled by Democrats:There’s just one problem: the districts where Democrats have the best shot to win Republican-held seats show some of the smallest gaps between rich and poor in the U.S., an indication of just how hard it will be for their message to take hold with voters.Of the 100 congressional districts ranked as having the greatest gap between rich and poor, not one is held by a Republican whose seat is considered up for grabs this November,according to data compiled by Bloomberg.. . . The seat with the widest gap between rich and poor belongs to a Democrat, Jerry Nadler, whose district takes in Wall Street and parts of Brooklyn not yet reached by that borough’s redevelopment. In all, 32 of the 35 districts with the greatest income inequality are held by President Barack Obama’s party.
And the better-off segment of the population in flyover country is qualitatively different from that found in FHer-heavy enclaves:
The rich of America’s affluent urban areas tend to be the beneficiaries, one way or another, of a global tournament economy in which markets are often close to “winner take all,” and vast sums can flow to people who are just a little bit better than their competitors. The wealthy in Republican districts, on the other hand, are more likely to be competing in local or national markets, not glamour industries, where sales are ground out one at a time. Because the sums involved are smaller, the wealth gap is also smaller -- and business owners are less likely to be sympathetic to the idea that their success has a huge luck component.Corporatists and bureaucrats tend to see things through a macro lens, while those who take their freedom seriously tend to think in terms of individual lives shaped by individual decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment