« Two questions about the SpaceX explosion | Main | A note on the reaction to the recent Obamacare troubles »

September 06, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

(1) may not be sustainable for another 24 years. As urban areas become gated communities they open themselves up to a populist revolt that redistributes their economic advantages more widely. I doubt the ability of urban areas of increasingly concentrated and protected wealth to perpetually maintain majority coalitions to support their privileged position.

(2) This is unlikely as local property owners will fight it, local governments will fight it, and majority personal preferences will resist it.

(3) Re-regulation of large economic sectors could prop up regional cities, as occurred prior to Carter.

Desirable areas stay desirable, attract the people with both the means and the desire to invest in keeping the cities desirable (although not necessarily affordable), and some other up and coming city looking to join the list of desirable areas has to come up with some Hail Mary strategy. Pittsburgh and Uber may work, but others?

What would be interesting is a look at the cities most vulnerable to future bubble bursts, specifically over-rependency in being the managers of Big Oil (Texan cities), an unsustainable higher education bubble (so an assortment of college towns that haven't diversified, I think Charlottesville comes to mind potentially), tourism (Vegas was hit by the Great Recession, but what happens to Florida when sea level rise continues), and retirement destinations. On the last point, it's not so much that you get into the top tier of cities by being a retirement destination, but rather it's at least an economic strategy for now with retiring baby boomers. Take that away and there will be increased competition among the rest, say the lower 80% of cities, to try to figure out what works.

What's the political coalition that backs redistribution against the elites in the desirable cities. This isn't exactly 99% vs. 1%, this is more the upper 20% of successful college educated professionals who swear, swear they are just middle class living in expensive areas.

This would somehow envision that the hinterlands (Republicans) make an alliance with the urban underclass in order to deliver economic opportunity to those left behind. Which would be done how? Deregulation of health and education to bring down the cartels like the AMA? Free trade in services and high-skilled immigration to increase competition at the top? How does that exactly motivate the Republicans with pitchforks instead of going after Mexicans, Muslims, and welfare queens?

Logan, look at the shift from the Third to the Fourth Party System. Both Republicans and Democrats responded to economic shifts in ways that empowered reform/progressive wings.

If you have a Republican Party and Democratic Party based primarily on race and cultural splits, then there may be quite a bit more diversity on economic policy within each party. There may be economically populist and economically elitist wings in both parties.

The GOP has two wings right now economically. A pro-big business Chamber wing that believes that what is good for big business is good for America, and a Tea Party ideological wing that believes in a narrowly ideological view of free market economics. Which one is the one that offers meaningful diversity?

Neither Republican economic wing was able to nominate its preferred candidate in the Republican primary. Perhaps those two wings are losing some of their influence over the voters who will determine the trajectory of the party during Clinton's first term.

I'd not be surprised if Paul Ryan - Hillary Clinton fiscal compromises end with many Republican voters to the "left" of Clinton economically. Especially if Ryan ends up running the House with a Chamber of Commerce Republican - Wall Street Democrat coalition.

Whatever the short-term movement, I expect the subset of the Republican electorate in relative economic decline to spur economically populist Republicans to fill the populist niche that Democrats no longer can outside their cultural areas.

I think the question is how you define populists. The Tea Party wing brands itself as anti-establishment, anti-bailouts, anti-stimulus, anti-tax breaks for big business, etc. That wing, however, does not seem well designed to expand outside of the existing group of white working class voters already moving into the GOP.

I work in software in the Boston area. Up until the latter half of the Oughties it seemed to me that the jobs were moving further and further out into distant ring suburbs where the rent was cheaper. (And it wasn't about telecommuting; everyone was just expected to drive there.) Then the real-estate crisis happened, rents dropped, and everyone started swarming back into Kendall Square in search of MIT kids. Unfortunately I'd just moved out to a distant ring suburb at that point.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Categories