Democrat/Urban/Wealth Relationships

[pervert]

@Zagadka

Right, see, I have this thing where I don’t like people starving to death while people next to them eat in excess. Maybe it is a personal issue I should take up with a psychiatrist, but for now, I’ll let it be a political guide.

Which is of course, the right sentiment. However, in the real world there is always a lot more information than you gave in your question.

What you (and basically everyone else) is saying is, take away the $15 million a year CEO positions, and there will be no CEOs.

No. That is not what I am saying at all. In fact, I suspect that it is not what anyone else is saying either. What I am saying is that if you reduce the maximum income to $100,000 people will simply not want to hire CEOs in the first place. I’m sure that people working for less than $100,000 would want to do so, but why would I hire someone to run a multi billion dollar company when I cannot make more than $100,000 a year anyway. Why not simply fire all the employees, sell all of the capital equipment and live off of tax free investments or even government bonds? Why risk my money in an investment which cannot ever net me more than $100,000 a year unless it is perfectly safe.

I’d like to point out a statistic that I saw during the election. It noted that teh George and Laura Bush paid something like $36,000,000 in taxes one year while the Kerry’s paid something like $6,000,000. I’m willing to be wrong on that, and I have not statement to make regarding who is rich or whether that makes them less or more capable politician. I am only trying to point out a possible cause of the disparity. The Bush’s have less investable wealth. So, they invest it in more risky ventures. Businesses most probably. Meanwhile the Kerry’s have much more investable wealth, so they invest it in much safer vehicles. Tax free municiple bonds if I am not mistaken.

The point I am trying to make is that businesses will not run without capitalists making them run. Capitalists will not risk their capital without rewards comenserate with the risks. It is not a matter of being unable to find people to fill CEO jobs in your $100,000 capped world. It is a matter of not being able to find capitalist willing to create CEO jobs (and all of the attendant jobs below them) in the first place.

Perhaps because I used food as a symbol for money in my example of person A and person B?

No, because you wanted to use food to exagerate the problem of homelessness in America. You wanted to make a point that people are starving in the streets, and that my insistance that I be allowed to keep the fruits of my own labor is a direct cause of said starvation. However, since no such starvation is occuring, I have to call BS.

Sorry bucko. 63% of Angelinos checked (well, inked, in local terms) Kerry.

I’m not sure why you say sorry. That fits in much better with my predispositions. I suppose a 63% Kerry vote was not enough to make

The very rich are welcome to take their money and go elsewhere, I don’t care about them.

You will be when they take most of the jobs with them.

My mechanic -> manager example was counter to your point that no one would work hard if they could only make $100,000, leading to a lack of top-level management. In fact, as I stated in another post, by not paying CEOs et al their multi-million dollar fees, the money could be re-invested into the company, or into other companies or industries.

Except that I never said no one would work. Your are fundementally misunderstanding me. And, I suspect, economics.

[XT]

Gods, I’m having Atlas Shrugged flashbacks AGAIN…woof. Not going to get into the hijack except to dip a toe perhaps…its been done to death and my experience is there just is no point.

@Zagadka

BTW, **x[/x], I just saw where we got cross-communication.

I said: I think that the democrats are mostly middle class.

You read: I think that the middle class are mostly democrats.

Ok. I’m still unsure how to read what you said with what you later said but conceed that it could be my faulty english at work here. Essentially they look like the same statement to me.

@Zagadka

Yes, I really said that, and yes, I really mean that. No person needs more than $100,000 a year to live on, no? I’m sorry if this excludes people from 60 foot yachts and $5 million mansions, but those don’t matter a whit as long as there are people starving and living on the street.

Just out of curiosity…why $100k? Because its a nice round number, or does this figure mean something to you?

@Zagadka

Of course I’m not that out of touch. You are, of course, aware of what would happen to the economy if people could only earn $100,000 a year? Property values alone would take decades to readjust (if not administered properly)

Well, since the economy would come crashing down in a pillar of fire and death, you are probably right…property values would go through the bottom of the barrel.

@Zagadka

The very rich are welcome to take their money and go elsewhere, I don’t care about them.

You would most certainly get your wish…but I don’t think the result is quite what you THINK it would be.

@Zagadka

Because no one has done it right?

Again, out of curiosity…where do you suppose they went wrong? Or to restate the question, what exactly do you suppose they SHOULD have done to make it work. Oh…and why have NONE of them worked at all without dumping most of the system and adopting evil Capitalism? I’m really curious as to your thoughts on this…I mean if we are going to hijack off into an Ayn Rand parody and all, lets see where it takes us. I assume you are serious and not just pulling our collective legs here.

@Zagadka

My mechanic -> manager example was counter to your point that no one would work hard if they could only make $100,000, leading to a lack of top-level management. In fact, as I stated in another post, by not paying CEOs et al their multi-million dollar fees, the money could be re-invested into the company, or into other companies or industries.

Er…who would invest it? For that matter, what capital would be left after the rich all bolted for better climes? Do you suppose the people would rise up, sieze the ‘means of production’ and become instantly productive (hell, or EVER productive)…all for the grand price of $100k a year?

Anyway, to to OP…thanks pervert for the map. Its exactly what I was getting at, i.e. the ‘cities’ aren’t some kind of monolithic bastions for the Dems. In other word, Dems and Pubs are fairly evenly distributed throught the country, with Pubs in blue states (and blue ‘cities’) and Crats in red states (and presumably red 'cities). Nice to see it like that color coded though.

-XT

[Zoe]

Although I think that the very wealthy often vote for the Republican ticket, I noticed that the state with the highest per capita income, Connecticut, voted for Kerry.

Anyone know how Greenwich voted?

What I would like to see is a map that shows the popular vote by precinct. The red state/blue state concept is terribly misleading.

So is the concept of a “mandate.” Roughly 150,000 more votes for Kerry in Ohio and he would have been the next President despite Bush’s “mandate.” (This is not sour grapes; I support election reform.)

Further, we are fooling ourselves if we think that we can avoid helping our not so fortunate fellow citizens. Take health care for example. People on the right are rabidly opposed to socialized medicine because it isn’t fair that they should have to pay for someone else’s health care. Yet a spokesman for one of the car manufacturers said that the cost of insuring employees adds $1000 to the price of every new car.

Finally, I don’t know if there are people starving to death in our country. But I do know that there are people who go hungry.

[pervert]

@Zoe

Although I think that the very wealthy often vote for the Republican ticket, I noticed that the state with the highest per capita income, Connecticut, voted for Kerry.

I’m not sure how this started, but it is a common enough stereo type. I really don’t think it is true. The rich may vote Republican more than Democrat, but if they do it is only by a couple percentage points. 10 - 20 at the absolute most. Remember the rich are a very small proportion of our population. If the Republican party were to apeal to the rich primarily they would not be a viable party and never would have been.

What I would like to see is a map that shows the popular vote by precinct. The red state/blue state concept is terribly misleading.

The two maps I linked to are by county. Yes, the state by state map is very misleading. So is the county by county one if it only shows winners colors. This map shows the counties colors adjusted for the percentage of the vote which went for Bush and Kerry. It shows a much more homogeneous blending of colors than most maps. Meanwhile this map shows the counties which went to each candidate, but shows which counties contain mor people. The first one is supposed to control for population as well. But I can’t quite figure out how the population data is presented. Are the colors adjusted based on a percentage of the popular vote or something? Are the 3-d effects supposed to show population levels? If so, I cannot figure out how it is scaled.

So is the concept of a “mandate.” Roughly 150,000 more votes for Kerry in Ohio and he would have been the next President despite Bush’s “mandate.” (This is not sour grapes; I support election reform.)

The concept of mandate has been abused for a long time in America. Clinton was supposed to have a mandate because he won the electoral college so soundly. Dispite the fact that he did not get a majority of the vote. Reagan supposedly shut out Dukakis. But the popular vote was only different by 20 points. Mandate simply means that he won. The term has lost much of its meaning other than that.

Further, we are fooling ourselves if we think that we can avoid helping our not so fortunate fellow citizens. Take health care for example. People on the right are rabidly opposed to socialized medicine because it isn’t fair that they should have to pay for someone else’s health care. Yet a spokesman for one of the car manufacturers said that the cost of insuring employees adds $1000 to the price of every new car.

I don’t think anyone has suggested that we not help each other. Can you point it out?

Finally, I don’t know if there are people starving to death in our country. But I do know that there are people who go hungry.

Certainly. And their cause is nto served by radical exagerations claiming that my wanting to keep a sizeable portion of the money I make is causing them to die. Statements like that simply put the focus of the discussion onto defending capitalism instead of where it belongs on figuring out how to alleviate or elliminate poverty.

[XT]

@pervert

I don’t think anyone has suggested that we not help each other. Can you point it out?

Agreed. To expand very briefly, the difference would be in HOW to help the poor out, or what would be the best way to help them out in both the short and long terms. Thats a debate in itself of course (and has been done numerous times on the board).

BTW Zoe, not ALL people on the right are opposed to socialized health care…only economic conservatives would be. The religious right I’d think would mostly go for it (if their other issues such as abortion were addressed).

However, this starving meme is complete BS. No one starves in America except in pretty exceptional circumstances. I don’t care how poor you are…food isn’t an issue unless a person doesn’t WANT government (or private) assistance. And I speak from actual experience here as my family was about as poor as you get when we imigrated to the US.

-XT

[bup]

@pervert

Well, but all this says is that rich people do well in a bomming economy. Not really much at all about wether or not they do well with higher taxes. Personally I think the Republican Congress and its Paygo legislation had much more to do with balancing the budget than Clinton did, but they both get some measure of the credit. However, neither of them get credit for the economy of the nineties. That would have happened in one way or another without the tax cuts or the spending freezes.

Well, you and I disagree on several points, then. I’m not saying only that rich people do well in a good economy, I’m saying they do even better in economies where everyone gets lifted, and notrecoveries (like now) which are skewed toward the upper end. Recoveries which invest in the middle, working, and poverty classes last longer and pay dividends in the long term.

I also disagree that the Republican congress had more to do with balancing the budget than Clinton did - they moved up the balance date by about one year. The vast majority of closing the deficit gap was Clinton’s tax hike in 1993 (Democratic congress).

[Evil_One]

@Hentor the Barbarian

I hadn’t noticed it. When did this happen?

USSR. 1917-1991

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Kimstu

SoP, how do you reconcile that with the fact that high-population-density blue states are generally net contributors to federal revenue, while low-density red states tend to be net recipients? Are right wingers just less aware of the extent to which they are benefiting from federal funds?

You are correct, of course, and the figures are startling indeed. Don’t think from my earlier comment that I’m trying to put a negative spin on the fact that people in urban areas tend more to the left. To the contrary, I live in a large city myself and agree with you that some areas of the country are being badly shortchanged. But I think the perception of many is that federal funding for a large transit project in L.A., New York, or Boston, for example is just pork barrel and it raises the ire of legislators from fiscally and socially conservative states. And some of those legislators, especially in the Senate, are very influential.

[msmith537]

My impression is that the Northeast tended to vote Democrat due to their greater number of certain demographics that tended to vote Democrat:
-Minorities
-Benefit receiving poor
-Liberal academic types - students, professors, etc

Republics tend to consist of middle class voters and conservative rich

Anyhow, that’s just my impression. I don’t know if it’s correct.

@Zoe

Further, we are fooling ourselves if we think that we can avoid helping our not so fortunate fellow citizens. Take health care for example. People on the right are rabidly opposed to socialized medicine because it isn’t fair that they should have to pay for someone else’s health care. Yet a spokesman for one of the car manufacturers said that the cost of insuring employees adds $1000 to the price of every new car.

We are fooling ourselves that we can provide the same level of service for every citizen just because we are a wealthy nation. Healthcare is a service like any other, not a right. Just like any service that is the result of someone elses labor, it must be paid for.

I am a big believer that when you take away market forces and replace them with socialization, you end up with an inefficient, wastefull and institutionalized system - kind of like our mediocre public educational system.

@Zoe

Finally, I don’t know if there are people starving to death in our country. But I do know that there are people who go hungry.

Very few people in this country actually go hungry. Our poor tends to be morbidly obese.

[pervert]

@bup

Well, you and I disagree on several points, then.

Perhaps not.

I’m not saying only that rich people do well in a good economy, I’m saying they do even better in economies where everyone gets lifted, and notrecoveries (like now) which are skewed toward the upper end. Recoveries which invest in the middle, working, and poverty classes last longer and pay dividends in the long term.

I agree with this. However, I am less inclined to place blame or credit for the structure of current or past recoveries or recessions on relatively minor tax changes. I simply cannot see how changing the tax rate by a few (less than 10) points will so drastically alter the economic situation. It makes more sense to me that the other 80% of the economy which is not federally controlled makes more of a contribution.

I also disagree that the Republican congress had more to do with balancing the budget than Clinton did - they moved up the balance date by about one year. The vast majority of closing the deficit gap was Clinton’s tax hike in 1993 (Democratic congress).

Ok, but that is only true due to the Republicans holding the line on spending throughout the nineties. Can you really postulate that a Democratic congress would have done so? Do you really believe that Clinton would have done so if he had not lost so dramatically in the mid term elections? I suppose this is a debate for another time, so I’ll agree to disagree and give you the last word if you want it.