• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are liberal places more expensive to live in general?

In terms of higher property values, taxes, and and overall cost of living, are areas where the population is considered more liberal more expensive to live? For example San Francisco, New York, and many areas in Europe such as London are generally more costly to live.

Explanations may be that unions are stronger there, taxes are going to be higher, there are higher environmental standards..any other explanations?

And to the take it to P&N crowd, it's currently blocked off my forums list 😛
 
Cities are more often demographically liberal than other places -- whole host of reasons, don't particularly feel like going into them now....

Cities, for a variety of other reasons, are also generally more expensive places to live (more demand for goods with a fixed supply, such as land, as well as those with somewhat variable supplies (e.g. gasoline, clothes, food, whatever).

Therefore, places that are more liberal are often more expensive.

However, please note, correlation does not necessarily imply causality.
 
Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
Cities are more often demographically liberal than other places -- whole host of reasons, don't particularly feel like going into them now....

Cities, for a variety of other reasons, are also generally more expensive places to live (more demand for goods with a fixed supply, such as land, as well as those with somewhat variable supplies (e.g. gasoline, clothes, food, whatever).

Therefore, places that are more liberal are often more expensive.

However, please note, correlation does not necessarily imply causality.

Well if you're comparing cities to suburban areas that's not really a fair comparison.

We should compare cities of similar populations/sizes/densities that have a higher proportion of liberal voters and republican voters, and suburban areas likely..
 
Ah. I see.

I'm certain that you'd ever be able to find a conservative city that is comparable to a liberal city on all of the important variables. In fact, I have my doubts that you could ever find a conservative city--by this I mean something > 500,000 people or so. (heck, it's fun to invent criteria as you go. That, and I can't remember what the census bureau would consider it to be. It's late. But it would be interesting to see the political leanings--for our extremely crude purposes, say % voting Bush/% voting Kerry in all MSA's (metropolitan statistical areas).

Nonetheless, if you were really interested in this, you could ATTEMPT to perform some rather sophisticated multivariate analysis that *should* account for the difference between liberal and conservative cities by holding other things (population size, education, etc. constant). I would imagine that the possibilities for confounding of the data would be immense, however, and that the definitions of what you were attempting to measure would have to be extremely precise. Sounds like a good doctoral dissertation for someone into econ, however.
 
Interesting that you would bring that up. Steve Sailer, a political blogger, wrote a number of articles on this subject in the past year. Here's the most relevant one, on his theory of why there's such a strong correlation b/w housing inflation and political views: The Dirt Gap

There's a far better fit between Bush's share of the vote and lack of real estate inflation. In Texas, where Republicans have grown in strength over the decades, housing prices are up only 89 percent since 1980, the second lowest growth rate in the country (only Oklahoma has had less housing inflation). In California, however, home prices are up 315 percent since 1980. (First is John Kerry's Massachusetts at 516 percent.)

Home inflation in Texas over the last two dozen years is especially low because 1980 was near the peak of the oil boom, but, then, real estate prices were high in California in 1980 too.

This restrained land price growth for Texas reflects a bedrock geographic reality about the metropolises of Texas, and of red states as a whole. Red state cities simply have more land available for suburban and exurban expansion because most of them are inland and thus not hemmed in by water, unlike the typical blue state city, which is on an ocean or a Great Lake.

Let's look at the 50 most populous metropolitan areas in the country. Of the ones in blue states, 73 percent of their population lives in cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, where physical growth is restricted by unbridgeable water, compared to only 19 percent of the population of the biggest red state metropolises, such as Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix.

The Law of Supply and Demand controls housing prices. The greater supply of available land for suburban expansion in red metropolises keeps house prices down.

Contrast the Dallas-Fort Worth conurbation, the largest in red America, to San Francisco, culturally the bluest spot on the entire map.

Exurban Dallas-Fort Worth can expand outward around 360 degrees of flat, adequately watered land, easily bulldozed into lots and streets. In sharp divergence, San Francisco sits on a peninsula, with the Pacific Ocean to the west, the San Francisco Bay to the east, and mountain ranges to the north and south. This makes for superb scenery, but also for vastly expensive homes within an hour's commute of downtown San Francisco.

(Amusingly, there's even a correlation between the quality of the views in a city and the local enthusiasm for environmentalist Democratic candidates. Scenic views create liberal views. On average, the denizens of hilly San Francisco can see farther from their backyards than the residents of flat Dallas, so they are more inclined toward not-in-my-back-yard opposition to unsightly developments.)

San Francisco therefore fills up with two kinds of people who don't need as much space per paycheck -- singles, most famously gays, and immigrants from countries where families don't expect American-style square footage. Neither is likely to vote Republican. The Chinese in San Francisco might have conservative social views, but, as journalist Arthur Hu has perceptively pointed out, they tend to take their voting cues from their native neighbors, who are more often than not quite liberal.

 
Originally posted by: Vertimus
liberal corolates with education, expensiveness, atheism, iq, etc

/thread


Actually that's not true. If you look at the power elite in this country, they are overwhelmingly Republican. Big money LOVES Republicans. And some of the poorest voters in the country are liberal (Jesse Jackson & friends)
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Vertimus
liberal corolates with education, expensiveness, atheism, iq, etc

/thread


Actually that's not true. If you look at the power elite in this country, they are overwhelmingly Republican. Big money LOVES Republicans. And some of the poorest voters in the country are liberal (Jesse Jackson & friends)

You fail to understand the meaning of correlation.
 
Originally posted by: Vertimus
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Vertimus
liberal corolates with education, expensiveness, atheism, iq, etc

/thread


Actually that's not true. If you look at the power elite in this country, they are overwhelmingly Republican. Big money LOVES Republicans. And some of the poorest voters in the country are liberal (Jesse Jackson & friends)

You fail to understand the meaning of correlation.


cor·re·la·tion Audio pronunciation of "correlation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kôr-lshn, kr-)
n.

1. A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities: a correlation between drug abuse and crime.
2. Statistics. The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision.


And if I really wanted to be a stickler, I'd point out that you didn't say "correlates", you said, "corolates".

 
Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Interesting that you would bring that up. Steve Sailer, a political blogger, wrote a number of articles on this subject in the past year. Here's the most relevant one, on his theory of why there's such a strong correlation b/w housing inflation and political views: The Dirt Gap

There's a far better fit between Bush's share of the vote and lack of real estate inflation. In Texas, where Republicans have grown in strength over the decades, housing prices are up only 89 percent since 1980, the second lowest growth rate in the country (only Oklahoma has had less housing inflation). In California, however, home prices are up 315 percent since 1980. (First is John Kerry's Massachusetts at 516 percent.)

Home inflation in Texas over the last two dozen years is especially low because 1980 was near the peak of the oil boom, but, then, real estate prices were high in California in 1980 too.

This restrained land price growth for Texas reflects a bedrock geographic reality about the metropolises of Texas, and of red states as a whole. Red state cities simply have more land available for suburban and exurban expansion because most of them are inland and thus not hemmed in by water, unlike the typical blue state city, which is on an ocean or a Great Lake.

Let's look at the 50 most populous metropolitan areas in the country. Of the ones in blue states, 73 percent of their population lives in cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, where physical growth is restricted by unbridgeable water, compared to only 19 percent of the population of the biggest red state metropolises, such as Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix.

The Law of Supply and Demand controls housing prices. The greater supply of available land for suburban expansion in red metropolises keeps house prices down.

Contrast the Dallas-Fort Worth conurbation, the largest in red America, to San Francisco, culturally the bluest spot on the entire map.

Exurban Dallas-Fort Worth can expand outward around 360 degrees of flat, adequately watered land, easily bulldozed into lots and streets. In sharp divergence, San Francisco sits on a peninsula, with the Pacific Ocean to the west, the San Francisco Bay to the east, and mountain ranges to the north and south. This makes for superb scenery, but also for vastly expensive homes within an hour's commute of downtown San Francisco.

(Amusingly, there's even a correlation between the quality of the views in a city and the local enthusiasm for environmentalist Democratic candidates. Scenic views create liberal views. On average, the denizens of hilly San Francisco can see farther from their backyards than the residents of flat Dallas, so they are more inclined toward not-in-my-back-yard opposition to unsightly developments.)

San Francisco therefore fills up with two kinds of people who don't need as much space per paycheck -- singles, most famously gays, and immigrants from countries where families don't expect American-style square footage. Neither is likely to vote Republican. The Chinese in San Francisco might have conservative social views, but, as journalist Arthur Hu has perceptively pointed out, they tend to take their voting cues from their native neighbors, who are more often than not quite liberal.
That makes sense.
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Vertimus
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Vertimus
liberal corolates with education, expensiveness, atheism, iq, etc

/thread


Actually that's not true. If you look at the power elite in this country, they are overwhelmingly Republican. Big money LOVES Republicans. And some of the poorest voters in the country are liberal (Jesse Jackson & friends)

You fail to understand the meaning of correlation.


cor·re·la·tion Audio pronunciation of "correlation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kôr-lshn, kr-)
n.

1. A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities: a correlation between drug abuse and crime.
2. Statistics. The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision.


And if I really wanted to be a stickler, I'd point out that you didn't say "correlates", you said, "corolates".

Ok, apart from the spelling:

You said the power elite in the country are overwhelmingly republican. Assuming we are talking about a maximum of 1% of the country here, (note, not only are they "elite", they are also "powerful") that would change the correlation only marginally from if the power elite was liberal.
 
I always thought the gay part of town is the most expensive place to live, and I guess gays are generally liberal.

BTW, haven't you seen the map of Jesusland? That should put it all in perspective.
 
The reason why 'liberal' areas are more expensive to live in is because big cities tend to be much more economically developed than rural parts of the country.

Atlanta Georgia is going to be more expensive than Bumfvck Georgia because that's where all the jobs/business is.
 
Originally posted by: Vertimus

Ok, apart from the spelling:

You said the power elite in the country are overwhelmingly republican. Assuming we are talking about a maximum of 1% of the country here, (note, not only are they "elite", they are also "powerful") that would change the correlation only marginally from if the power elite was liberal.

I see what you're saying and for the most part you're right, but I felt that your post suggested that smarter people tend to be liberal. I was pointing out that the smartest people (or at least those who knew how to get in the top 1% of net worth and influence) tend to be Republican.

I'm definitely not liberal, but I'm definitely not a Bush Republican, either. I voted for Kerry. I feel that both sides are populated by extremist loonies. On one side you have the god-fearing folks who want evolution taken out of schools, and on the other side you have emotional apologists who feel guilty for being successful and want to give away our money to create a welfare state. I'm in the middle.On one side you have the god-fearing folks who want evolution taken out of schools, and on the other side you have emotional apologists who feel guilty for being successful and want to give away our money to Africa. I'm in the middle. I atheist, believe in the teaching of solid facts, and choose to make the right logical decision even if it's not a popular one.
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: Vertimus

Ok, apart from the spelling:

You said the power elite in the country are overwhelmingly republican. Assuming we are talking about a maximum of 1% of the country here, (note, not only are they "elite", they are also "powerful") that would change the correlation only marginally from if the power elite was liberal.

I see what you're saying and for the most part you're right, but I felt that your post suggested that smarter people tend to be liberal. I was pointing out that the smartest people (or at least those who knew how to get in the top 1% of net worth and influence) tend to be Republican.

I'm definitely not liberal, but I'm definitely not a Bush Republican, either. I voted for Kerry. I feel that both sides are populated by extremist loonies. On one side you have the god-fearing folks who want evolution taken out of schools, and on the other side you have emotional apologists who feel guilty for being successful and want to give away our money to Africa. I'm in the middle. I atheist, believe in the teaching of solid facts, and choose to make the right logical decision even if it's not an popular one.

fixed for ya 😛
 
I guess you could say that I don't fit in with either political party. I'm elitist. I don't support red state white trash who thinks praying is going to get them out of debt, and I don't support the emotionally driven welfare state that liberals seem to support.

I believe in learning how things work, doing your best to act on it, and keeping the rewards because you earned it. Those who aren't able to do that are not entitled to any of your money. They need to sleep in the bed they make.
 
Interesting read, but it seems a weak argument to me. First although he illustrates the housing trend, his only proof of an actual relationship is his square-footage argument (a stupid argument - what about farms which are usually liberal?) Two concurrent trends don't neccessitate a relationship between those trends. Also the law of supply and demand doesn't neccessarily control housing prices, although we'd like it to. It has also to do with govt regulations, builders, etc. In addition as cities spread out the transportation infrastructure required expands, and the efficiency vs cost of that network decrease as the density that uses that infrastructure decreases. That's why USPS increases the cost of stamps when they are getting less mail to send. Australia is huge, why is 90% of the population hugging the east coast? Because people are not like silly puddy and just spread out across a flat surface.
 
Back
Top