Thursday, April 28, 2016

Segregating ourselves by class and race

A data packed article in the New York Times (see here) shows changes in where the wealthiest of us live.  The top 20% go to different schools, vote more, live in segregated neighborhoods. 
The “truly advantaged” wing of the Democratic Party — a phrase coined in this newspaper by Robert Sampson, a sociologist at Harvard — has provided the Democratic Party with crucial margins of victory where its candidates have prevailed. These upscale Democrats have helped fill the gap left by the departure of white working class voters to the Republican Party.
At the same time, the priorities of the truly advantaged wing — voters with annual incomes in the top quintile, who now make up an estimated 26 percent of the Democratic general election vote — are focused on social and environmental issues: the protection and advancement of women’s rights, reproductive rights, gay and transgender rights and climate change, and less on redistributive economic issues.....A Democrat whose wallet tells him he is a Republican is unlikely to be a strong ally of less well-off Democrats in pressing for tax hikes on the rich, increased spending on the safety net or a much higher minimum wage.  


7 comments:

  1. These numbers certainly seem striking. But keep in mind that humans in general have a tendency to associate themselves with the people most like them. Is it really that surprising that wealthier individuals want to live in wealthier neighborhoods and send their kids to wealthier schools? Probably not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this is a very relevant issue, especially for this year's election. I think that Hillary has been benefitting greatly from the "truly advantaged" wing of the Democratic Party, and this is hurting Bernie. Many of Hillary's donors are large banks and large corporations that probably do not focus very much on economic issues and redistributing. On the other side, the "truly advantaged" Democratic wing are hurting Bernie because he focuses so much on economic issues and the wealth inequality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You can also see this by looking at the following article here. It shows the differences between Detroit and its suburbs.

    http://www.wired.com/2013/08/how-segregated-is-your-city-this-eye-opening-map-shows-you/

    ReplyDelete
  4. The democratic party has for a long time been home to "professional philanthropists", especially those who are heirs to large fortunes. The upside of many wealthy people finding an interest in liberal politics is that social programs receive a lot of aid. One downside, as Bharath noted, is that they are not as passionate about income inequality. The Koch brothers and their friends are not the only wealthy people that should be feared in politics. When wealthy democrats use their money and power to push private agendas--though many appear to be for the common good--they are silencing groups with less resources.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the wealthy democrats have done a great job to hide the fact that they want tax cuts for the rich. The rich are the rich no matter what party they stand for. I believe that supporting women's rights, reproductive rights, gay and transgender rights, climate change, etc. gives them more support and a "better" viewpoint from the public. The Koch's may my sneaky, but wealthy democrats are as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. These are fascinating numbers and facts; it is not much of a surprise. Like Lucas said, it is no surprise that the rich tend to be more cliquey.
    But it just makes me think that this is why it is so important to edify the low-income class with public education and to emphasize those people about the important of voting and other political rights they can exercise. I personally think that this is why increase in the grass-root movements in the States is so important and what Bernie Sanders has been doing is so impressive in that he is making the middle class and low-income class become more involved in politics.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am not surprised by these numbers at all. This country never really desegregated after Brown v Board of Education. There were many attempts to integrate whites and people of color, but many were shut down in the Supreme Court. For example, in the 70s, there was an attempt to reassign school districts in Detroit to promote integration. However, because many of the schools did not have a prior history of segregation, the reassignment was shut down. While this country desegregated, but true integration never came to fruition. So, using Detroit as an example, segregation is still very real.

    ReplyDelete