I do.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g28pOEo0OKE
A string of declarative statements with no evidence to back up his claim. First it was the 1% that was the problem, now it's the 9.9% that is the problem, and next it will be the next income bracket when this argument doesn't gain any traction either.
I would say that liberals have been negligent in their open-mindedness lately and at the expense of attacking members of their own group who may diverge from their liberal dogma. Being narrow minded and intolerant isn't regulated to just conservatives. I believe most liberals and conservatives have more in common politically than they realize and the greatest and most hotly contested divergences are between the ultra left and right.This explains why urban people tend to be liberal: When there are people from different groups living right next door, one cannot insist on things like purity, authority, and loyalty without conflict. For example, I might belong to one group, but I live right next door to someone who belongs to a different group. Thus, I have to be considerate (fairness+care) of out-groups. At the same time I have to reduce the value of loyalty, authority, and purity as far as interacting with others are concerned lest I start a neighbor-feud or get into a bar-fight.
FWIW, the population density where I live is 14,000/sq mi --- so 14x the density of Oklahoma City --- and that's 8 miles from downtown Chicago.the last link wrote: Atlanta, New Orleans, St. Louis, Dallas, and Indianapolis are all in red states — and they all voted blue. And there are no true “cities” in red states that voted red. The only cities in red states that didn’t vote blue were Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City. And by global standards, they are not really cities — each has population density (about 1,000/sq. mi.) less than suburban Maryland (about 1,500/sq. mi.).
As you pointed out, you certainly see a lot of that now where the real wealth on a per capita basis is clustered in the suburban counties surrounding large metro areas (though the uberwealthy can effectively carve out their own micro-suburbs within a city's borders), with the wealthiest counties disproportionately huddled around Washington DC. Many of them are purple counties though on balance they probably lean blue. Interestingly such voluntary segregation tends to isolate the wealthy from the impacts of real world policies that stem from their voting tendencies. That's true for wealthy blue voters as well as wealthy red voters.
But I hear:People generally drift to cities because cities are more productive. This has held since cities were invented and it can be argued that this is the very reason why cities were invented. The larger the city, the greater productivity per capita. See e.g. https://www.citymetric.com/business/cit ... ritish-782 by the guy who wrote Scale which has been mentioned in another thread. Even if you're a mime or an uber driver you'll make more living in Chicago than you would being a mime or uber driver in the sticks.
more consumption per square foot maybe, but per capita? brute has read that cities consume less per capita than rural areas, because everything is closer together and greater efficiencies are possible. brute remembers riggerjack arguing about uncounted externalities, but doesn't remember if that was addressed in the study.
Ok. Step back. More money going to people in cities, yet similar average lifestyle, more or less. Equally little saving, is the point.more consumption per square foot maybe, but per capita? brute has read that cities consume less per capita than rural areas, because everything is closer together and greater efficiencies are possible. brute remembers riggerjack arguing about uncounted externalities, but doesn't remember if that was addressed in the study