Matthew Yglesias » Inequality and Voting

Sep 8th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Inequality and Voting

David Frum had a pretty interesting article in The New York Times Magazine on inequality issues, but it’s important to read Andrew Gelman for a corrective on some of the basic facts. In particular, Frum writes “As a general rule, the more unequal a place is, the more Democratic; the more equal, the more Republican” and also says something similar in his book. Compare that to this chart:

Qualitatively, it’s hard to see what’s going on here exactly in terms of partisanship. Quantitatively, “the Democrats’ vote share by state is slightly correlated with income inequality, but much less than the correlation with income itself.” High levels of in-state inequality seem to be correlated with high levels of immigration (I assume that part of the story is immigration causing inequality and part of the story is that the immigrants are going to places where there are very rich people and, therefore, jobs to be had servicing them) which, in turn, is only pretty loosely associated with Democrats doing well.

Comments
34

Filed under: Frum, Inequality, Media

34 Responses to “Inequality and Voting”

right Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
This doesn’t seem that complicated.

States with lots of their population in big cities + states near Mexico = higher inequality.

States with more rural/midsize city populations + not close to Mexico = lower inequality.

The only shade that surprises me on the map is Georgia’s. I’d have guessed it to be darker.
elle loco Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
How about the correlation that states with net fiscal transfers to the Federal Government tend to vote Democratic, whilst those ungrateful states, clinging in bitterness to their guns and bibles, that are federal welfare cases tend to vote Republican.

Oh, and the high, high correlation between David Frum and bullshit. Tha’s two research programs, just off the top of my head….
Adam Villani Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Where are Alaska and Hawaii?
msmackle Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Wouldn’t a more accurate calculation be the standard deviation from the cost of living at a district-level? Looking at California, I’m guessing that it’s true that there’s a lot of inequality due to immigration, but also that this is skewed slightly due to the high-end average in the IT sector. But saying that there’s a large variance from the average IT worker to an average person living elsewhere in California not in the major metropolitan areas seems like a possible factor in skewing some of those numbers.
goethean Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Where are Alaska and Hawaii?

Those are the states with political celebrities and as such, their inequality is infinite.

The Infinite Inequality Drive — it’s what powers the Republican political machine!
mort Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Effect of unions??
E. O'Neal Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Frum’s thesis applies to cities and counties. It makes no sense on a statewide basis. Remember the county-by-county voting maps from the past two presidential elections — each a sea of red with blue urban enclaves? It’s those blue cities and counties where there is the greatest inequality, like the specific examples he discusses.
Simon Neill Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
agree @ 1. At first glance it would seem that high income equality in Democratic states would reflect badly on the Democrats. But yes, high levels of immigration and urbanisation seem to be the deciding factors here, urbanisation being the one Matt doesn’t mention. Big cities tend toward having more unequal populations, and the urban poor by a massive margin vote democratic, outweighing the votes of the rich, republican leaning urban elite. It has nothing to do with Democratic policy at a state level.
cmholm Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Article Abstract: David Frum pulls hypothesis for political affiliation based on economics out of his ass. Hypothesis then shown to fail as a predictor when tested against field data.
MAX HATS Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
If you look at the places with low income inequality, it’s not because they’re necessarily egalitarian paradises, but because there’s just not a lot of money there in the first place.

It’s provocative, but inequality can be defined many ways to get many different results. Seattle, Wa and the surrounding area has high income inequality by most measures, because while most are well-off, some are spectacularly rich. And yet a place like Bogota would show a similar level of inequality, but of course the dynamics are totally different – and with it any class resentments that may or may not develop based on those inequalities.
Jim W Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
There also seems to be a high correlation between inequality and a state’s size and population. This is a pretty obvious relationship. As an illustration, I’ll bet that the inequality in the entire country is higher than the inequality in most states.
Sullivan Award Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Sorry to be completely off topic, but does anyone know what has happened to Andrew Sullivan? Did he panic from the MccCain +10 poll last night?
E. O'Neal Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I’ll repeat because it hasn’t penetrated the stupidity here: Frum is talking about cities and counties — not entire states. With states, you’re aggregating disparate data. Why should Chicago be lumped with Peoria? It makes no sense.
Mixner Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
cmholm,

Article Abstract: David Frum pulls hypothesis for political affiliation based on economics out of his ass. Hypothesis then shown to fail as a predictor when tested against field data.

Nowhere does Gelman say or suggest that Frum’s hypothesis “fails.” Gelman says that Frum’s argument is interesting but not as clearly supported by the data as Frum seems to think. In explicit support of Frum, Gelman says that “on average, inequality has been decreasing in poor, Republican-controlled states and increasing in richer states, which tend to have Democratic majorities.”
Rob Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
E. O’Neil–if you actually took the time to read the link before typing you’d see that it deals with counties and how Frum’s example of Fairfax county just shows how stupid he is.
Jomo Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Actually it looks like a combination of things – states with high immigration (Arizona, California) combined with a very wealthy class (Texas, New York). The result – very disparate trends. Against a base of only 50 states, there are too many variables to build a central learning.
E. O'Neal Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Rob, life’s too short to read the link. My point remains valid: Frum discussed cities and counties, but this post discusses states, which is too big a unit to be meaningful. I’m not defending Frum, whose thesis I didn’t find very convincing anyway — except as to the depressing effect on working class wages of unchecked immigration.
Zephyrus Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Is it elitist to say that the economically productive states tend to be both more unequal and more liberal?
Steve Sailer Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 3:21 am
The amount of economic inequality in a state correlates with the amount of ethnic diversity — that’s why California and Texas are at the top of the list and Iowa and North Dakota at the bottom.
toby Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Was it Andrew Gelman who said:

“The typical Democratic voter is a poor voter in a rich state; the typical Republican voter is a rich voter in a poor state”?

So the strongest correlation of voter preference is with the difference between voter income and mean or median income in the state, not with the income equality or inequality (which I suppose is captured by the variance).
Matt McIrvin Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 7:59 am
You can make this kind of calculation go any way you want by subdividing places properly. I’ve seen it argued that Republicans are the real egalitarians because wealthy suburbs have a low Gini coefficient.

If I draw a circle around my house, the variation in household income is really low.
CItiesnotstates Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Look at cities, not states, and you get Frum’s results.. Ed Glaeser has a paper to this effect…..
neb Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 10:57 am
The “Economic View” Column from two weeks ago in the NY Times talked about how income inequality has actually decreased under Democratic administrations and increased under Republican ones. Policies such as raising the minimum wage and redistributing wealth from higher taxes on high income earners are probably contributing to this. If you look at the Scandinavian countries, with their income redistribution systems, income inequality is quite low.

This map that Frum prepared means nothing. The upper midwest states seem to be the most equal, and they are democratic or lean democratic. And when you throw in the immigrant variable, plus the high cost of living in places like California and New York you can see big holes in his argument.

And since when is David Frum a political scientist?
viagra Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:57 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
levitra Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 am
levitraIncredible site!
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 4:50 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Matt Yglesias

Inequality and Voting

34 Responses to “Inequality and Voting”

Blogroll