Have the Democrats become the party of the rich? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 02:53:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Have the Democrats become the party of the rich? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Have the Democrats become the party of the rich?  (Read 2126 times)
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,811
« on: April 07, 2014, 06:43:35 PM »


Yes, but it's usually idiosyncratic.  MD/VA federal employees skew this big time for example.  It's also worth noting that the places where a $100K or $200K earner is most likely to vote Dem are also the places where they are least likely to feel "rich" on a daily basis.  If you measure at the mansion+personal plane+limo and chauffeur level of "rich" I wonder how they voted?
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,811
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2014, 07:07:00 PM »

It's also worth noting that rich is more about assets than income.  Someone who makes $50K/year but has $200K in assets and no debt is arguably wealthier than someone who makes $500K/year and is $2M in debt.  It would also be instructive to know how indebted vs. debt free people with assets vote at the same income level.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,811
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2014, 08:39:35 PM »
« Edited: April 07, 2014, 08:44:26 PM by Skill and Chance »

It's also worth noting that rich is more about assets than income.  Someone who makes $50K/year but has $200K in assets and no debt is arguably wealthier than someone who makes $500K/year and is $2M in debt.  It would also be instructive to know how indebted vs. debt free people with assets vote at the same income level.

The point is valid but your numbers are way off. 500k guy is much better off financially, it'd be close at more like $150K.

I prefer lifetime income (or even better, lifetime consumption) as a measure of financial well-being, though it's hard to measure for obvious reasons. A top student at Harvard Medical School likely has low income and high debt, but is in a much better financial position overall than a 60 year old janitor with a modest income and modest savings.

I agree.  The 28 year old Harvard Med student owing $300K obviously has a much brighter future than a 60 year old who has worked at <2X minimum wage for 40+ years and somehow managed to stay out of debt.  But I was going for 4X income invested vs. 4X income in debt.

That gets back at how the $200K guy in Silicon Valley/NYC/DC who owes $2M on a small house might vote more Dem just because he doesn't feel as "rich" as a $200K guy in Mississippi living on a paid off, refurbished plantation estate.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,811
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2014, 09:41:04 PM »


Yes, in wealthier states there isn't so much difference between how income groups vote, and so you can get a case where every income group has a Democratic lean, relative to the national average.

This graph is based on polling data, so the subsample errors are large, but the overall trend is clear:




I think this bolsters my hypothesis.  With the top income bracket in the exit polls being $100K and up, you are including a lot of people in coastal cities who have never thought of themselves as rich.  So in the rural states, you make $100K consistently and you truly don't have to worry about money anymore.  I'll bet the $500K earner in NYC votes like the $100K earner in IA or NE.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 10 queries.