If they’re going to ask the question, they deserve an answer.
Why are liberal cities bad for blacks?
Minneapolis-St. Paul. San Francisco. Chicago. Even Madison, Wisconsin. If you are politically liberal and value relatively high levels of income equality, you might live in one of these quintessentially liberal U.S. cities. Yet all four lurk in the bottom half of the 2014 National Urban League’s State of Black America report on income inequality between blacks and whites. Among the many places where black-white income is less skewed are Phoenix, Arizona, Nashville, Tennessee and Columbia, South Carolina.
…..
There is no definitive cause, and explanations vary. Mathew Kahn, an economist at UCLA, e-mailed, “Educated liberals are tolerant people who are willing to live in racially integrated areas even if the minority neighbors are poor. Such liberals are more willing to vote for redistributionist policies and this may attract poor people to collect such transfers.”
That, is a very good answer. Exactly the one a professional Economist would arrive at. Sadly, while it is true, it doesn’t lend itself to an actual solution.
On the other hand, there actually is a definitive reason as to why progressive cities are bad for blacks*. The fact is that progressives don’t give a shit about blacks. Or hispanics. Or any other group unless they think that they can use these race or gender or sexual orientation self-classifications to get their progressive policies enacted. Then they will ring those groups like $2 bell.
*a liberal city, in the classical sense, would be great for everyone including groups who have a tendency to define themselves by race. Progressives are definitely NOT classical liberals. Sadly, for the progressives anyway, classical liberalism tends to dissuade folks from classifying themselves in handy little voting blocs.
Boombast putting the words “liberal” and “tolerant” together like that gave me the best laugh I’ve had all morning and will likely have all week.
Rich liberals giving my money to poor people. End up with more poor people as they are being enable by the Rich Liberal.
Why does that seem like an oxymoron?
What you subsidize, you get more of. What you tax, you get less of. You can never have enough money to give to all the poor people, but you can grow the base of poor people willing to take your money.
So in short, “progressive” cities expand the base of people in poverty through subsidization, while shrinking the base of people who work for a living via taxation, leaving you the very rich and the very poor.
Isn’t liberalism fun?