You don't see this as much in cities that are not as liberally run.
Socially liberal is not the same as economically liberal is not the same as politically liberal is not the same as anti-authoritarian is not the same as Democrat. (And so on.)
In fact I think the argument comes down to four positions:
I want as much as possible and I don't see why I should care about anyone or anything else I want as much as possible but I suppose I have to care a little about other people because otherwise the non-winners will kill me and eat me Exploiting other people is morally wrong Exploiting other people creates economically and politically disastrous network effects so it's important to allow people the economic freedom to move beyond exploitation
They should be clearly distinct. But in the US they're all tinged with rhetoric of crusading personal heroism and slightly manic social signalling, so it can be paradoxically hard to tell them apart.
There will continue to be going to be growing levels of income inequality as automation continues to increase. Either we focus on solving that (Minimal Viable Income sounds like a plan) or we face a true million man March on DC.
Something has to change.
Certainly there has been mismanagement of the city of Detroit, sometimes on an absurd and possibly criminal scale. But, to chalk it all of to "Democrats did this" is...well, it leaves a whole lot of the story out.
Note that I'm not a Democrat and not defending politicians in any general case. But, I do think it's silly to make the claim that local Democrats caused Detroit's decline, when there are clearly so many other factors in the story.
Not to say that the automakers weren't also badly run -- they were. There's an NPR piece about NUMMI that puts some great color on the situation -- ah, here it is [0]. See especially "Act Two", where GM completely muffs bringing the NUMMI success to the rest of the company.
[0] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/561/t...
That's true, because if mismanagement caused a city to collapse, then San Francisco would be a ghost town by now. There are stinky things in city hall.
As for rural voters... they have no national platform, with both parties disengaged. It's really a battle between the city and the suburbs.
[1] "New York Values" is a pejorative yet "Small Town Values" denotes virtue.
It's actually about values: guns, abortion, God, gays...
Jewishness is but a teeny tiny part of that, and this mostly because of things that aren't directly related to the faith. We don't see too many Jews protesting outside abortion clinics and complaining about gay marriage.
The solution, building more housing, is simple, well-known, and obvious, but the people who live there don't want it because it will hurt their property values. It's a classic case of entrenched power vs newcomers.
And before people rebut this argument with: "this has happened before, and people will just get education and find better jobs" I challenge you, please do, tell me, what job will you get when the robot/AI replaces you? The answer isn't to fear the future though, but to embrace it and figure out how to make it work for everyone. It's a little hard to do that, and to have this conversation, when the overwhelming majority of people refuse to consider this inevitability as even a possibility and dismiss it. Oh well, rent over.
http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15116.pdf
It's global:
https://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/
"An alarming result from this year’s estimates in The Conference Board Total Economy Database(TM) is that the growth rate of total factor productivity (TFP), which measures the productivity of labor and capital together, continues to hover around zero for the third year in a row, compared to an average rate of more than 1 percent from 1999-2006 and 0.5 percent from 2007-2012. The challenge on TFP growth is widespread across the globe. Most mature economies including the United States, the Euro Area and Japan show near zero or even negative TFP growth. In China, TFP growth has turned negative, and in India it is just above zero, at 0.2 percent. Both in Brazil and Mexico TFP growth continues to be negative, respectively at -2.3 and -1.7 percent."
Do you actually think some important distribution is bimodal, or are you just describing your mental categorization?
Of course, there's plenty to quibble about. I've never heard of city-data.com. Maybe this distribution looks more normal if you don't bucket everyone >200k together.
But I'm curious where you were headed with your comment. Is there a more important distribution that I just didn't find?
[1] http://www.city-data.com/income/income-San-Francisco-Califor...
My point is that whenever people start mentally divvying up the population discretely (introverts vs. extroverts, rich vs. poor, etc.), this is almost always a mistake; it's a projection of their mental map onto reality, when in fact the variable under discussion is almost always smoothly distributed.