Post by robeiae on Jun 22, 2017 10:03:30 GMT -5
So, this is something of a two-pronged thread.
First, there is an issue my 19 year old daughter have been talking about. We were discussing generational groupings--baby boomers, gen-x, millennials, etc.--and she noted how some of the the "tsk-tsking" she'd been reading from critics of her generation were bothering her. In particular, ones like this:
My daughter astutely noted that home prices today are hardly what they were fifty, forty, or even twenty years ago. Moreover, neither are educations costs (which have many millennials deeply in debt as they enter the workforce). And then there's population growth and the limit of housing availability in regions with employment opportunities.
Put it all together and I think it's unsurprising that owning a home is no longer a primary objective for the younger generations. It is--for the great majority--probably put of reach. One could still note that the current consumer culture has a negative impact on savings rates, to be sure, but then it's legitimate to ask what people should be saving for.
Consider a young, moderately successful professional these days, the type of person who--in the seventies--might have been a prime candidate to buy a nice house in the suburbs and join the local country club. If they have healthcare and a 401k plan through work, if they can pay down their college debt, what should they be doing with their disposable income beyond that? Saving some? Sure. But saving every possible penny for years and years in the hopes of maybe buying that house in the suburbs one day, even as real estate prices continue to once again rise (along with property taxes and other expenses that go with home ownership), well that doesn't seem particularly sensible. And because of this, such people do have more money for luxuries, for avocado toast as it were.
Second, there is the political angle of suburbia. Readeth thou this (a good piece, imo): www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/22/handel-republicans-suburban-nightmare-215289
As the piece notes, Georgia's 6th district has been a suburbian Repub for a long time, with an educated middle-class population. Yet, Trump barely beat Clinton there, as was the case for other similar suburban areas. The author notes some reasons for this change:
And the author fairly notes that Trump's persona can be blamed:
Yet the changes in suburbia seem to be--imo--more important than Trump's nature. They seem to point to that sea change that many pundits on the left have been predicting for some time now: a more or less secure liberal/Dem base that will end up leading to Democratic dominance (until the Republican Party changes, to some degree).
But than I thought about my daughter's points and another reality that seems apparent to me because of population growth: the current version of suburban America cannot be maintained because a) it's too expensive to become a suburbanite and b) there's just not enough room there anymore (especially true in places like California and Florida, where the suburban elites are shutting out everyone else via zoning laws and land-use restrictions).
So, allowing that suburbia is shifting left, how much does it really matter if suburbia is becoming less influential in elections (owing to a decreasing share of the VAP)?
First, there is an issue my 19 year old daughter have been talking about. We were discussing generational groupings--baby boomers, gen-x, millennials, etc.--and she noted how some of the the "tsk-tsking" she'd been reading from critics of her generation were bothering her. In particular, ones like this:
Freely spending on avocados — the pricey, popular superfruit beloved by young people — may be one of the reasons why some young people can't afford a house, according to Australian millionaire and property mogul Tim Gurner.
"When I was trying to buy my first home, I wasn't buying smashed avocado for $19 and four coffees at $4 each," Gurner told the Australian news show 60 Minutes.
"When I was trying to buy my first home, I wasn't buying smashed avocado for $19 and four coffees at $4 each," Gurner told the Australian news show 60 Minutes.
Put it all together and I think it's unsurprising that owning a home is no longer a primary objective for the younger generations. It is--for the great majority--probably put of reach. One could still note that the current consumer culture has a negative impact on savings rates, to be sure, but then it's legitimate to ask what people should be saving for.
Consider a young, moderately successful professional these days, the type of person who--in the seventies--might have been a prime candidate to buy a nice house in the suburbs and join the local country club. If they have healthcare and a 401k plan through work, if they can pay down their college debt, what should they be doing with their disposable income beyond that? Saving some? Sure. But saving every possible penny for years and years in the hopes of maybe buying that house in the suburbs one day, even as real estate prices continue to once again rise (along with property taxes and other expenses that go with home ownership), well that doesn't seem particularly sensible. And because of this, such people do have more money for luxuries, for avocado toast as it were.
Second, there is the political angle of suburbia. Readeth thou this (a good piece, imo): www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/22/handel-republicans-suburban-nightmare-215289
As the piece notes, Georgia's 6th district has been a suburbian Repub for a long time, with an educated middle-class population. Yet, Trump barely beat Clinton there, as was the case for other similar suburban areas. The author notes some reasons for this change:
The Northeastern and Midwestern suburbs were the first to go wobbly on the GOP, turned off by the culture wars waged by an increasingly Southern and socially conservative party...
As the suburbs aged, they began to experience more and more of the pathologies previously associated with the cities—among them increased crime, poverty and crumbling infrastructure. At the same time, America’s great cities began to return to relative health....
Perhaps the biggest change of all: The suburbs themselves grew far more diverse. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of racially diverse suburbs increased by 37 percent, growing at a faster clip than majority-white suburbs, according to one study...
As the suburbs aged, they began to experience more and more of the pathologies previously associated with the cities—among them increased crime, poverty and crumbling infrastructure. At the same time, America’s great cities began to return to relative health....
Perhaps the biggest change of all: The suburbs themselves grew far more diverse. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of racially diverse suburbs increased by 37 percent, growing at a faster clip than majority-white suburbs, according to one study...
And the author fairly notes that Trump's persona can be blamed:
Some of the erosion can be written off as a one-time reaction to Trump, a candidate uniquely ill-suited for the suburbs. His populist style—the bombast, belligerence and frank disregard for credentialed elites—sounded discordant notes in the more comfortable precincts, among the well-educated professionals who flocked to John Kasich and Marco Rubio during the GOP primary. So did Trump’s caustic or tin-eared statements on gender, race and ethnicity on a suburban landscape that bears little resemblance to the original lily-white version.
Yet the changes in suburbia seem to be--imo--more important than Trump's nature. They seem to point to that sea change that many pundits on the left have been predicting for some time now: a more or less secure liberal/Dem base that will end up leading to Democratic dominance (until the Republican Party changes, to some degree).
But than I thought about my daughter's points and another reality that seems apparent to me because of population growth: the current version of suburban America cannot be maintained because a) it's too expensive to become a suburbanite and b) there's just not enough room there anymore (especially true in places like California and Florida, where the suburban elites are shutting out everyone else via zoning laws and land-use restrictions).
So, allowing that suburbia is shifting left, how much does it really matter if suburbia is becoming less influential in elections (owing to a decreasing share of the VAP)?