Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Another Clinton-Trump divide: High-output America vs low-output America

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    15,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another Clinton-Trump divide: High-output America vs low-output America

    Another Clinton-Trump divide: High-output America vs low-output America

    Last week, as my colleague Sifan Liu and I were gnawing on some questions asked by Jim Tankersley of The Washington Post, we happened upon a revealing aspect of the election outcome. While looking at number of influences on the presidential vote outcome, we found that in a year of massive divides, one particular economic split stands out.

    Our observation: The less-than-500 counties that Hillary Clinton carried nationwide encompassed a massive 64 percent of America’s economic activity as measured by total output in 2015. By contrast, the more-than-2,600 counties that Donald Trump won generated just 36 percent of the country’s output—just a little more than one-third of the nation’s economic activity.

    ...

    Here you can see very clearly that with the exceptions of the Phoenix and Fort Worth areas and a big chunk of Long Island Clinton won every large-sized county economy in the country. Her base of 493 counties was heavily metropolitan. By contrast, Trumpland consists of hundreds and hundreds of tiny low-output locations that comprise the non-metropolitan hinterland of America, along with some suburban and exurban metro counties, as Indeed Chief Economist Jed Kolko pointed out in a tweet

    Moreover, while this divide is striking by any standard, it appears to be “unprecedented in the era of modern economic statistics,” as Tankersley noted in his story,
    for a losing presidential candidate to have represented so large a share of nation’s economic base. By comparison, Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore in 2000 won counties that generated only about 54 percent of the country’s gross domestic product en route to winning the popular vote, while losing the election in the Electoral College. Gore, , won more than 100 more counties in 2000 than Clinton did in 2016, meaning that his appeal, while less monolithic across high-output counties, extended into more lower-output areas.

    The upshot: No election in decades has revealed as sharp a political divide between the densest economic centers and the rest of the country — between what Tankersley labeled
    in a tweet “high-output” and “low-output” America.
    “Racism isn’t getting worse, it’s getting filmed” - Will Smith

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Posts
    11,485
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blehh. Garbage. Hillary won big cities because they mostly blue. Not because of "productivity".
    Just another Trump-bashing.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 31st, 2015
    Last Online
    Friday, March 6th, 2020 @ 5:53 AM
    Posts
    4,286
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Marva View Post
    Blehh. Garbage. Hillary won big cities because they mostly blue. Not because of "productivity".
    Just another Trump-bashing.
    Is there correlation between being "blue" and productivity?

    Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
    All mistakes are caused by the phone.
    That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Friday, March 6th, 2020 @ 8:26 PM
    Posts
    14,904
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's not surprising that areas of relative prosperity would go for the status quo candidate and economically distressed areas would vote for a disrupter. That makes sense.

    What is ironic is that the Republican party, that has been far more dismissive of inequality issues, would benefit from inequality.

  5. Likes Tom Servo liked this post
  6. #5
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Wednesday, May 27th, 2020 @ 11:15 AM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    14,613
    Post Thanks / Like
    Now there's a winning strategy: lose an election handily because you've spent the last twenty years insulting most of the land mass of the country, so double-down by calling all of those people "low-output."

    Keep it up, guys! Dig deeper! Dig faster! There's still a few Democrats left who haven't been run out of office yet.
    Leftists have unquestionably demonstrated their hatred for due process, and Democrats have undeniably obstructed justice for, and thoroughly victim-shamed and smeared, Karen Monahan.

  7. Likes scott, Lady Marva liked this post
  8. #6
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 4:05 PM
    Posts
    21,822
    Post Thanks / Like
    High productivity sectors like tech and finance are also low employment sectors. And why not? Software has eliminated a number of jobs even in those sectors but productivity is still sky high.

    If productivity is profit and money moving around (which it is) then the lowest labor costs result in the highest productivity. Duh. There's no lower labor savings than eliminating jobs altogether.

    While that's great for all of us who are invested (and that's most of us who have a 401Ks or similar instruments) on the back end, it sucks for people on the front end. A lot of people are on both ends.

    Tech (and I love tech) is killing jobs and killing them hard in liberal areas. Unless you mow lawns or clean toilets, you probably can't find a good-paying job outside of health care or government in some of these counties.

    But we have a growing number of no skill/low skill people who need actual jobs for reasons beyond the money. Having a job and doing it (however mundane) makes people less prone to crime, unintentional child-bearing, and catastrophic drug/drink issues. That's the reality.

    These people can do good and well-paying work out here in the hinterlands on gas and natural energy production, servicing those people, and cleaning their toilets.

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Wednesday, June 17th, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Posts
    11,485
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Now there's a winning strategy: lose an election handily because you've spent the last twenty years insulting most of the land mass of the country, so double-down by calling all of those people "low-output."

    Keep it up, guys! Dig deeper! Dig faster! There's still a few Democrats left who haven't been run out of office yet.
    While implying the "low-output" Trump voters are dumb and therefore can never be "high-output".

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 2:07 PM
    Posts
    14,257
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Now there's a winning strategy: lose an election handily because you've spent the last twenty years insulting most of the land mass of the country, so double-down by calling all of those people "low-output."

    Keep it up, guys! Dig deeper! Dig faster! There's still a few Democrats left who haven't been run out of office yet.
    Handing Pelosi a golden shovel likely did in another 10% of the voting base that's left. Obama took care of losing the Cuban American vote. Clueless!!
    If it pays, it stays

  11. Likes scott liked this post
  12. #9
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    15,051
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Now there's a winning strategy: lose an election handily because you've spent the last twenty years insulting most of the land mass of the country, so double-down by calling all of those people "low-output."

    Keep it up, guys! Dig deeper! Dig faster! There's still a few Democrats left who haven't been run out of office yet.
    It doesn't matter. You don't need the consent of the governed in this nation. We are minority rule.
    “Racism isn’t getting worse, it’s getting filmed” - Will Smith

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    15,051
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    It's not surprising that areas of relative prosperity would go for the status quo candidate and economically distressed areas would vote for a disrupter. That makes sense.

    What is ironic is that the Republican party, that has been far more dismissive of inequality issues, would benefit from inequality.
    They denigrate and marginalize people from urban areas. They revel in taking away their political voice and sneer at how you aren't a real American if you live in a city.

    Takers. Sure.
    “Racism isn’t getting worse, it’s getting filmed” - Will Smith

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •