Voting Patterns Among the Poor

On Chicago Boyz there is a very interesting post about voting habits among the poor. An oft cited fact (search the Calpundit archives or Matthew Yglesias archives for examples) suggests that many poorer areas tend to have Republican voting patterns. The general explanation is that these people are voting against their own interests. They have been tricked into siding with the Republicans.

Ken suggests an alternative explanation. People with less marketable skills who nonetheless want to avoid living on the dole will choose to live in places where they can afford to live. This will be places where there are fewer restrictions on businesses (so they can afford to hire low wage workers) and fewer housing restrictions (so the workers can afford to rent or buy). His synopsis is: "If your labor isn't worth a whole lot, and you're too proud to go on welfare, your ideal environment is one in which (a) housing is cheap, (b) everything else is cheap, and (c) lots of employers in the area are offering low-wage jobs that you qualify for." In other words you move to a place where Republican economic planning has held sway.

It is an interesting explanation. I wonder if it would be possible to empirically test against the trickery explanations.

Comments

[Catsy]

Ken suggests an alternative explanation. .... His synopsis is: "If your labor isn't worth a whole lot, and you're too proud to go on welfare, your ideal environment is one in which (a) housing is cheap, (b) everything else is cheap, and (c) lots of employers in the area are offering low-wage jobs that you qualify for." In other words you move to a place where Republican economic planning has held sway.

In other words, Republican economic planning (a) somehow depresses property values, (b) deregulates businesses so that they can increase their bottom line enough to reduce prices (at the expense of environmental and workers' health safeguards), and (c) allows employers to exploit minority and low-skill employees for the lowest wages and overtime they can get away with (e.g. Wal-Mart).

Just want to be clear here. And for the record, since all the parties here are engaging in free-form speculation that fits their ideological proclivities, I should note that generalizations from here on out will be necessarily broad.

While I think there's a substantial amount of my (b) and (c) in Republican economic policies in general, I can't speak to (a). However, I think both you and Ken (and, for what it's worth, liberal proponents of the "tricked" theory) have it backwards. Republican economic policies tend to--again, painting with a broad brush here, but it's accurate as generalizations go--make small numbers of rich people richer, and large numbers of poor people poorer. It should be no surprise that larger numbers of poor people live in Republican-dominated areas, when Republican policies tend to--whether by design or by side effect--keep them poor.

Plausible? Implausible? No more or less so than any other theory I've heard. I suspect we may never know the answer to this one.

[asdf]

alternatively, they're rural voters who don't want anyone messin' with their stuff.

[Slartibartfast]

Wow...and I thought we were the party of the devious fat cats. Now we're being told we're poor and stupid. I'm so confused.

Interesting ideas, though. Until some facts come along, though, I've got to take it with a whole salt dome.

[Katherine]

Rent control and excessively restrictive zoning are bad and all that, but the main reason housing costs more in New York, Boston, San Francisco and cities in general is that more people want to live there.

Pain-in-the-ass zoning restrictions don't necessarily track with being liberal, either, though rent control does. It's a homeowners v. people-who-want-to-move-in problem.

And poor places tend to be rural, especially if you don't adjust for cost of living. And rural people tend to be more socially conservative.

Also note that as Yglesias has pointed out, while poor states are more likely to vote Republican, poor people are more likely to vote Democratic. And that the unemployment rate tends to be higher in poor areas, not lower. And even if it's in your economic interest to have a small local government, voting for the G.O.P. on the national level could be against your interest. And voting for Bush almost certainly is what with the absurd deficits and the tax cuts tilted far more to the rich than necessary.

All in all--color me unconvinced.

[Dave Schuler]

Wow...and I thought we were the party of the devious fat cats. Now we're being told we're poor and stupid. I'm so confused.

Let me explain it to you once again. You're the part of the devious fat cats and the poor and stupid. I thought you had that straight.

[Dave Schuler]

Make that the party.

[carsick]

Ha ha ha.

Are you saying owners/employers outnumber employees in poor areas? Or that the poor and poorly paid identify with their employers and vote accordingly.

What a bs theory.

And when's the last time you bought groceries in a poor neighborhood?
Usually they're found in a convenient store and a premium is added for lack of volume and security/loss overhead. Groceries are cheaper in the suburbs.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"And when's the last time you bought groceries in a poor neighborhood?
Usually they're found in a convenient store and a premium is added for lack of volume and security/loss overhead. Groceries are cheaper in the suburbs."

Especially in cities that actively resist large chains. A fact which supports the thesis.

"Rent control and excessively restrictive zoning are bad and all that, but the main reason housing costs more in New York, Boston, San Francisco and cities in general is that more people want to live there."

I'll give you 'a major reason' since I understand supply and demand, but I won't give you 'the main reason' because I understand supply and demand. The problem with rent control is that it dramatically restricts supply both by discouraging people from moving to a more appropriate-sized apartment (grandma living alone in the 5 bedroom downtown New York apartment) and by discouraging building of newer apartments.

"Also note that as Yglesias has pointed out, while poor states are more likely to vote Republican, poor people are more likely to vote Democratic." And poor people in poorer states are more likely to vote Republican than poor people in richer states. I'll admit it is a murky area, especially since there is the possibility that people really are voting against their own interests (either way you decide to look at it).

This wasn't an argument about voting for Bush one way or the other.

"Republican economic policies tend to--again, painting with a broad brush here, but it's accurate as generalizations go--make small numbers of rich people richer, and large numbers of poor people poorer."

This is flat out wrong. If you are going to generalize, Republican economic policies tend to make a small number of rich people richer and a large number of poor people richer at a somewhat slower rate. The only way you get the illusion of poor just holding their ground is by completely ignoring the dramatic drop in prices of things which used to be considered luxuries but which are now household norms among even very poor families. And the idea that the poor are getting poorer on any multi-year time scale in the U.S. is pure fantasy.

[Katherine]

"The only way you get the illusion of poor just holding their ground is by completely ignoring the dramatic drop in prices of things which used to be considered luxuries but which are now household norms among even very poor families. And the idea that the poor are getting poorer on any multi-year time scale in the U.S. is pure fantasy."

It's a fantasy that a hell of a lot of economics PhD candidates of my acquaintance share.

Seriously. I think you're flatly wrong about this. I think the lowest quintile's real income (i.e. adjusted for inflation, which obviously reflects the cost of the consumer products you're talking about) has declined since the 1970s. I know I should cite a source, but I'm at work and don't have time. But do you have a source?

[Gromit]

Sebastian Holsclaw: Especially in cities that actively resist large chains. A fact which supports the thesis.

Nonsense. Here in Atlanta there is a large chain every 200 yards...in the affluent neighborhoods. If you live in a poor neighborhood (in which case the likelihood of transporting yourself by foot or by bus is vastly increased, magnifying geographical considerations) all you get is a corner grocery with bars on the window. This is not Big Gubment keeping groceries out. This is the marketplace keeping groceries out. There is no incentive to serve poor people anything other than pork rinds, malt liquor, and lotto tickets, with none of the volume discounts I get by going to any of the dozen stores that are convenient to my neighborhood.

The only way you get the illusion of poor just holding their ground is by completely ignoring the dramatic drop in prices of things which used to be considered luxuries but which are now household norms among even very poor families.

Ah, the "you're not so poor if you have two color TV's and a microwave" argument. These things get cheaper in Republican administrations and they get cheaper in Democratic administrations. This is the nature of these technologies. What makes you poor is when you can't afford food, housing, and mobility. The proliferation of cell phone stores on your block is not a sign of economic success.

[Gromit]

I should amend my penultimate sentence to read "nutritious food", not just "food".

[Phil]

"If your labor isn't worth a whole lot, and you're too proud to go on welfare, your ideal environment is one in which (a) housing is cheap . . .

In other words, Republican economic planning (a) somehow depresses property values . . .

"Cheap housing" != "depressed property values." Is affordable housing a bad thing when the market provides it, but a good thing when government provides it?

[Phil]

"If your labor isn't worth a whole lot, and you're too proud to go on welfare, your ideal environment is one in which (a) housing is cheap . . .

In other words, Republican economic planning (a) somehow depresses property values . . .

Is affordable housing a bad thing when the market provides it, but a good thing when government provides it?

[Katherine]

Okay. Found a source. Scroll down to the "2001 dollars" chart. Of course it all depends on your starting and ending years, but the poor sure can get poorer on a multi-year time scale. And the overall trend is--stagnant.

And I believe, though I am not certain, that the asset/wealth numbers look much worse than the income numbers. The thing is, TVs and DVDs get cheaper but education, health care and housing outpace inflation, by a lot.

(And it's just not all rent control's fault. Yeah, it's counterproductive, but it's also rarer and rarer. The freaking People's Republic of Cambridge doesn't have rent control; I don't think Boston does either. Relatively few apartments in NYC are rent controlled. etc. etc.)

[Katherine]

"Cheap housing" != "depressed property values." Is affordable housing a bad thing when the market provides it, but a good thing when government provides it?

Actually, I think absent government subsidy or rent control, there is no factual difference between cheap housing and low property values.

Cheap housing is good if you're buying or paying rent and bad if you're owning/selling.

Also, it's bad for people to spend more than 1/4 or 1/3 of income on their housing, and bad for housing price growth to outpace income growth. But it's also bad for the value of a home not to grow, because it's the only valuable asset for a large % of the population.

I read a NY Times article several months back that the coasts are the source of the entire housing boom, that in large parts of the country home values have stagnated. That isn't good. What's wanted is moderate, steady growth. Not too high, because then you make renters' and young families' live miserable and get a mess with property taxes. But not nothing, either.

[crionna]

I found this document from 1992 that shows pretty darn good income mobility from '79 to '88. The economist who signed the docuement concluded It makes no sense to draw sweeping conclusions such as "the income of the bottom 20 percent of families fell" in a 15-year period when most of the people originally in that category have long since improved their standard of living enough to have moved up from the bracket entirely.

I guess that's how a similar study (if done now, I don't have time to Google all day) would address this.

[Ted Barlow]

The thesis is that "people with less marketable skills who nonetheless want to avoid living on the dole will choose to live in places where they can afford to live."

It seems to me that you could empirically test this by finding out whether poor areas that vote Republican actually have significantly lower percentage of people on government assistance than correspondingly poor areas that vote Democratic.

Another way would be to see if these poor Republican communities experience disproportionate population growth during recessions. Presumably these Republicans who are unable to afford their lifestyle would respond by moving.

Results would probably depend on how you define "the dole". If you were willing to include agricultural subsidies in your definition of "the dole", I strongly suspect that you would fail to confirm the thesis. My impression from Habitat for Humanity is that there are an awful lot of people on some kind of government assistance in rural areas in the South. But I honestly don't know.

On a macro level, we all know that aggregate "blue states" pay more in federal taxes than they get back, and "red states" get more back from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes, but that doesn't really answer the question.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"i.e. adjusted for inflation, which obviously reflects the cost of the consumer products you're talking about"

No it doesn't talk about the consumer products I'm talking about at all. It doesn't address very useful tools like computers or cell phones. It doesn't talk about entertainment items like VCRs and DVDs. I'll have to check but I don't even think it deals with access to cars. CPI is a crappy way of trying to measure real access to many goods. There is also some basis to believe that its methodology has dramatically overstated inflation in the past 15 years even on the items it tracks (I don't have time now but I'm certain a search around on Brad DeLong's site would turn up information on the topic.)

[crionna]

JKC over at Tacitus links to this NYT story about people moving to better their lives.

I sometimes wonder if our creation of affordable housing simply makes it artificially easy for folks to stay in areas with little opportunity to move up. I understand the pull of staying near family and friends, but should we be subsidizing that?

[Katherine]

Here's the answer from the CPI FAQ:

"What goods and services does the CPI cover?
The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (CPI-U or CPI-W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:

FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals and snacks);
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture);
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry);
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance);
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services);
RECREATION (televisions, cable television, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses)."

All and all it covers more than I thought, including housing, tuition, medical care, etc. As to your specific questions--cars, computer software, TV and cable, and phone service are all mentioned, but I don't know how they handle technological improvements. Then again, the incomes from the lowest quintiles are so low that I find it hard to believe that cell phones and home PCs and DVDs are really standard. (TV is, though, so who knows.)

[Katherine]

"I understand the pull of staying near family and friends, but should we be subsidizing that?"

1) yeah, actually.

2) If we won't we have to stop pretending that income inequality doesn't matter--being forced to move away from where you grew up, where all your friends are, where the jobs you want are, where you want to live has just a huge impact on quality of life.

3) It's often a question of the government getting out of the way rather than of subsidy. The way local government law and zoning work in this country is a travesty. And I'm thinking more of suburbs than cities when I say that.

4) living in cities has very important environmental benefits and some economic ones too--not having to own a car and/or driving less are high on the list. Road maintenance in suburban and rural areas is also a subsidy, but one that no one questions.

5) the areas where housing is least affordable pay more than their share of taxes, as a general rule; a little section 8 to reflect a higher cost of living is a fair exchange.

[carsick]

Let's see the original numbers and study that are the source and spark for this discussion because it seems the only study I'm aware of that would fit your thesis is one about "states" and not cities and suburbs, individuals, etc.

If that is the case then there are any number of better explanations than the bs being pushed. Including: large expanses needing infrastructure but low populations in which to gain funds (congressional appropriations); Old West attitude as epitomized in Gadsden's flag; family farmers who vote around inheritance laws; etc.

[sidereal]

"There is no incentive to serve poor people anything other than pork rinds, malt liquor, and lotto tickets"

I hope that was sarcastic, but I don't see a sarcastic context for it.

[carsick]

It is in rural America where people are more open to have politicians appeal to religion in public and personal life. It is there where there is such strong anti-government sentiment, in spite of the fact that without massive federal funding farmers would not be able to make an adequate income. It is in rural areas that the religious right and anti-gun control zealots have their primary followings. The traditional “city-country” cultural division is becoming politically defined in ever more sharper ways, the Republican country over against the Democratic city.

Nascar dads indeed.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I can't speak for the whole nation, but in Southern California cell phones penetrated the poorer markets very quickly.

I had forgotten that housing was part of the CPI. Housing is in most cases the largest expense by an enormous factor. Which brings us straight back to the Democratic rent-control, housing control, managed growth problem in the housing market-- a problem which the liberals here are so quick to dismiss. Oh and much of the food price increase on the staple products (milk, corn products, sugar anyone) is artifically propped up by stupid subsidies. Stop making me look at the underlying facts, it just makes my case better. ;)

[sidereal]

And back onto topic. . my experience is that rural Republicans base their vote strongly on social issues rather than economic issues.

[carsick]

Sebastion
You're "stupid subsidies" are also corporate and rural paybacks. Without those all the conservatives would have is the religeous aspect of the 'culture wars' and that certainly isn't enough to elect a president.

Again, do you have a link to a study or is this just pissing in the dark with a oscillating fan on somewhere in the room?

[Katherine]

Again, I don't dismiss rent control as a problem; I only say that it's not THE problem in most places. Zoning and cumbersome construction permits and it being impossible to get developments built are bigger problems. So is the fact that rental housing tends to be less profitable than other forms of construction, even without rent control. And some of it is just plain old demand.

[carsick]

oops. "your"

[Slartibartfast]

That wasn't a bit over the top, carsick. Is there anything else that's bothering you?

[carsick]

How many cities in the US is rent control even an issue? Four? Five?
What percentage of those cities does it affect" 3%? 4?
Section 8 doesn't count because 'demand' (or lack of it) has usually pushed that housing stock in the section 8 caregory in the first place.

If there is no study to see what we're really discussing here then Sebastion can strawman it to death.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I'm not limiting the bad Democratic responses to housing just to their abysmal rent-control response. The very same people who whine about the unavailability of low cost housing in California regularly vote for managed (meaning slow and heavily restricted) growth policies in building housing. The very same people who complain that high occupancy buildings are ghettos also make it nearly impossible to evict a drug dealer from your apartment. The same people who rhetorically deplore the state of inner-city schools ignore the black people who live around those schools and would like to have vouchers to go to better schools.

My point is that there are a lot of Democratic policies which make things really hard in the day-to-day life of poor people. The idea that a poor person voting for a Republican is voting against his own interests isn't as simple as Democrats would like to think.

And please, can we not have the stupid New York City rent control/rent stabilization argument? Both are horrible rent control devices. New York has to come up with two different names only because it has an awful rent control plan with an additional really awful rent control plan for other units.

[Gromit]

Gromit: There is no incentive to serve poor people anything other than pork rinds, malt liquor, and lotto tickets"

sidereal: I hope that was sarcastic, but I don't see a sarcastic context for it.

It was slightly hyperbolic, and perhaps cynical, but not ironic, so I guess it depends on what you mean by "sarcastic". These are the sorts of things you can find in these corner stores (at least around here), and they are emblems of the way the marketplace preys on the poor (though I did omit tobacco and corn syrup). You will not find fresh vegetables in these stores, nor will you find breads made without high fructose corn syrup (the latter are hard enough to find even in suburban grocery stores). The reason? Our food supply system makes healthy stuff too expensive for the poor to fill their bellies with it. When you add in security concerns due to elevated crime rates (which tend to drive away more mobile customers), what incentive do the purveyors of quality foods have to build a store in such a market?

[carsick]

My point is that there are a lot of Republican policies which make things really hard in the day-to-day life of poor people. The idea that a poor person voting for a Democrat is voting against his own interests isn't as simple as Republicans would like to think.

[Katherine]

What rent control--along with almost all zoning, property tax, and other real estate policy issues--shows is not a unique hypocrisy or stupidity among liberals, but that people who have a good deal like to keep it. Sort of a reverse NIMBY.

Across the board, our housing policy benefits people who already own a home, or a condo, or have a rent-controlled/stabilized apartment, against people who rent at market rates and people who might want to move in. From rent control and stabilization, to the California ballot initiatives capping property taxes no matter how much home value increases, to the home mortgage deduction (which applies to up to four houses! And if there's any income cap it's a really high one), to zoning boards and neighborhood associations across the land--that's the problem. Not that big city liberals are stupid and hypocritical and annoying. (And I used to cover zoning meetings in the Back Bay, so I know whereof I speak.)

In my experience, with a few knee jerky exceptions, rent control tends to be supported by people who have rent controlled apartments and opposed by those who don't. I know a whole lot of liberals who pay market rent, and know the stats about the people who really benefit from rent control, and we don't support it. It's not so much an ideological issue anymore, though it was once.

[Slartibartfast]

Our food supply system makes healthy stuff too expensive for the poor to fill their bellies with it.

Evidence?

[carsick]

Strawman city.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"The idea that a poor person voting for a Democrat is voting against his own interests isn't as simple as Republicans would like to think."

Brilliant reversal. You took my question about a conventional wisdom and reversed it into a statement which isn't conventionally held.

"What rent control--along with almost all zoning, property tax, and other real estate policy issues--shows is not a unique hypocrisy or stupidity among liberals, but that people who have a good deal like to keep it. Sort of a reverse NIMBY....

(re rent control) ...It's not so much an ideological issue anymore, though it was once. "

Then why does rent stabilization still get major play in New York whenever the a conservative is threatening to be competitive? And surely you aren't just making the Nader argument that Democrats are just a fat cat party which is better at pretending to be for the people than Republicans? Furthermore at least Republicans bother to occasionally fight the problem you identify. Democrats seem to embrace it wholeheartedly.

[carsick]

Sebastion and Katherine
I am still having trouble understanding how New York city's unusual and unique rent control laws are related in micro to the 'poor people vote for republicans' issue.
Are you two off subject or am I just unable to chew gum and oreos at the same time?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I can't speak for Katherine, I really don't think she would like it. :)

From my perspective NYC rent control is just the most awful version of a really stupid idea which has been implemented to a lesser degree in other cities. Also I'm not limiting myself to rent control per se, many slow growth schemes (almost always put forward by Democrats) and highly restrictive zoning schemes (very often but not entirely put forward by Democrats) cause similar problems.

[Katherine]

off subject. The "why poor people vote republican" thing is a rohrshach test; housing policy is more interesting. I still don't see what local issues like rent control have to do with a national trend of poor people voting Republican, a trend which we still haven't even established exists.

I barely know anyone who thinks rent control is a good idea. I am not kidding. My sample size is probably totally skewed by knowing a bunch of young folks who aren't in rent controlled buildings, and a big group of liberal economists and policy wonk sorts. Hence, the argument feels like, not "rent control is good" v. "no it's not" but "rent control is bad but we have other problems that are at least as big factors" to "rent control is REALLY bad and this just goes to show that liberals (or at least liberal-voting areas) are DUMB." Whereas I see it as very similar to agriculture subsidies--government mucking things up in a way that benefits few people, but they're more motivated than the people who are harmed and they've successfully made it a sacred cow.

By slow growth do you mean stuff like Portland? I'm having a hard time figuring out your terms.

I don't know any city that gets zoning right, and that includes the cities that have no zoning, like Houston.

[Katherine]

clarifications:
1) I meant to say, I don't say what rent control and zoning law have to do with explaining why it's really in poor people's interest to vote GOP in national elections.
2) I am aware that post above contains a reductio ad absurdum of Sebastian's arguments and it's not meant to be taken seriously. Just, it seems silly to argue any more about rent control with someone I more or less agree with about rent control. Our only argument is over what % of the problem rent control is, and without data, it's not a very useful argument.

[carsick]

My experience with local zoning (by no means NYC but still top 35 city) is the last 'in' usually tries to close the door. On the whole zoning issues are not so partisan as they are fought over by conservatives with a small c. Unless you see small or locally owned businesses as the democrats and Walmart as the republicans. Or if you see people who want large 3.5 acre lots for housing and no McDonalds as the democrats and McDonalds as the republicans.

Democrats do seem to get involved when subsidized urban housing comes into play (re:tax abated development) but then they are primarily pushing that market rate housing can get part of the action.

Generally though...if you got a good deal (rent control; or the latest liquor license for the neighborhood; or no fast food in your quaint business district) then ... you don't want to change it. Right? Conservative with a small 'c' and not particularly partisan.

[carsick]

And yet still, some poor sucker loses his job and he doesn't realize that it's related to the fact that he doesn't like men marrying other men and is still having trouble with the whole 'Is stem cell research really cloning?' thing.

[JKC]

Sebastion: I, er, humbly (yeah, that's it) suggest you read the Times article over at Tacitus. (Thanks to Crionna for the link here.)

The poor do have an alternative to substandard wages without benefits at Wal-Mart, cheap, crappy housing, and crime. It's called training... sometimes supplied by or with the help of (cover your ears, oh ye members of the VRWC)... unions.

[JKC]

And having said that, let me add that I don't think organized labor has all the answers, or is always right on every issue. But in a climate where human beings are too often considered no more than a bothersome expense to be reduced at all costs, it's nice to see the little guys (and gals) win.

And in Vegas of all places. Who'd a thought it?

[liberal japonicus]

Sebastian
a problem which the liberals here are so quick to dismiss

Please stop. The mealy-mouthed qualifier makes things worse, not better. How about 'something that has been floated consistently by [liberal thinker here followed by a citation]'. If you don't have time to google, just say 'my impression is that many liberals don't acknowledge the extent of the problems'.

While there are a large number of people here whose opinion I highly value and respect, I don't particularly enjoy being tied to them involuntarily, especially if it is with this kind of duct tape rhetoric. I can't (and don't want to) speak for others, but I would suggest that this underlying thought is why people tend to be a bit flowery in responding to you.