liberal cities bad for blacks, who'da thunk it

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-09/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.
 
It helps to actually read the article you post. There are logical reasons why this is the case. As opposed to your delusional hatred of everything left of Attila the Hun.

From the article.

Leah Boustan, another UCLA economist, is researching a book on black migration from the South from 1940 to 1970. "Black migrants were less likely to move to San Francisco and Minneapolis (as well as Boston and Seattle) than to other big cities," she wrote in an e-mail. Those cities, she added, "have concentrations of industries (like high-tech today, and its predecessors) that use high-skilled workers. Black migrants were low-skilled and worked in assembly-based manufacturing and so they didn't move to these locations. My guess is that because black migration was low, blacks never broke into public sector employment (a sector that employs many high-skilled blacks today and offers the lowest black-white wage gap). Furthermore, with low black migration rates, blacks may not have broken into union employment (like high-skilled aircraft manufacturing in Seattle)."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top