Local inequality and political attitudes-does it matter?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Mississippi is both the poorest state in America and also one of the most socially stratified, based on an incredible concentration of wealth and resources in a small number of people, while most of its residents are poor-both in terms of pure economics as well as cultural capital, reflected in low educational levels.

It  also has perhaps the most politically reactionary economic elite, though other poor Deep Southern states and locales give it a run for its money. Furthermore, ordinary people in Mississippi are much more likely to be social and religious "conservatives" (by which I mean fundamentalist) than most elsewhere in the US.

Is any of this a coincidence? What do you all think?

[barfbag]

Sounds like heaven to me. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Sbane]

Sounds like heaven to me. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Sure it's heaven, if you are in that economic elite. A feudalist economy isn't very competitive in the modern economy though, which is why Mississippi and places like it are in such bad shape.

[barfbag]

Sounds like heaven to me. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Sure it's heaven, if you are in that economic elite. A feudalist economy isn't very competitive in the modern economy though, which is why Mississippi and places like it are in such bad shape.

It's all about being happy with what you have. What do you Democrats have to say to this?

[Sbane]

Sounds like heaven to me. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Sure it's heaven, if you are in that economic elite. A feudalist economy isn't very competitive in the modern economy though, which is why Mississippi and places like it are in such bad shape.

It's all about being happy with what you have. What do you Democrats have to say to this?

Yeah, it would be great if most of society were happy with just scraps, while the elite get to live in unparalleled luxury. Is that what you Republicans want?

[pbrower2a]

Mississippi is both the poorest state in America and also one of the most socially stratified, based on an incredible concentration of wealth and resources in a small number of people, while most of its residents are poor-both in terms of pure economics as well as cultural capital, reflected in low educational levels.

It  also has perhaps the most politically reactionary economic elite, though other poor Deep Southern states and locales give it a run for its money. Furthermore, ordinary people in Mississippi are much more likely to be social and religious "conservatives" (by which I mean fundamentalist) than most elsewhere in the US.

Is any of this a coincidence? What do you all think?

It is also very polarized along racial lines, with the Republican Party being basically the White People's Party and the Democratic Party being the Black People's Party. With such polarization Mississippi can get some horrid politics. Mississippi has the highest percentage of former elected officials in prison -- probably because the state has race-based machine politics even in small towns. The obvious solution to corruption and incompetence among elected politicians is to vote them out with members of the other party as in many other states, but such does not happen often enough in Mississippi.

In the 1960s Mississippi had a reputation as the worst state for race relations because it was more rural than any other Southern state, it was the least industrialized, and it was the poorest. The best jobs almost as a rule were in the public sector, and those depended upon being on the good side of the economic elite.   Maybe it is not that bad today, but it is still very rural. Mississippi has no large cities.

Agrarian elites are usually among the most reactionary interests in any country (just look at most of Europe before the Second World War), and they often have a romantic vision of themselves that they can impress upon others. But instead of creating hostile envy among many of their victims they create admiration.

[krazen1211]

Washington DC has even more social stratification. Makes sense of course because the city is full of moochers who take from the rest of America.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Washington DC has even more social stratification. Makes sense of course because the city is full of moochers who take from the rest of America.

Much like Mississippi, which takes in more federal benefits than it pays in federal taxes?

[krazen1211]

Washington DC has even more social stratification. Makes sense of course because the city is full of moochers who take from the rest of America.

Much like Mississippi, which takes in more federal benefits than it pays in federal taxes?

No, DC is several times worse in its magnitude of leeching.

[Mechaman]

Mississippi is both the poorest state in America and also one of the most socially stratified, based on an incredible concentration of wealth and resources in a small number of people, while most of its residents are poor-both in terms of pure economics as well as cultural capital, reflected in low educational levels.

It  also has perhaps the most politically reactionary economic elite, though other poor Deep Southern states and locales give it a run for its money. Furthermore, ordinary people in Mississippi are much more likely to be social and religious "conservatives" (by which I mean fundamentalist) than most elsewhere in the US.

Is any of this a coincidence? What do you all think?

Not really.

It also doesn't help that the rest of America has pretty much "given up" on them either.  We once fought a Civil War to get these people back into our Union and end an idea that men could literally be owned.  Now, after decades of being ranked the lowest of the low, many people still believe Mississippians don't deserve more than their poverty infested hellhole (that's a judgement on the system, not it's victims).

Sure local culture and political attitudes do matter, but so does the culture and attitudes outside of it.  If the 49 other states don't give a damn, why should Mississippians hope for better?

[jaichind]

Mississippi is both the poorest state in America and also one of the most socially stratified, based on an incredible concentration of wealth and resources in a small number of people, while most of its residents are poor-both in terms of pure economics as well as cultural capital, reflected in low educational levels.

It  also has perhaps the most politically reactionary economic elite, though other poor Deep Southern states and locales give it a run for its money. Furthermore, ordinary people in Mississippi are much more likely to be social and religious "conservatives" (by which I mean fundamentalist) than most elsewhere in the US.

Is any of this a coincidence? What do you all think?

From a GINI coefficient point of view, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and DC are the states that has the most unequal income.  New York might be a bit exaggerated given the different price levels between NYC and rest of NYC state.  But NYC its GINI is higher than all states except for DC. and I suspect rest of NY state GINI is lower.

BTW, the states with the lowest GINI are Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming.

[pbrower2a]

Sounds like heaven to me. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Sure it's heaven, if you are in that economic elite. A feudalist economy isn't very competitive in the modern economy though, which is why Mississippi and places like it are in such bad shape.

It's all about being happy with what you have. What do you Democrats have to say to this?

Some people might be happy with what George Orwell termed 'a boot on the neck forever'. Such is the way of the masochist.

[Torie]

Yes, Mississippi is more about being poor than it is about being unequal.

[memphis]

Yes, Mississippi is more about being poor than it is about being unequal.

Not true. The old cotton elite persists. They continue to own most of the state.

[Torie]

Yes, Mississippi is more about being poor than it is about being unequal.

Not true. The old cotton elite persists. They continue to own most of the state.

That's anecdotal. The Gini coefficient is real data. You are probably thinking of the delta area as typical of the state perhaps. It isn't.

[Peeperkorn]

Mississippi is both the poorest state in America and also one of the most socially stratified, based on an incredible concentration of wealth and resources in a small number of people, while most of its residents are poor-both in terms of pure economics as well as cultural capital, reflected in low educational levels.

You mean rednecks?

[Link]

BTW, the states with the lowest GINI are Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming.

News Flash!  Rocks, trees, and ice are equal.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Yes, Mississippi is more about being poor than it is about being unequal.

Not true. The old cotton elite persists. They continue to own most of the state.

That's anecdotal. The Gini coefficient is real data. You are probably thinking of the delta area as typical of the state perhaps. It isn't.

According to what Wikipedia credits to 2010 ACS data, Mississippi has the 9th highest Gini coefficient among the states. Alabama is 6th and Louisiana 4th. So by that measure this is a pretty unequal region, though a bit less so than a few of the wealthy northeastern states.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Mississippi is both the poorest state in America and also one of the most socially stratified, based on an incredible concentration of wealth and resources in a small number of people, while most of its residents are poor-both in terms of pure economics as well as cultural capital, reflected in low educational levels.

It  also has perhaps the most politically reactionary economic elite, though other poor Deep Southern states and locales give it a run for its money. Furthermore, ordinary people in Mississippi are much more likely to be social and religious "conservatives" (by which I mean fundamentalist) than most elsewhere in the US.

Is any of this a coincidence? What do you all think?

Are you going to provide any citations or statistics to back any of this up?

[Sbane]

Yes, Mississippi is more about being poor than it is about being unequal.

Not true. The old cotton elite persists. They continue to own most of the state.

That's anecdotal. The Gini coefficient is real data. You are probably thinking of the delta area as typical of the state perhaps. It isn't.

For a mostly rural area, Mississippi is pretty damn unequal. This is from the Gini coefficient.

[Beet]

Washington DC has even more social stratification. Makes sense of course because the city is full of moochers who take from the rest of America.

Much like Mississippi, which takes in more federal benefits than it pays in federal taxes?

No, DC is several times worse in its magnitude of leeching.

Uh, DC actually provides services... Such as a functioning government. Ya know, little things like the DoD, the NIH, the EPA. Mississippi? Not so much.

[Torie]

Yes, Mississippi is more about being poor than it is about being unequal.

Not true. The old cotton elite persists. They continue to own most of the state.

That's anecdotal. The Gini coefficient is real data. You are probably thinking of the delta area as typical of the state perhaps. It isn't.

For a mostly rural area, Mississippi is pretty damn unequal. This is from the Gini coefficient.

I didn't know Mississippi was 4th in the Gni coefficient until someone put it up above, so yes it is relatively high. That combined with being poor, with pathetically low educational attainment, and not much of a culture that cultivates education as a sine qua non to a good life (not only monetarily, but "spiritually"), does not paint a pretty picture. But as to the rural thing, due to history, Mississippi does have a large number of rural poor - very poor. My younger brother has gone bird watching in remote rural areas of the Delta. He saw blacks living in conditions doing nothing but staring vacantly into space, that might remind one of Sub-Sahara Africa. It was horrible. Some of the rural whites are not much better off.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Yes, Mississippi is more about being poor than it is about being unequal.

Not true. The old cotton elite persists. They continue to own most of the state.

That's anecdotal. The Gini coefficient is real data. You are probably thinking of the delta area as typical of the state perhaps. It isn't.

For a mostly rural area, Mississippi is pretty damn unequal. This is from the Gini coefficient.

I didn't know Mississippi was 4th in the Gni coefficient until someone put it up above, so yes it is relatively high. That combined with being poor, with pathetically low educational attainment, and not much of a culture that cultivates education as a sine qua non to a good life (not only monetarily, but "spiritually"), does not paint a pretty picture. But as to the rural thing, due to history, Mississippi does have a large number of rural poor - very poor. My younger brother has gone bird watching in remote rural areas of the Delta. He saw blacks living in conditions doing nothing but staring vacantly into space, that might remind one of Sub-Sahara Africa. It was horrible. Some of the rural whites are not much better off.

That North Carolina GOP precinct chairman was right about them being lazy. This is why we need to make them get a photo ID to go vote.

[Torie]

Yes, Mississippi is more about being poor than it is about being unequal.

Not true. The old cotton elite persists. They continue to own most of the state.

That's anecdotal. The Gini coefficient is real data. You are probably thinking of the delta area as typical of the state perhaps. It isn't.

For a mostly rural area, Mississippi is pretty damn unequal. This is from the Gini coefficient.

I didn't know Mississippi was 4th in the Gni coefficient until someone put it up above, so yes it is relatively high. That combined with being poor, with pathetically low educational attainment, and not much of a culture that cultivates education as a sine qua non to a good life (not only monetarily, but "spiritually"), does not paint a pretty picture. But as to the rural thing, due to history, Mississippi does have a large number of rural poor - very poor. My younger brother has gone bird watching in remote rural areas of the Delta. He saw blacks living in conditions doing nothing but staring vacantly into space, that might remind one of Sub-Sahara Africa. It was horrible. Some of the rural whites are not much better off.

That North Carolina GOP precinct chairman was right about them being lazy. This is why we need to make them get a photo ID to go vote.

It has next to nothing to do with lazy. They have no hope, no purpose, and next to no skills to go out and tackle the world. It's close to a zombie state. Lazy is all about the concept of having the tools, but preferring to malinger. You need to see the scene with your own eyes before making such a comment really. What we have here, is not so much about human character flaws, but rather more about a human tragedy.  Frankly to envision the scene is a tour into the the land of heartbreak. You just want to cry.

[pbrower2a]

Mississippi is both the poorest state in America and also one of the most socially stratified, based on an incredible concentration of wealth and resources in a small number of people, while most of its residents are poor-both in terms of pure economics as well as cultural capital, reflected in low educational levels.

It  also has perhaps the most politically reactionary economic elite, though other poor Deep Southern states and locales give it a run for its money. Furthermore, ordinary people in Mississippi are much more likely to be social and religious "conservatives" (by which I mean fundamentalist) than most elsewhere in the US.

Is any of this a coincidence? What do you all think?

From a GINI coefficient point of view, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and DC are the states that has the most unequal income.  New York might be a bit exaggerated given the different price levels between NYC and rest of NYC state.  But NYC its GINI is higher than all states except for DC. and I suspect rest of NY state GINI is lower.

BTW, the states with the lowest GINI are Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming.

The cause of economic inequality in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York should be obvious enough: real estate in the Tri-State Area. Many people are paying more than half their after-tax income in rent. The opportunities had better be good, and one had better love the culture. DC is much the same. Otherwise one would do better in Indianapolis or Salt Lake City. Much better. 

Note that of sovereign states, Singapore is extremely high. The Special Economic Zone of Hong Kong has a high GINI coefficient.

Does anyone want to bet against high GINI coefficients by national standards in Mexico City, Toronto, Buenos Aires, Rio De Janeiro,  Paris, London, Vienna, Shanghai, Seoul, and Tokyo? I suspect that there would be a huge difference in the GINI coefficient between Greater Chicago and "Greater" Peoria, Kalamazoo, or South Bend -- maybe even Milwaukee.