Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sysyphusishappy t1_ivr2sd5 wrote

Interesting to compare this to maps of median income/poverty levels.

https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/09/22/new-york-city-poverty-map

Looks like dems are the party of the very rich and very poor while the middle class, such as it exists in NYC is more republican.

15

princessnegrita t1_ivrdjhf wrote

Okay seriously why would you link to an income map from 2007 in good faith?

Here’s a map with more recent data that’s broken down in a more visually easy to read way (at least for the purpose of verifying what you’re trying to say).

So it says right there that the median household income in the city was $69k in 2019 and on the map I linked, that income falls under the second lowest income band which is the second darkest blue.

It shows that the poorest areas in the city voted for both parties and it can better be broken down by demographic. Looking at Brooklyn, ENY, most of Crown Heights and Flatbush are deep blue on the electoral map and also some of the poorest areas in the city. Similarly, Williamsburg, that lil dot in Crown Heights and Borough Park are deep red on the electoral map and also some of the poorest areas in the city.

Meanwhile, that deep red at the bottom of SI is also one of the wealthiest parts of the city (admittedly the least wealthy of the wealthy people but still much higher than the median). The tip of Rockaway is also right behind SI in terms of wealth. Bergen Beach and Howard Beach are also markedly wealthier than the areas they’re directly next to and have incomes higher than median.

The only thing that the deep red nyc areas have in common across them is how markedly white they are.

Ranking the top 10 nyc neighborhoods by white population, those deep red areas are #2, 4, 5, 7 and 8.

For the record, the #1, 3, 6, 9 and 10 whitest neighborhoods (which are all blue on the election map) have much bigger populations of people of color than the whitest neighborhoods who voted red.

15

Tyrtle-Bikeoff t1_ivv2z38 wrote

"Justice Map" is a great tool to use for looking at neighborhood demographics, with data from the 2020 census (showing population percentages for major racial groups, median household income, and income change at the county/borough, tract, block group, and block levels)

http://www.justicemap.org/2020/index.php?gsLayer=plural&gfLon=-95.3&gfLat=39.6&giZoom=4&gsGeo=county&giAdvanced=1&

3

sysyphusishappy t1_ivrg4p8 wrote

> Okay seriously why would you link to an income map from 2007 in good faith?

Because I have a life and googled the map and didn't look very closely at it. The ackshually "good faith" thing just makes you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist BTW.

> Meanwhile, that deep red at the bottom of SI is also one of the wealthiest parts of the city (admittedly the least wealthy of the wealthy people but still much higher than the median).

"one of the wealthiest parts of the city" with a median household income of $85k. Okay.

> The only thing that the deep red nyc areas have in common across them is how markedly white they are.

Oh okay. Unlike the very diverse upper east and west side and williamsburg.

> Ranking the top 10 nyc neighborhoods by white population, those deep red areas are #2, 4, 5, 7 and 8.

> For the record, the #1, 3, 6, 9 and 10 whitest neighborhoods (which are all blue on the election map) have much bigger populations of people of color than the whitest neighborhoods who voted red.

Are you going to start measuring skulls next to try and prove how un-white and diverse the upper east side and tribeca are?

−12

princessnegrita t1_ivrghdw wrote

Damn that’s a lot of weird nonsense all to say you don’t care about facts.

Lead with that next time.

10

sysyphusishappy t1_ivri7l7 wrote

What "facts" did you present here exactly? I said the democratic party is becoming the party of the very rich and very poor and ignoring the middle class. To refute this you show me a map that shows the richest neighborhoods all voted blue, the poorest neighborhoods all voted blue, and never even bother to mention the middle class at all? Then you tried to tell me that a district in Staten Island where the median household income is $85k is "one of the richest" in the city?

These are some "facts" you have here.

> Some recent US figures on the distribution of income by party: 65 percent of taxpayer households that earn more than $500,000 per year are now in Democratic districts; 74 percent of the households in Republican districts earn less than $100,00 per year. Add to this what we knew already, namely that the 10 richest congressional districts in the country all have Democratic representatives in Congress.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/democrats-rich-party-obama/

Highly amusing how the 1% convinced gullible useful idiots that it's skin color and not wealth that divides this country.

−5

djphan2525 t1_ivsavol wrote

bro you used a map from 2007 and when presented with a present map you just.. doubled down?

time to call it a nite...

6

sysyphusishappy t1_ivsklyx wrote

Not sure how that is in any way relevant to the point I made. The democratic party is increasing the party of the very rich and the very poor. Maybe you can explain to me how pointing to one zip code in Staten island refutes this point?

Go read the facts I posted and get back to me.

0

princessnegrita t1_ivrk57s wrote

I said the richest and poorest neighborhoods voted for both parties.

I didn’t mention middle class because if you clicked the map, it would be immediately obvious that areas with people making median incomes largely voted blue. Also if you clicked the income map with recent income data, you would have to specifically ignore the large chunk of the reddest part of staten island with the $105k median income to focus in on the tiny part that makes $85k. Wonder why you’d do that?

This discussion is about nyc’s recent election and how it compares to income in the boroughs but now you’re linking a single article from 2021 that discusses the democratic national party.

Good job.

1

sysyphusishappy t1_ivrqmgv wrote

> I said the richest and poorest neighborhoods voted for both parties.

Yes you did but you failed to even come close to proving it.

> Some recent US figures on the distribution of income by party: 65 percent of taxpayer households that earn more than $500,000 per year are now in Democratic districts; 74 percent of the households in Republican districts earn less than $100,00 per year. Add to this what we knew already, namely that the 10 richest congressional districts in the country all have Democratic representatives in Congress.

> Also if you clicked the income map with recent income data, you would have to specifically ignore the large chunk of the reddest part of staten island with the $105k median income to focus in on the tiny part that makes $85k. Wonder why you’d do that?

Odd how you think making a point about skin color somehow refutes the actual data about income which is exactly what I was talking about and what the data shows. The richest and poorest vote overwhelmingly democratic.

Maybe you can explain to me how finding one zip code in staten island that voted red refutes this point?

1

Everyoneeatshere t1_ivr7dkc wrote

Minorities in nyc and recent immigrants tend to be more culturally conservative. The elites would want you to think all minorities are liberals tho.

6

wefarrell t1_ivs1hzy wrote

Odd to lump all minorities and recent immigrants together and make sweeping generalizations about them. They constitute the majority of residents and they're obviously quite heterogenous.

6

Everyoneeatshere t1_ivuama1 wrote

I didn’t say recent immigrants tended to be minorities. I said minority New Yorkers and those who are recent immigrants to the country of whatever race tend to be socially conservative. Broad generalization but as a life long New Yorker in Brooklyn, it kinda holds true.

3

PiffityPoffity t1_ivtfpqg wrote

Recent immigrants don’t vote. You can’t just immigrate and suddenly become a citizen.

0

Everyoneeatshere t1_ivtfsuv wrote

By recent I meant first to second gen Americans

1

PiffityPoffity t1_ivu9pso wrote

That’s an extremely broad group to generalize, but also second-generation Americans are not immigrants, let alone recent immigrants. Don’t call people who were born in America immigrants. That’s not what the word means.

1

Everyoneeatshere t1_ivua5gl wrote

2nd gen depending on how you define it is still very much apart of the recent immigrants community. Some ppl define 2nd Gen was ppl born in the USA but their parents were not.

2

PiffityPoffity t1_ivuanbx wrote

Do you know what “immigrant” means? Use another word. People born in America cannot be immigrants in America.

1

Everyoneeatshere t1_ivuav75 wrote

Born in America but i identify more with the immigrat community in terms of values Bc of how I was raised. I’m not gonna argue semantics

3

PiffityPoffity t1_ivub42e wrote

Identifying with “the immigrant community” (whatever that means, when immigrants come from literally everywhere and ascribe to wildly different worldviews) doesn’t make one an immigrant.

1

Everyoneeatshere t1_ivubbzn wrote

I never said it did. Man, have a good day. stop being mad on Reddit lol

2

PiffityPoffity t1_ivubkke wrote

Seriously, just use another word then, one that doesn’t imply people are outsiders in their birth country.

−1

djphan2525 t1_ivsaql5 wrote

why would you use a map from 2007? do you know what williamsburg looked like in 2007?

6

sysyphusishappy t1_ivskp5r wrote

Because I googled it and didn't look at the date. Or it's a vast Russian conspiracy designed to subtly undermine faith in the democrat narrative. One of those two things happened.

−5

[deleted] t1_ivt65yo wrote

I wonder what this looks like against demographics. Red areas are principally white ethnic?

3

sysyphusishappy t1_ivuc5kn wrote

So are very wealthy areas.

1

[deleted] t1_ivujb6i wrote

I’m not sure I follow.

1

sysyphusishappy t1_ivuljek wrote

Very wealthy areas vote overwhelmingly democratic.

0

[deleted] t1_ivulo3i wrote

I said demographics, not democrats.

1

sysyphusishappy t1_ivvbaln wrote

You seem to be confused here. We are discussing the incomes of typical voters for both parties. Historically the democratic party was the party of the working and middle class. Now they're becoming the party of the very rich and very poor. They abandoned the middle and working class and left them for the republicans, who used to be the party of the rich.

>Some recent US figures on the distribution of income by party: 65 percent of taxpayer households that earn more than $500,000 per year are now in Democratic districts; 74 percent of the households in Republican districts earn less than $100,00 per year. Add to this what we knew already, namely that the 10 richest congressional districts in the country all have Democratic representatives in Congress.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/democrats-rich-party-obama/

For some reason these facts are making people very angry. We went from Occupy Wall street to letting them try to pretend that skin color and not class are what divides us. Coincidentally this leaves the 1% off the hook. While we fight over skin color, we let them get away with the largest wealth transfer in history from the poor to the rich during the lockdowns.

2

bluethroughsunshine t1_ivuk8fw wrote

Accurate statement. The problem with the Dems is they play both to the very poor on economic policy and to the very rich on social issues. But this is also part of their problem in being able to be efficient. Republicans do somewhat of the same but are strong economically to the rich and socially to the poor. Both of the parties equally "other" in some form or fashion.

1

AffordableGrousing t1_iw0ly5n wrote

The rich actually tend to be way more consistently conservative on social issues, at least IIRC. Poorer people tend to be less politically engaged and so have some heterodox collections of opinions - e.g., being harshly anti-immigrant while supporting legal abortion.

I think this partly explains why GOP party elites (e.g. SCOTUS) thought that outlawing abortion wouldn’t generate much backlash, when in reality few people are 100% right (or left) on any given issue.

1