Anonymous wrote:

Atlanta's region is doing very well. You're just criticizing it for the sprawl.

Did you read the article about DeKalb County? The issue highlighted there is not the same as density.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising income inequality means that some areas have become extremely expensive while others have stagnated.

In the 50s and 60s economic growth was more broad-based. Now many second-tier cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, even St. Louis have done pretty badly, HQs have moved to places like NYC. Wealth is concentrated in the tech sector, in lawyers, lobbyists and financiers. The places where people like that live have become very expensive as a result.

So Trump (even though he is a New Yorker) basically won because of second tier cities?

Second-tier cities have only themselves to blame.

Atlanta has been poised for SO LONG to be a preeminent world-class city along the lines of Miami or New York but they keep shooting themselves in the foot. And by they I mean the racist/sexist white governmental class.

1) Threatening to sanction an airline because they wouldn't support the NRA? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/02/590149921/georgia-lawmakers-punish-delta-air-lines-over-nra-feud
Delta is their biggest tax-revenue creator bar none and you're THREATENING them?

2) Losing out on Amazon HQ2 precisely at the same time because corporations don't like state government overreach and threats.

3) Now they're outlawing abortion past six weeks to any Georgia residents and guess what? The film industry which makes 30 movies/tv shows a year in Georgia is trying to pull out. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/05/hollywood-response-georgia-heartbeat-bill-abortion

Make idiot policies, have idiot results.

Ahh, kind of like how Seattle passed an anti-Amazon tax?
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/seattle-unanimously-passes-its-amazon-tax/560411/

(Yes, I know it was later repealed)

As for Atlanta, its population growth has been 2-3x the DC area. It's gaining about 1 million residents per decade:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_metropolitan_area

Atlanta's population growth and massive sprawl is turning it into Houston not New York. Adding in so many collective 'cities' into their metro area means their tax revenue base is stagnant and anything along the West/South lines remains low income.

Read about the phenomenon of Georgia 'cities' incorporating to keep their tax revenue base to themselves and see just how this is affecting Atlanta revenue prospectives long-term - https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/03/tale-of-new-cities/555263/

Ironic you pointed out Houston because it's a booming city with a huge and wealthy economy and a perfect example of a city doing very well. Right now Houston is at the point where wages are high but cost of living including housing is low (lower than the expensive cities). It's a great place for young people to get started.

Atlanta's region is doing very well. You're just criticizing it for the sprawl. But that's a wholly separate issue. Atlanta lost out on HQ2 for the same reason all the other cities lost out, because Jeff Bezos always intended it to be in DC and was milking the other cities for sensitive economic data for free and to also see if he could get freebies that he could use to force NOVA to give him something similar.

Besides, I don't know many who would ever call Miami a world class city..... it has is niche but it is not economically anywhere near a world class status. Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, all have better economies than Miami and more headquarters. Miami is popular with Latin Americans as a base in the US and has the beaches that attract the wealthy playthings but it's really a quite poor city with a lot of crime.

The two income trap. Bid up housing because they could.

Tech jobs and the vast bloat of the post-9/11 world of contractors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge shift in people living in suburbs to people living in cities or more urban areas. This happened across the country.

This is it!!! People want to live in cities again so it's more expensive. When I was growing up, cities were poor broken down places and everyone wanted to be in the suburbs. We Americans were always so surprised by European cities where people had good mass transit and nice places to live in the cities and the poor lived in the suburbs. Now we are getting that and the poor are being slowly moved out to the suburbs. Well, in DC's case, maybe not so slowly.

No, this doesn't explain why the suburbs of DC have become so expensive too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising income inequality means that some areas have become extremely expensive while others have stagnated.

In the 50s and 60s economic growth was more broad-based. Now many second-tier cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, even St. Louis have done pretty badly, HQs have moved to places like NYC. Wealth is concentrated in the tech sector, in lawyers, lobbyists and financiers. The places where people like that live have become very expensive as a result.

So Trump (even though he is a New Yorker) basically won because of second tier cities?

Umm, no. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis, and pretty much every single other "second tier city" in the US are all extremely Democratic.

I think there should be a distinction between 'Old' Democrats and modern ones like AOC in NYC.

Every city you listed basically took a huge dive the moment the 50s hit, the world wars ended, and industry money for long-held crafts like coal and railroad distribution went belly-up.

My point - the Old Democrat bastions are the ones that are longtime unionist strongholds that were prolific because of the companies that called those cities home.

No more companies no more revenue. No more revenue equals city circles drain.

Umm, ok. Doesn't change the fact that it's flat out incorrect to state that "second tier cities" gave Trump the election.

Oh right that. I don't think second-tier cities gave DJT the election. I think the mass of population in rural and exurban communities that collectively swung the electoral college system gave DJT the election.

Those people may not have the demographic population numbers of cities (even second-tier ones) but they had the political power to flex and so they did.

Too bad they just managed to hack off their own foot in the process. Trump's son-in-law just invested a billion dollars in their new family metropolis, meanwhile the farmers in Nebraska are underwater literally and figuratively.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-06/grains-soy-trump-tariff-threat-to-china-drives-ag-prices-lower

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-aid/no-fresh-aid-package-for-u-s-farmers-planned-for-now-agriculture-secretary-idUSKCN1S62M3

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/nebraska-underwater-74-cities-65-counties-declare-emergencies-as-flooding-envelops-state/ar-BBUWT1P

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-22/kushner-cos-buys-apartment-portfolio-for-1-1-billion-wsj-says

Yes, it is unfortunate. I am from Wisconsin, which lost I believe over 800 farms last year alone. I do know that there is a lot of outreach being done on the part of the state Democratic Party to engage with the rural areas and help connect the dots, if you will.

Anonymous wrote:Huge shift in people living in suburbs to people living in cities or more urban areas. This happened across the country.

This is it!!! People want to live in cities again so it's more expensive. When I was growing up, cities were poor broken down places and everyone wanted to be in the suburbs. We Americans were always so surprised by European cities where people had good mass transit and nice places to live in the cities and the poor lived in the suburbs. Now we are getting that and the poor are being slowly moved out to the suburbs. Well, in DC's case, maybe not so slowly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising income inequality means that some areas have become extremely expensive while others have stagnated.

In the 50s and 60s economic growth was more broad-based. Now many second-tier cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, even St. Louis have done pretty badly, HQs have moved to places like NYC. Wealth is concentrated in the tech sector, in lawyers, lobbyists and financiers. The places where people like that live have become very expensive as a result.

So Trump (even though he is a New Yorker) basically won because of second tier cities?

Umm, no. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis, and pretty much every single other "second tier city" in the US are all extremely Democratic.

I think there should be a distinction between 'Old' Democrats and modern ones like AOC in NYC.

Every city you listed basically took a huge dive the moment the 50s hit, the world wars ended, and industry money for long-held crafts like coal and railroad distribution went belly-up.

My point - the Old Democrat bastions are the ones that are longtime unionist strongholds that were prolific because of the companies that called those cities home.

No more companies no more revenue. No more revenue equals city circles drain.

Umm, ok. Doesn't change the fact that it's flat out incorrect to state that "second tier cities" gave Trump the election.

Oh right that. I don't think second-tier cities gave DJT the election. I think the mass of population in rural and exurban communities that collectively swung the electoral college system gave DJT the election.

Those people may not have the demographic population numbers of cities (even second-tier ones) but they had the political power to flex and so they did.

Too bad they just managed to hack off their own foot in the process. Trump's son-in-law just invested a billion dollars in their new family metropolis, meanwhile the farmers in Nebraska are underwater literally and figuratively.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-06/grains-soy-trump-tariff-threat-to-china-drives-ag-prices-lower

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-aid/no-fresh-aid-package-for-u-s-farmers-planned-for-now-agriculture-secretary-idUSKCN1S62M3

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/nebraska-underwater-74-cities-65-counties-declare-emergencies-as-flooding-envelops-state/ar-BBUWT1P

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-22/kushner-cos-buys-apartment-portfolio-for-1-1-billion-wsj-says

Because few developers are even remotely interested in building mid- to lower-level housing anymore. It's all luxury upper-end nonsense, not only in DC but in every major urban region in the country.

The kind of middle-range ranch house my own parents bought (on one salary) in Mont. Co. in 1968 is simply not being built anymore.

Because white people want to live here now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising income inequality means that some areas have become extremely expensive while others have stagnated.

In the 50s and 60s economic growth was more broad-based. Now many second-tier cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, even St. Louis have done pretty badly, HQs have moved to places like NYC. Wealth is concentrated in the tech sector, in lawyers, lobbyists and financiers. The places where people like that live have become very expensive as a result.

So Trump (even though he is a New Yorker) basically won because of second tier cities?

Umm, no. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis, and pretty much every single other "second tier city" in the US are all extremely Democratic.

I think there should be a distinction between 'Old' Democrats and modern ones like AOC in NYC.

Every city you listed basically took a huge dive the moment the 50s hit, the world wars ended, and industry money for long-held crafts like coal and railroad distribution went belly-up.

My point - the Old Democrat bastions are the ones that are longtime unionist strongholds that were prolific because of the companies that called those cities home.

No more companies no more revenue. No more revenue equals city circles drain.

Umm, ok. Doesn't change the fact that it's flat out incorrect to state that "second tier cities" gave Trump the election.

Anonymous wrote:This does not directly affect me. I am just asking a simple question.

What is so special about the post 2000s DC area that has caused our cost of living to skyrocket beyond belief?

Me personally, I think the pre 90s DC area COL should have been more expensive because this area was a hell of a lot more fun then as opposed to right now. Things should be cheaper now.

People want to live here because there are good jobs here. And good schools.

1. Technology -not the SV or Seattle kind but the need for IT integration, consultants, operations, sales for the government. Tons of consultants and contractors. AWS choosing to have its east coast location in Herndon has been huge. Other data centers (which in the next decade will be gone and probably absorbed by Amazon) moved down to VA to reduce latency getting to AWS for their customers. Mostly in VA

2. Defense contractors. Mostly in VA.

3. Polarization of wealth in some areas. Montgomery County long ago used to have lots of MC workers. Wheaton was a higher end middle class neighborhood with country clubs. Now Wheaton is extremely poor. Most of the working middle class fled the growing poverty and crime eastern Montgomery county for Howard as they couldn't afford the western side. Smaller, regional businesses moved out of Montgomery County and took their middle class workers with them. This has meant that more people are competing for the lower crime/low poverty areas.

4. Gentrification of DC and start up businesses attracting millennials in DC, improved elementary schools in DC. This is driving DC's appreciation and higher wage earner population. The poverty is getting pushed into MD and a few burbs in VA. Its having a temporary impact on close in suburbs too.

5. Traffic and two income families. Everyone wants to be in Arlington because you can get to the high paying jobs in VA or the fed positions in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising income inequality means that some areas have become extremely expensive while others have stagnated.

In the 50s and 60s economic growth was more broad-based. Now many second-tier cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, even St. Louis have done pretty badly, HQs have moved to places like NYC. Wealth is concentrated in the tech sector, in lawyers, lobbyists and financiers. The places where people like that live have become very expensive as a result.

So Trump (even though he is a New Yorker) basically won because of second tier cities?

Umm, no. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis, and pretty much every single other "second tier city" in the US are all extremely Democratic.

I think there should be a distinction between 'Old' Democrats and modern ones like AOC in NYC.

Every city you listed basically took a huge dive the moment the 50s hit, the world wars ended, and industry money for long-held crafts like coal and railroad distribution went belly-up.

My point - the Old Democrat bastions are the ones that are longtime unionist strongholds that were prolific because of the companies that called those cities home.

No more companies no more revenue. No more revenue equals city circles drain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rising income inequality means that some areas have become extremely expensive while others have stagnated.

In the 50s and 60s economic growth was more broad-based. Now many second-tier cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, even St. Louis have done pretty badly, HQs have moved to places like NYC. Wealth is concentrated in the tech sector, in lawyers, lobbyists and financiers. The places where people like that live have become very expensive as a result.

So Trump (even though he is a New Yorker) basically won because of second tier cities?

Umm, no. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis, and pretty much every single other "second tier city" in the US are all extremely Democratic.