From the New York Times: Study Finds Greater Income Inequality in Nation's Thriving Cities

The story cites a study published by the Brookings Institution.

Now here is a chart from that study showing the places in the USA with the highest rate of income inequality.



Is it just a coincidence that the cities with the highest rate of income inequality are all dominated by the Democratic Party?

But,but,but,but, Dumbocraps aren't bigoted.

Way Ta go Georgia.

cannot be extrapolated from this data could be artifact..

Here is the OP restated.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *



If Democrats want to combat income inequality in the USA, then perhaps they should start where it is the greatest ... in cities dominated by the Democratic Party.

As cited by the New York Times, the Brookings Institution has published a study that shows where in the USA income inequality is the greatest.

Here is a chart from the study that says plenty:



In an article published by the Huffington Post, Mark Gongloff writes the following:

"Cities tend to have higher inequality in part because they have more progressive politics, offering housing, transportation and other support to the poor, Berube notes in his study."

Those cities at the bottom half of the above chart also offer housing, transportation and other support to the poor. So, the second half of Gongloff's statement can be left out. He gets it right when he links progressive politics to greater income inequality.

So, if Democrats want to combat income inequality, then why don't they promote higher taxation in the cities with greatest income inequality? They can promote higher local taxation without promoting higher federal taxation.

Since income inequality is the greatest in particular cities (as shown in the above chart), why don't Democrats promote a minimum wage in those cities that is higher than the federal minimum wage? They can promote a higher local minimum wage without promoting a higher federal minimum wage.

Come on, Democrats, get to work! If you can't eliminate income inequality in the cities that you dominate, then why should anyone believe that you can eliminate income inequality throughout the entire USA?

One way to lessen "Income Inequality" would be to end Welfare; Money will always fly out of the hand of those who are careless with it, and into the bank accounts of those who care for it. Welfare is simply a means to enrich the wealthy as the poor become enslaved to the Government.

11 of the the top 21 counties with the highest median household income are in Maryland and Virginia and they all surround DC.

Grandmother always said; "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

I know I am about to offer a huge generalization, but from what I've seen here in my state, many, or most democrats will treat issues without putting much thought into solutions, or trying to predict outcomes. To many (and I've heard it mentioned by several here on mingle), doing "anything" is better than doing nothing.

For instance, here in Maine, legislation was written to expand welfare to include a broader base of clients on the healthcare front. Funding for this was an afterthought. Hospitals were forced to take patients, and the state, not being able to afford it, just wouldn't pay the bill. The result over the course of a decade or so, was the state owing our hospitals $400+ million, which is a ton of money for a low populated, low income state. This actually caused quite a few job cuts, and salary decreases.

Democrats wanted to expand healthcare again, without answering this debt. Our republican governor actually resorted to vetoing virtually everything that came across his desk until they payed back the money (a compromise was reached and some of the money was paid). He got a TON of backlash for this.

I believe Ben Franklin said "Never confuse motion for action".

That being said, I have wondered if the long-term effects of welfare is beneficial at all economically.

the only data given had nothing to do with democrats or liberal or progressive

that seems a commentorial afterthought and not based in anything provable


a safety net is a needed reality, not having it wont do anything to improve income inequality, except maybe in the small numbers who die off from not having food and shelter

according to latest numbers

there are 12.8 mill on 'welfare' (means tested programs people mostly complain about that help families)

46.7 mill on food stamps (means tested program people complain about that help families and individuals and elderly and handicapped to eat)

and 5.6 mill on unemployment insurance

that's a total of 65.4 mill total http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

roughly 1 in 5 americans receiving assistance,,,

many, if not most, being children, disabled, and elderly


I don't think its a liberal or conservative , or democrat or republican issue, its a cultural issue

fathers need to step up and support their kids

employers need to think as much about their employees bottom line as their own

incentives need to be in place to create jobs and employ AMERICANS

and the casual sex culture needs to get back to teaching parental responsibility and reality instead of all the glamourizing of romance, so that fewer kids are being born to those not prepared to be a father or mother or not wiling to support anyone but themselves,,,

and we need to have more allegiance to AMERICANS, and not just American ideals or the American flag

The top ten cities in that previously-posted chart are ruled by Democrats, and those cities have the greatest income inequality.

So, there appears to be circumstantial evidence that income inequality is the greatest where Democrats are in charge.

Do you rest your case?

Why wonder, you know the answer.

Starvation sure is a driving force.

what EXACTLY does 'ruled by democrats' mean?

so is being without shelter

but only as long as it takes to die

which , probably, will often be less time than it takes to make income that can provide the food or shelter,,

Uh, the same thing as "The U.S. Senate is currently ruled by Democrats," and, "The White House is currently ruled by Democrats."

As I said earlier, there appears to be circumstantial evidence that income inequality is the greatest where Democrats are in charge.

Perhaps just as it should be. Those that refuse to provide for themselves receive their just rewards. The lord looks after those that look after themselves.

improper analogy

white house is one building, with one understood 'lead' person

that is a quantifiable conclusion because there only requires pointing to ONE Person

as is the senate (two buildings),also wit a quantifiable number of reps and senators which can have a majority


as opposed to a whole CITY

so , how are we determining what party ' rules' a city?

refusing to and not being able to , are different things

http://mises.org/daily/5850/The-Liberation-of-the-Demons


well underway again!