this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
91 points (97.9% liked)

politics

24826 readers
2730 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It’s no secret that America is an increasingly polarized nation. It stands to follow that our places of residence would also be divided. But instead of a donkey and an elephant, the new emblems of each party might as well be an unowned apartment in a big city and a home in the suburbs. Just consider what Aziz Sunderji has stumbled onto.

For nearly three years, Sunderji has been writing Home Economics, a Substack that has morphed from a graphic meditation on personal finance issues to a specific housing focus. With almost 14 years as a Barclays analyst under his belt, along with a stint as a graphics reporter at the Wall Street Journal, Sunderji dives deep into data, and has become increasingly housing-oriented. For instance, he was published in the Financial Times in January 2023 with a stark warning: “Spare a thought for the American first-time homebuyer, for whom things have rarely looked so grim.” But grimness has shades.

As Sunderji recently explained in a post called “The politics of housing: owner/renter polarization,” he’s surprised by what he’s found after intensive analysis. “I had not imagined how much of a stark divide there is between renters and owners,” he told Fortune in an interview.

Sunderji’s analysis dove into data from the American National Election Studies (which surveys thousands of households) and found homeowners are twice as likely to identify themselves as strongly Republican than renters—and renters far more often identify themselves as strongly Democrat. And the gap between homeowners who identify as strongly Republican compared to renters amounts to roughly 14%, his recent analysis showed. In the dataset, there was a seven-point scale in which voters were asked to gauge their political affiliation, and “the most common response from renters is that they are strong Democrats and from homeowners, that they’re strong Republicans,” he told Fortune.

all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Homeowner here: would just like to say that I wouldn’t identify as a Republican even with a gun to my head.

That being said, I live in a liberal city where there are rich Republicans that love being assholes but enjoy the benefits of our liberal policies.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like the Ohio car dealer who is throwing his gay son under the fascist bus so he can be senator?

He was all for gay rights, then WHA-BAM! go ahead and kill my son guys. I just want to be senator SO BADLY!

Kind of makes me wonder what he'll do to our government for more power.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

You're telling me that a car dealer might be unethical?

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same and I wouldn’t either.

I think this is just some more urban rural divide stuff. It’s a lot easier to be a homeowner in rural places, since cities have much more expensive real estate and renting is more common. So rural people are more likely to be republicans and urban people are more likely not to be.

[–] tuckerm@supermeter.social 5 points 1 year ago

I think this is just some more urban rural divide stuff.

I'm guessing that "homeowner vs. renter" is actually serving as shortcut for some other demographic differences. (To be fair, the author mentions that in the last paragraph, and says that his next posts will dig deeper into that.)

Like you said, it's easier to afford a home in rural areas. So, a homeowner is more likely rural.

Also, owning a home was much easier 20 years ago. So, a homeowner is more likely older as well.

[–] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 14 points 1 year ago

I think this follows in most nations that the less you have the more likely you are to lean towards the left side of you nations political spectrum. And the more you have the more likely you lean towards the right side. Home ownership is one part of that, a fairly big part given the state of home pricing these days.

Really it's always been about the class struggle, of the have nots vs the haves, rich vs poor, bourgeois vs proletariat, whatever you want to call it. The US has just done a "better" job of muddying the waters and suffocating organized class warfare.

Mainly by instilling that you're not really poor because you're within reach of being a millionaire. The American dream. (Which you need to be asleep to believe in as Carlin put it.).

Though I'm not really holding my breath on people actually waking up to this reality and actually doing something about it. The Circus seems to suffice in the US, and any struggle and violence is directed between marginalized groups. People in declining rural areas "fighting" people from the worst parts of the cities. Middle class suburbians opposing the choices of other middle class suburbians that just want freedom of expression but that somehow limits the first group in ways they can't even articulate when asked. It's madness.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


For nearly three years, Sunderji has been writing Home Economics, a Substack that has morphed from a graphic meditation on personal finance issues to a specific housing focus.

With almost 14 years as a Barclays analyst under his belt, along with a stint as a graphics reporter at the Wall Street Journal, Sunderji dives deep into data, and has become increasingly housing-oriented.

For instance, he was published in the Financial Times in January 2023 with a stark warning: “Spare a thought for the American first-time homebuyer, for whom things have rarely looked so grim.” But grimness has shades.

Their research shows that wage differences affect home purchasing power and suggests that moving to higher-income areas can effectively be a wash because subsequent housing prices are so high.

The generation reports that they are struggling to make ends meet and build enough wealth to even enter the thorny housing market, while living with more roommates because even renting has gotten too costly.

And in an election year, with two presidential candidates who tend to further exacerbate an existing divide, a haves and have-nots housing market doesn’t help.


The original article contains 1,107 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!