[api]

The main criticism I’ve always had about it is this: that it’s fake.

Take San Francisco as a prime example. It’s a place full of people who style themselves as progressive or “woke” or whatever but a starter home is unachievable to anyone without an exit event or a $400k salary. It has one of the widest rich/poor divisions of anywhere I’ve ever seen in the USA. Major industries include mass surveillance and addictive forms of media, and I have no idea how anyone who isn’t in a high six figure job can live well there let alone raise a family.

SF is not progressive at all, except in rhetoric.

[briandear]

The greatest wealth inequality is always in the bluest of cities. See New Haven, CT for dramatic examples.

[api]

I think the arrow of causation goes both ways. Cities tend to be blue. Places with a lot of knowledge work or academia tend to be blue, have higher salaries, and thus have runaway housing costs due to the fact that America has chronically under built housing for over 30 years.

Still I don’t think that lets them totally off the hook since they obviously don’t care that much, otherwise they would advocate for better housing and zoning policies to make housing more affordable.

So I do think this issue points to a fundamental un-seriousness in the supposed commitment to equity.

The right is not necessarily better, e.g. blaming housing costs on immigration instead of underbuilding. But they are not the ones posturing as deeply concerned about equity.

Some red areas do accidentally have better housing policies because they tend to be pro development, but this isn’t because they care about the poor. It’s because they are okay with building and that has a side effect of controlling prices. Example: Texas.

Summary: both sides suck, but blue areas are also hypocrites.