Constructive Feedback, a conservative blogger in metro Atlanta, Ga. opines: "USA Today: Youth populations drop 1.2M in Northeast, Midwest The front line focus in this article says 'where the jobs and opportunity are - people will follow'. Certainly this was the case during the 'California Gold Rush'. Certainly this was the case as Southern Blacks moved north to Chicago, Detroit, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore to fill the abundant factory jobs and to escape the oppressive racial bigotry that had them economically and socially stultified. The point that is missing from the story's analysis is the ideological and political consequences from this migration. I posted a story a few weeks ago that noted the likely decline in congressional representation in many of these same states (plus Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York) due to a loss in population. This merely shows that the states in the South and the Southwest will receive more representatives from their state. Indeed since the headcount in the [C]ongress is a 'zero sum game' the loss by some states is a gain by others. Yahoo News - Northeastern States Projected To Lose Congressional Representation".More: "When I listen to such people [like an Atlanta talk show host] focus on the 'blue-ification' of the South and the 'progression' that this portends I never hear them focus on the areas of the nation that they have already 'won'. Instead the 'Republican South' will one day receive its redemption from its 'slave past' once the Democratic Party comes in and takes over. The one point of fact that is rarely mentioned is that the South WAS SOLIDLY DEMOCRATIC when these sins were committed. Only the tale of the 'Southern Strategy' used by the Republicans allows these people to rationalize and affirm their views. The truth is that many of these Southern states elected their first Republican governors and state legislatures long after Richard Nixon vanished from power. The key point that is lacking in the progressive's 'Self-Prescription' is the focus upon the static views of the 'Flying Progressives" from the North.' It is all too clear that these Northern states are suffering from economic erosion. Despite the labor left's 'victory' they now stand on ground that no longer produces sufficient economic opportunity to retain their young people. We must also make note that the ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY known as 'progressivism' never suffers the consequences for their deeds in this regard."
Constructive Feedback continues his commentary about regional demographics in the United States: "These young upstarts who see the world ahead of them merely look to the places that are coming alive and they add their bodies and their consciousness to these places. With their youth and their ideology affixed they are seen by the Progressive Political Establishment as one more drop in the bucket that will tip the balance in the party's favor. This is a clear example of the distinction between POPULARITY and EFFECTIVENESS. Since these young people are inclined to support that which feels most comfortable with their present consciousness it is highly unlikely that they will look at the prevailing powers in the North and vote to REPUDIATE those who provoked them to depart per their control over the region."
To comment on "Regional Demographic Studies" post, click here.
25 comments:
Well Shay - at least all of the foolishness that Mark-M and TD were talking can't be held against them since it has disappeared.
The poor boy done lost his gourd!
You haven't looked at any recent population trend numbers, huh?
One of the outgrowths of the current recession is the migration to the South has stopped - and in some cases reversed itself...
Which is why counties like the one Flava Flatulence lives in, have as much as 20% of the houses in the county in foreclosure.
It's not the South's fault, nor could I be as stupid as Flava Flatz and claim it is a political issue (nobody else in the world is THAT stupid, including those dudes on those TV Reality shows who variously put themselves into the hospital with Darwin eliminating acts!).
CS, here is what your focus too much on microeconomics rather than macroeconomics. The population shifts are indeed real. Many northern cities are seeing population declines. But isn't that more the difference between mature economies and new economies more than red and blue politics.
I mean, blue politics have been a part of the Midwest and Northeast since before America's industrial revolution (a revolution that largely bypassed the South). For most of this country's history, both income and wealth have bypassed the South for the West and North.
It is probably more economically reasonable to assume that the law of equalization is taking effect in the country just as it is taking place globally. Just as Europe was the main economic engine for centuries, manufacturing and populations moved to areas where they can squeeze more profits or live in places with lower costs of living. Those factors are marginally a product of liberal/conservative politics and more a product of economic development.
For example, labor is probably very cheap in the Congo as there are no rules, no unions, no regulatory structure as compared to South Africa. Yet, where do you think a manufacturer would choose to place a plant? I would guess they would choose South Africa b/c of its laws, infrastructure and human capital. Those asset are a product of economic development. Economic development requires an investment in laws, regulations, education, etc. It has little to do with the very narrow differences between American liberalism and conservatism.
Mark M well put.
[quote]But isn't that more the difference between mature economies and new economies more than red and blue politics.[/quote]
Mark-M: You always fail to "as the next logical question" when you challenge me.
You NEED ME to be arguing: "If the GOP took over the north - the economy would start booming".
INSTEAD I am actually arguing:
1) Even with this latest news the Black Establishment will NOT to begin to scrutinize the veracity of the claim that "What is good for the Democrats is good for Black folks" and thus DECOUPLE the "Racial Political Drives" that we are treated to. If they were legitimately interested in our best interests - this latest round of structural bad news would be centered around GETTING IT RIGHT the next time. This can only happen with a LEADERSHIP PURGE which will only happen with a TRANSPARENT entity that stands between the Black Political operatives and our "Racial Nucleus".
2) "The Blue South" is seen "Final Frontier" which will stop out the antagonists that have stood in the way of the BLACK and WORKER utopia of their dreams.
In summary Mark-M YOU and others will never take the establishment to task about the errors of their assumptions. They were merely "STRUGGLING AGAINST"
CS, if you want to take the establishment to task, please do so. But basing it on demographic shift, as you do here, makes little sense. Also, please note that even in your piece you move carelessly from the North/South divide to "Flying Progressives", thus failing to adequately articulate where responsibilities begin and end.
You supposition lacks adherence to any form of measurement or delineation.
[QUOTE] But isn't that more the difference between mature economies and new economies more than red and blue politics.[/QUOTE]
Mark-M: Do you have any reports of the "non-unionized" work forces at:
* BMW - South Carolina
* Gulfstream Aircraft - Georgia
* Boeing - coming to South Carolina
* Hyundia - Alabama
* Toyota - Kentucky
* Kia - Georgia
* Volkswagen - Tennessee
being BEATEN by their managers at their workplace BECAUSE they don't have union representation?
Here is what frustrates me Mark-M - If you listen to the "Labor Ideologues" they primary way that America will return to the top is when LABOR UNIONS return to POWER to represent the workers. From this BETTER PAY will be had and prosperity will follow.
What about this struggle is not MACRO-ECONOMIC Mark M?
These forces drove their issues and pushed their own interests of the cliff!! They drove up costs of production and had their consciousness stunted by notions of "These GREEDY EXECUTIVES are rich and the corporate coffers are endless.....they can AFFORD TO PAY US!!!".
Mark-M there needs to be language developed that describe the narrative of the decline of the North that is very different than what is popular: "Greedy companies MOVED THEIR OPERATIONS OVERSEAS FOR PURSUIT OF PROFITS".
When I see you and others talk about GOVERNMENT DEBT with the same contempt that some of you have for PROFITS - then we may move closer to a middle ground of understanding.
CS, why are the most productive segments of America in blue areas?
[quote]CS, why are the most productive segments of America in blue areas?[/quote]
Now the conversation spirals into the "same ole same".
Mark-M - can we agree that at a ZIP CODE LEVEL that the "Northern Black" and the "Southern Black" experience the same fate?
My ultimate argument is that DESPITE what we were sold once "favored people got into power" HAS NOT WORKED AS PROMISED yet those who were "selling" ultimately "exposed" what they were really after (Democratic and Ideological power) and GOT IT!!!!
Mark-M your question above is akin to "WE are prospering because Massa....." (Oops I had to stop myself because I don't do "Slave analogies").
Hardly, it is you who has made the argument that politics is a prime factor in economic devlelopment in America, at least. Right? Black folk are wedded to black liberal politics, but have seen little in return. Right.
If so, it would logically follow that white folk who follow the same liberal policies, should get to the same result. If not, you need to explain the difference for if you can't, your thesis falls apart.
The fact is that black political leadership only marginally effects the progression of black people. That is a conclusion you fail to recognize. White folk can go on their merry way literally untouched by politics in their everyday lives, but, for some reason, the rise and fall of black people is a product of their leaders.
[quote] But basing it on demographic shift, as you do here, makes little sense.[/quote]
Mark-M:
You are in gross denial!!
What do you think is motivating the "demographic shift"?
Mark-M you pretend that the aggregate political and economic choices of the North had no bearing on their present condition.
[quote]failing to adequately articulate where responsibilities begin and end.[/quote]
I disagree with you. I do this incessantly. I state that the best agreement is one that is ENDURING over the long run, not one that maximizes one side's interests while setting up an implosion.
How many times have you heard me state that heavy manufacturing firms that have built up multi-hundred billion dollar plants in the unionized North had little choice but to acquiesce to the demands from their labor and thus bear the costs. HOWEVER when that plant hit the End of Life and thus the companies had to decide to retool the existing plant or to SEEK OUT other places with a more favorable set of conditions - the choice was clear.
Again, Mark-M you are LOATHED to talk about any negative effects of your ideological preferences.
You say "new economy" / "old economy" then you ask me about "Which region is more productive". IF someone did this very same judgement on "productivity" at the zip code level this would be grounds for being called a bigot or at least "Blaming the victim". In fact this is what the White Conservatives are called when they compare the educational outcomes between two adjacent towns - one white and the other black.
Uhhhhh Stooopid! - "The black Establishment" doesn't control any state!
Before you can speak intelligently about economics, or politics for that matter you can't be too stupid to not know the difference between local, county, state, and federal government...
Not to mention their respective roles.
The reason this post is an exercise in buckdancing ignorance is that the creation of a cheap labor pool in the United States isn't necessarily beneficial to the economy...
Because if the workers make less...
They buy less.
Meaning that once you get into a recession...
It's very difficult to get out.
[quote]it would logically follow that white folk who follow the same liberal policies, should get to the same result. If not, you need to explain the difference for if you can't, your thesis falls apart. [/quote]
Mark-M:
The WHITE FOLKS in the "Rust Belt" regions (look at Flint, Rochester, Buffalo, York PA, etc) are suffering gross economic hardship while still living on the "other side of the tracks".
Again Mark-M WE DID NOT HEAR SUCH "qualifications" about what MIGHT NOT OCCUR despite our VOTING. We were told AFFIRMATIVELY what would happen once we got school administrators who "loved our children and had our best interests in mind". I think what you resent the most Mark-M is that I am merely THROWING THESE WORDS BACK AT YOU.
Even wealthy enclaves within cities are near BANKRUPTCY - unable to provide for the abundant social safety net.
In your world view we will not hear about the "New York City" which despite its "progressive" orientation received BILLIONS from the Wall Street firms that it is a sport to attack. When Wall Street didn't pay out its bonuses in 2008 - NEW YORK CITY felt it bad Mark-M.
Here is where we stand Mark-M: I say again that you ultimately show no "cost" or consequence assigned to the popular course of action that the Black Establishment prompted us to go. You key in upon the areas where "White liberals" that subscribe to the same ideology have not suffered the same fate as the Negro.
You do Regional comparisons
You do state level comparisons
You are even willing to do racial comparisons (white liberals/Black liberals) as long as it is done as an indictment of my theories.
The one comparison that you are loathed to do is the one in which the establishment forces have taken over where Black people live in our highest concentrations and thus you inspect if the INSTITUTIONS are delivering upon our needs:
* Producing sufficient jobs to retain people
* Leveraging the educational institutions that they now run to prepare our children strategically for the future
* Evaluating the social/cultural controls that bear down upon the people so that their behavior and respect for the law is in line with what we need the masses to do as individuals to achieve a greater end
Mark-M I TALK ABOUT DEMOCRATS with the hopes that you and others will DEMAND MORE from this fatally embedded force.
What else should I do as I see them taking over every institution, running them for a sufficient amount of time and STILL the base of Black people remains loyal DESPITE the results that have fallen short?
I am not sure that I am the problem here Mark-M.
[quote]"The black Establishment" doesn't control any state![/quote]
BET Uncut is just like my frat brother that I debate with via e-mail. After getting him to admit that the Democrats run Philly he told me about how the Republicans STILL can derail the affairs of the city at the STATE LEVEL. (Unwilling to pass gun control).
When I point out that in NJ, NY, IL MD and MI that there is no "Republican Majority" threat to speak of - he merely finds some other point of obfuscation. In summary he is going to always focus on why WE CAN'T DO than what someone should EXPECT THEM TO DO after obtaining power.
Notice how BET Uncut places the new "goal post" upon "controlling the STATE". He won't mention that despite not being BLACK - there has been no WHITE DEMOCRAT STATE OFFICIAL that has been unworthy of his vote in the general election. The only goal of BET Uncut is to obfuscate the point.
There is little IDEOLOGICAL difference between the Black Progressive-Fundamentalist and a White one. I can't think of a Black leader who could go onto "Democracy Now" or the "Rachel Maddow show" and NOT be "among friends and ideological soulmates".
Thus this claim of running the state is a rouse.
What BET Uncut SHOULD BE noting is the times when the "Black Vote" told the "State Democrats" -- "WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU UNLESS YOU ALLOCATE THE RESOURCES & CONTRACTS TO US THAT WE DEMAND".
If liberal policies are the problem of whites too, why has the liberal north and west outproduced the conservative south?
First you stated we need to get zip code specific. Yet that doesn't matter in terms of production and party affiliation.
The fact is that Democrats largely control the most productive parts of the North and West, regions that dwarf the south. If liberal policies are the reason why whites and blacks are leaving the North, then one must explain why the liberal, union, highly regulated north and west outproduce the conservative, lightly regulated South.
That the reason for this has little to do with the narrow distinctions b/t American liberalism and conservatism and more to do with basic outcomes of maturation and competition is something you just don't want to deal with.
Mark:
On point -- that's exactly it.
CS should simply end all of his rants with ... therefore, we should become Republicans.
It would save a helluva lot of time and bandwidth.
*
CS makes a good point that manufacterers have moved plants, whether to other states or countries, to avoid unions.
But the problem is not that the unions are economically disfunctional, corrupt or ineffective, but that they have not been able to go global at the same scale as multinational corporations. This is mainly because authoritarian governments in low-wage countries make unions illegal or severely limit their activities. Also, many other cultures do not "get" the function of a union. Because multinational corporations are global while unions are not, it is easy for corporations to avoid and punish unions and union workers by taking away jobs.
(Of course, there is also the problem that unions are a form of power, and hence subject to corruption themselves, but no more so than any other form of organization that concentrates power.)
Bottom line, the rules of global economics are slanted in favor of corporations, so it should be no surprise that unions generally lose over time. Sounds like CS thinks that unions should just give up the fight. It took heroic acts of courage and self-sacrifice to start and grow unions in the first place, over coming the slanted rules. Some would say that only a fool fights against superior powers. But I say fighting for economic justice is worth fighting against the odds.
Mark-M:
So in your "Jedi Mind Trick" I am more on the hook for explaining the "economic productivity" of the North? (as they are ideological based) All the while YOU feel no compulsion to explain the mass EXODUS from these same places? (and the exodus is not ideologically based)
Stunning.
[quote]If liberal policies are the problem of whites too, why has the liberal north and west outproduced the conservative south?[/quote]
Mark-M can you put an "ideology" upon Wall Street? Madison Avenue? The broadcasting that takes place out of 30 Rock?
You pretend that both North and South fit neatly into an "ideological box".
I started out my argument attempting to focus upon the NARRATIVE that is nowhere to be found. These are the words that describe the deflation of the Northern manufacturing base that argues "Greed" but not the typical greed from "consumers of labor".
I see no other way to jettison IDEOLOGICALLY BASED POLITICAL PROMISES than by first talking about them and then noting their FAILURE. You read my original article and then immediately attempted to argue that there was no "ideological" impetus behind the present state of affairs nor the exodus.
I think that the analogy of a "prescription" works best. We were told that one pill would cure us and the other would kill us. We are now addicted to one pill and we are still in pain Mark-M. At what point do you start questioning the prescribing doctor?
[quote]
First you stated we need to get zip code specific. Yet that doesn't matter in terms of production and party affiliation.[/quote]
OF COURSE IT DOES!!!!! What are you talking about?
Mark-M - I have noted from the past debates with your cohorts on this board - those who lob attack at the state level are loathed to get more granular.
You and Rachel Maddow seek to talk about the poor people in the South and make indictments about the prevailing ideology in the state government. At the same time when it comes to noting that, for example, the 16th District in NYC has the highest rate of POVERTY in the nation (yes even beyond any district in Mississippi) this news doesn't cause you to refrain from your claims.
We can go all around the world on this one Mark-M. The fact remains that despite the control that the machine that you favor has today - the grievances remain abundant.
Ironically the continued grievances merely promote a greater likelihood of more support for the machine because their struggle is not done yet.
[quote]Sounds like CS thinks that unions should just give up the fight.[/quote]
BD - not at all.
I might surprise you in saying that I SUPPORT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
I simply don't like the POLITICAL ANTICS of most unions.
On one can call me "anti-union" any more than a frequent critic of corporations could be called "anti-capitalistic".
BD - the key point is that the unino leadership can't see the impact of their run up of COST OF PRODUCTION has in the choices of the corporations.
This is why I refer to corporations as "CONSUMERS OF LABOR".
Tell me BD - if you are a CONSUMER at your local grocery story and an economically bigoted store manager figured that you were loaded with money and thus he set out to raise his costs for groceries for you. IF you saw this increase, understood his motivations but also noted that you had other outlets to shop @......would YOU be compelled to stay put in the area where YOU are the bad guy and the cause of all of the angst or would you move to a more favorable market and then play the Kool Mo D song "How Ya Like Me Now"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBNIfdHQ8v8
Flava Flatulence stinks up the place with -
When I point out that in NJ, NY, IL MD and MI that there is no "Republican Majority" threat to speak of - he merely finds some other point of obfuscation.
Uhhhhhh... until the last election the New York State Senate had been under Republican control for nearly 30 years, moron. Governorships have been about evenly split between parties with Republicans in control 26 of the last 49 years (1960). Democrats have controlled the Assembly for 30 years.
No "Credible Republican Majority threat"?
Are you an ignorant ass...
Or just a stupid one?
Mark you tried. He just doesn't want to get it. You make major sense, bro.
[quote]until the last election the New York State Senate had been under Republican control for nearly 30 years, moron[/quote]
BET Uncut - 2 points.
1) Take away NY then.
You still didn't address MD, NJ, IL, WI, MI
2)Do you see it as ironic that you talk about what "until the last 30 years" in New York BUT you are one of those who propagate the SOUTHERN STRATEGY when most Southern States did not have their legislatures and/or governors turn Republican until last decade - long after the oft talked about Nixon-era campaign.
Georgia, for example, has its first Republican governor since Reconstruction who's second term will finish in 2011. The State House and State Senate is now GOP majority for about 6 years.
These facts STILL has not stopped "Democrats who are Black" from ranting and raving about the Southern Strategy. Instead you all need to focus on the "Urban Strategy" used by the Democrats which has been so fruitful.......for THEM but a disaster for Black Organic Consciousness.
[quote]Mark you tried. He just doesn't want to get it. You make major sense, bro.[/quote]
TR - Mark-M TRIED to do what?
Obfuscate?
Once I "get it" please detail the enlightened state I will be in?
It appears that in your world once I "get it" I will accept the fact that despite the painful evidence before me I should accept the "inferiority" of the Black establishment powers that now run Detroit, for example, in conjunction with the Democratic Progresses - to blunt the impact of the losses in the auto manufacturing business over time by investing into the academic and business incubation infrastructure to move forward with less damage to their standard of living?
CS - Corporations are definitely "consumers of labor" and shop for the best deal they can get. But we should not fool ourselves into believing that this corporate behavior is in the best interests of society as a whole, as conservatives are often wont to assert based on an incomplete grasp of economics and a tendency to make capitalism into a quasi religion.
You're right that unions are often myopic about the forces that they are really up against, and fail to consider that companies may move jobs if they make labor too costly. I live in the Seattle area, and the Boeing unions here are living that pain, up close and personal. But at the same time, the unions are not the ones moving the jobs. The UAW made a lot of concessions here in the US, but it only emboldened the corporations to drive against them even harder.
Bottom line, unions are losing ground these days, and the corporations are smelling blood in the water and pressing even harder. You should be more worried about what's going to happen to labor over the next 10 years with unions weakened and a conservative leaning Supreme Court. Everything is aligned to keep concentrating wealth... and while this may be the "natural" outcome of the game of business, it isn't healthy for society.
Post a Comment