The Sorting Election
International New York Times | 13 October 2014
Everybody
knows that Silicon Valley has become an economic powerhouse over the
past quarter-century, but Houston’s boom is less appreciated. Joel
Kotkin of Chapman University points out that over the past decade,
Houston has outperformed every major metropolitan area in income growth,
population growth and migration. Since 2000, the city’s employment
figures have risen by 32 percent, ranking it No. 1 in percentage job
growth. In August, Houston issued more single-family housing permits
than all of California.
The
Bay Area and Houston share a strategic asset: engineers. The two
regions rank first and second in the country in engineers per capita.
Beyond that, they are thriving on the basis of very different growth
models.
Obviously,
the Bay Area is driven by technology. Houston’s growth is driven by
energy. More than 5,000 energy-related companies are located there. The
Bay Area is a tightly regulated city. Houston has no formal zoning code,
though, as the city gets more affluent, more rules are being written.
The Bay Area is beautiful in the way urbanists like, while Houston is
mostly ugly, in the way fast-food chains like. The Bay Area is densely
populated and great for walking, while Houston is sprawling, though much
of the development over the past few years has been high-density
hipster infill.
The
Bay Area is the hands-down winner when it comes to creativity and
charm. But it’s a luxury region, unaffordable and wildly unequal.
Houston wins when it comes to livability, especially for people who want
to have children.
Kotkin, who has become an evangelist for the Houston model, points out that Houston is possibly the most ethnically diverse city in America. It’s more egalitarian than San Francisco. African-Americans and Hispanics there have high home ownership rates. Houstonians also enjoy a pretty high standard of living. If you take annual earnings per job and adjust it for the local cost of living, then Houston ranks top among major cities.
Over
the past few years, liberals and conservatives have been arguing over
which growth model is best. But, of course, there’s no need to choose.
Both models are more or less working.
What
we’re seeing, it seems to me, is a profusion of economic growth models
in different parts of the country — a net increase in economic pluralism
and diversity. Perhaps even more than in the past, cities are
specializing, turning into global hubs for a specific economic sector.
This
diversity is an enormous economic advantage for the country, and an
enormous social and political challenge. As the country diversifies
economically, it segments socially and politically. Each economic sector
attracts different kinds of people and nurtures different kinds of
values. The specialization of output means that every place becomes more
like itself.
In
addition, as society gets more educated, it segments further. Educated
people are more polarized politically than less educated people.
Educated people are also more likely to move around and tend to move in
with people like themselves. Over the past few decades, we’ve seen
increases in residential segregation along political, income and
cultural lines.
As
the years go by, politics more and more resembles these underlying
divisions. I used to think that this was basically a centrist country
and that political polarization was an elite phenomenon. But most of the
recent evidence suggests that polarization is deeply rooted in the
economic conditions and personal values of the country. Washington is
not the cause of polarization; America is. The irony is that something
good about America (economic pluralism) is contributing to something bad
(segmentation and political trench warfare).
Which
more or less explains the midterm elections. The 2014 campaign has been
the most boring and uncreative campaign I can remember. Democrats cry,
“My Republican opponent is an extremist loon!” Republicans cry, “My
Democratic opponent once shook hands with President Obama!” There’s not
even a Contract With America, nor many policy suggestions of any sort.
Most campaigns just remind preconvinced voters how bad the other party
is.
One
result of the election is already clear. Political representation will
more closely resemble the underlying social segmentation. Right now
there are a lot of red states with Democratic senators. After this
election, there will be fewer — probably between four and nine fewer.
The election is about sorting people more tightly into their
pre-existing boxes.
People
often compare this era to the progressive era — a time of economic
transition with wide inequality and political rot. But that was an era
of centralizing economic forces. This is an era of economic pluralism
and political segmentation.
People
in San Francisco and Houston are achieving success while pursuing
different economic models. It probably doesn’t make much sense to govern
them intrusively from Washington as if they were engaged in the same
project.
No comments:
Post a Comment