The scholar of cities, Richard Florida, makes a telling observation at Bloomberg View about the political conflicts over American cities. Rather than being a conflict between haves and have nots, the conflict is overwhelming between different factions of haves:
True, many “creatives” are undoubtedly struggling and being priced out of their neighborhoods. But, empirically speaking, even though the vast majority of them are not truly wealthy, their aggregate economic situation puts them closer to the company of a more advantaged urban elite, and a world away from that of the less-advantaged service class.
This becomes clear when we take into account the amount of money that artists and other cultural creatives have left over after paying for housing. In New York, artists and other cultural creatives have, on average, $52,750 left over after paying for housing, less than tech workers ($65,900) and business and financial professionals ($88,770), but nearly three times more than service workers ($16,800).
So, put bluntly, some of the noisiest controversies regarding our changing cities spring from the competing factions of a new urban elite. The real debate is to what extent the incredible wealth generated by tech startups can and does contribute to the growing gaps between the advantaged and less advantaged.
It was always thus. Civil war is always between competing factions of the ruling class. Although the poor may be the cannon fodder and the wars may be fought nominally on their behalf, the real combatants are differing factions of the elite.
Sadly, the peasant are never revolting but the aristocrats are.
That is actually Peter Turchin’s thesis, that political turmoil occurs when elites begin struggling over limited resources, which can be anything they jointly desire, like Senate seats.
Turchin expects widespread political violence to begin in the 2020’s. It looks like he is an optimist.
Or Supreme Court justices?