Congressional District Effect on Inequality

Whic congresspeople represent the middle class? Obviously, that's one for partisan debate. But we can decipher which one's have disproportionate shares of the middle class as their constituency. Here is a look at the effect of congressional districts on the overall income ineqaulity of the US. Alot of people in the middle improves eqaulity, a large portion on either extreme hurts it. The below analysis is similar to a previous one on the states. One big difference is that CDs have similar population, so size is much less a factor.

CD's that increase the income equality in the US:

1. Arizona 2
2. Utah 3
3. Pennsylvania 19
4. Wisconsin 6
5. Nevada 3
6. Arizona 6
7. Utah 1
8. Idaho 1
9. Indiana 3
10. Wisconsin 3

That's six current Republicans, three Democrats, and one open seat for those keeping score. Actually, these districts are fairly Republican as a group, but that shouldn't surprise. Republican geographical areas are located away from the coasts and away from large urban cores. And that's precisely where income inequality is most significant, along with rural areas in the South. Note that none of these are in the South.

And the other end of the spectrum:

1. New York 8
2. New York 14
3. New York 16
4. New York 15
5. California 30
6. Connecticut 4
7. Illinois 7
8. Michigan 13
9. Georgia 5
10. California 14

So, 100% of these are in the largest metro areas of the US. And most are urban cores with a high numbers of low-income, minority populations. A few represent very high income areas, such as the CA and CT districts. And all are represented by D's, which again, is no surprise since large urban areas are the party's stronghold. Only one is even competitive and that's CT 4.

So, the GOP tends to literally represent the middle class to a greater degree than the Dems. Of course, who represents this group with their actual votes will always be the debate.

States Effect on US Income Inequality

Previous posts have focused on internal income equality within states. That is a bit different than the overall effect a state has on US inquality. First, larger states have a greater effect, given their larger populations. Second, a state with high internal equality may negatively effect overall US equality by being, on average, far above or below the US mean. So which states hurt most the US income inqality distribution?

1. New York
2. California
3. New Jersey
4. Massachusetts
5. Texas
6. Mississippi
7. Alabama
8. Connecticut
9. Louisiana
10. Kentucky

One western state, four northeastern states, and five southern states. An interesting partisan mix as well, with five strongly conservative and five strongly liberal states. The states that improve equality the most are:

1. Florida
2. Wisconsin
3. Indiana
4. Pennsylvania
5. Minnesota
6. Washington
7. Iowa
8. Utah
9. Nevada
10. Arizona

Big Ten country takes up much of this list (five states), along with four western states. And Florida is the one large state that actually improves income inequality. An interesting partisan mix here as these are some of the more competitive states in elections (Utah the obvious exception). There's not enough evidence to draw any conclusions on politics and income inequality, but this observation is at least interesting.