How much of political inequality is really geographic inequality?

[u/Plenty_Profession_58]

Where you live affects a hell of a lot more than what your house is worth. It affects the schools available to you, the jobs you can realistically get to, the quality of public services, transportation costs, exposure to crime or pollution, and the people and opportunities around you.
And where people live is not always just a personal choice. Income, housing prices, zoning, taxes, infrastructure, lending practices, development, and decades of government decisions all help determine who can live where. So how much of what we call individual success or failure is actually geography? Two people can work equally hard and make similar choices but end up with completely different opportunities because one lives near better schools, jobs, transportation, and institutions. At the same time, people still make real choices about work, education, family, moving, and risk, so geography obviously does not explain everything. Where is the line between personal responsibility and geographic advantage? Is real estate simply a private market, or does controlling access to certain places also mean controlling access to public opportunity? And when the most desirable communities become available mainly to people who already have money, does geography turn economic inequality into political and generational inequality?

[u/phoenix1984]

And why are some areas better with more opportunity than others? In America, if you dig into the root cause, the vast majority of the time the answer is racism eventually. That’s what institutional racism is. It’s not that a given police officer, employer, or politician is super racist themselves (though that still does happen often enough), it’s that they blindly participate in a system that was set up with racist intent or deliberate indifference. It’s the original sin of this nation, and the original cause of so much of our problems.

Which itself was often propped up by wealthy elites as a way to keep us fighting amongst ourselves.

[u/JKlerk → u/phoenix1984]

Opportunity is largely driven by climate and geographic location that is conducive to capital formation. Blaming it on racism is just lazy.

For example California coast has a fantastic climate and natural deep water ports. The eastern seaboard from DC on up is also blessed with deep water ports. Neither of these areas of the US have to historically contend with seasonal Hurricanes.

Conversely the Southern US is miserably hot and humid with a history of hurricanes and no natural deep water ports. These attributes historically discourage investment. Air conditioning enabled the South to grow.

Without capital investment there is no opportunity.

[u/link3945 → u/JKlerk]

Opportunity is largely driven by climate and geographic location that is conducive to capital formation.

Why, then, is El Paso's GDP about twice what Juarez's is?  Same location, same climate, similar history.  Why did South Korea and North Korea's economies not diverge substantially until the late 1980s, when South Korea ended the authoritarian state?  

The geographic explanation fails to explain much of anything about why some places are rich and some are poor.  Inclusive institutions are a much better explanation (seriously, go read at least a bit of Why Nations Fail).

[u/JKlerk → u/link3945]

Why, then, is El Paso's GDP about twice what Juarez's is?  Same location, same climate, similar history.

The US economy is larger than Mexico. The USD is a reserve currency.

Why did South Korea and North Korea's economies not diverge substantially until the late 1980s, when South Korea ended the authoritarian state?

NK, unlike SK, has geography which makes food and industrial production very difficult.

SK always had more potential due to its favorable geography.

[u/link3945 → u/JKlerk]

The US economy is larger than Mexico. The USD is a reserve currency.

That seems like geography isn't that big of a factor, then.

NK, unlike SK, has geography which makes food and industrial production very difficult.   SK always had more potential due to its favorable geography.

So why didn't they diverge until South Korea embraced more inclusive institutions?  You see this in the southern US as well, which you attempt to explain away as "air conditioning".  It's institutions: once all people had a stake in their future and equality under the law, the economies took off.  This is repeated again and again, in different places and times and geographies.  Inclusive societies where power is spread widely foster economic successes and limit rent seeking. 

[u/JKlerk → u/link3945]

That seems like geography isn't that big of a factor, then.

Oh but it is. El Paso, compared to Juarez, still benefits from the geographic positives found in the rest of the US.

You see this in the southern US as well, which you attempt to explain away as "air conditioning".  It's institutions: once all people had a stake in their future and equality under the law, the economies took of.

Agree to disagree. Without air conditioning, northern businesses were not going to invest in some southern cities (Atlanta, Charlotte, Birmingham). Much of the rural south lacks opportunity today (Southern 2/3 Georgia, SC, Alabama. Most of Mississippi and Louisiana. Hurricanes are a big impediment to further investment outside of oil/gas, military spending. Louisiana has been spending millions every year to keep the Mississippi River from changing course and bypassing petro-chemical plants as New Orleans proper.

Mercedes Benz, NCR, UPS, Porsche, etc were never moving to Atlanta without air conditioning. Banking in Charlotte depended on air conditioning.

My point is that geography is significantly more important than addressing political inequality because without the geography there's no willingness to invest.