I'm watching some Election Day CNN, and the focus is on white working class voters in Ohio. A round-table of white men in their fifties and sixties, some of whom have been laid off from manufacturing jobs, concluded that they wish I'm watching some Election Day CNN, and the focus is on white working class voters in Ohio. A round-table of white men in their fifties and sixties, some of whom have been laid off from manufacturing jobs, concluded that they wish John Edwards was still in the race, and that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has truly explained how they plan to deal with income inequality and joblessness. (For more on this critique, see Kevin Mattson and John Gilliom's piece on "Where Democrats Went Wrong in Ohio").
But with both Kate and Matt Yglesias writing today about rising home costs and gentrification, I got to thinking about an economic message that, despite being common sensible, probably isn't what most swing voters are wanting to hear: How about renting? As Matt writes, what's tying so many Americans to depressed labor markets such as Ohio and Michigan is ownership of homes with little value, since many people are anxious to leave areas with bad job prospects. Last year, I wrote about research showing that high home-ownership rates correlate with high unemployment, and that unless you are planning on staying in one job and one home for more than five years, you are more likely to end up financially ahead after renting than after buying.
