Take a look at this map, because it doesn't show you what you think it shows you: nytimes.com/interactive/20…
(A thread)
/1
(A thread)
/1
The geographical dispersion of whether or not people have stayed at home (or closer to home) looks, at first, glance, like a red state-blue state thing. But it's not.
/2
/2
Look closer. For one thing, there is a discrepancy between the red south and the red midwest. Second, there are differences within red states.
/3
/3
Look, for example, at North Carolina: Most of the state kept traveling even as people were told to lock down, with two big exceptions: the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill metro area, and the Charlotte metro area.
/4
/4
Yes, those two areas are big(ish) urban agglomerations, which also tend to vote blue. But note what you can't see on the map: the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point metro area (which also tends to vote blue).
What gives?
/5
What gives?
/5
Well, wealth, for one thing. Median household income in Wake County (Raleigh) is $81k, $80k in Orange (Chapel Hill), and $67k in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte). In Guildford & Forsyth (Greensboro & Winston-Salem)? $59k. State-wide the number is $56k.
/6
/6
Now look nationwide again: What accounts for the discrepancy between the southeast and the midwest? Again, income. Red states that stayed home have higher median household incomes than those that kept moving around.
/7
/7
Red states that stay home also have better labor protections, are not right-to-work states, more union representation -- and are much, much more likely to have adopted Obamacare.
/8
/8
TL;DR: The discrepancy in compliance rates with stay-at-home orders is a socio-economic structure thing, not a partisan or an ideology thing. Everyone wants to survive. Not everyone has the resources to do so.
/END
/END
