The New Jersey-NYC relationship

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NYC is the alpha city of NJ, even moreso than NYC is the alpha city of NY.

NJ has a higher share of its population in the NYC metro than NY.

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ I see where you’re coming from, but I still think that’s a little extreme. NY is the fourth-most-populous state (third not too long ago) and covers a relatively large land mass, with the second-most prominent city being at the opposite end of the state and culturally having more in common with Cleveland. NYC still dominates to the degree that only people (generally speaking) who live close to NYS have to say “New York City” when referring to New York, NY. For basically everyone else around the country (there are exceptions, I see you jmancuso) and world, “New York” means NYC 90-95% of the time. Even type in “New York” in Google Maps, and it defaults to NYC.

NJ is a different state and prides itself on being its own entity more so than simply “metropolitan NYC.” Philadelphia has enough gravitational influence to disrupt NYC’s stranglehold on the state, although Mercer County being part of the NY metro when it sits right next to Bucks County does say a lot. But it’s also a very SSP thing to know that fact.

hmm, something about occam’s razor …

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Politically, at the statewide level, yes. You are spot on.

However, who votes and decides statewide elections only matter at the margins of government spending (executives can only do so much to alter the geography of spending). The bigger factor is the underlying distribution of population and the consequent distribution of legislative elected officials. The legislative process more greatly dictates spending patterns than any specific choices an executive can make while in office. All of my previous points still speak to this: Pennsylvania has a much more even popular distribution than either New York or Illinois. I’d also add to my original comment that rural Pennsylvania is significantly more populated than rural Illinois and similar to (or maybe also more populated than) rural New York.

So, yeah, the collar counties matter most in determining the executive (and other row offices), but does that mean that collar counties matter most in determining the distribution of funding? No, it means they marginally affect the statewide outcomes such that their preferred candidate can marginally affect spending patterns.

Am I wrong in thinking that most of those PA rural counties are socially closer to counties in Alabama than they are the urban counties of PA? I'm sure that's overstating it a bit, but by how much?

I've always been under the impression it's the level of conservative antipathy for cities found in the rural PA counties which hurt Philly and Pittsburgh.

Contrasting Philly to Boston is always a bit touchy, but this is a case in which Boston clearly lucks out: MA's rural counties are even bluer than Boston's and its suburbs. There are still fair arguments made that Western Mass gets the funding shaft, but there's always clear statewide agreement that Boston's success powers the MA economy on the whole (and most of NH's and RI's economies too).

Even our Republicans are pro-city, especially the governors (Charlie Baker, Mitt Romney believe it or not, Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift, William Weld...).

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Am I wrong in thinking that most of those PA rural counties are socially closer to counties in Alabama than they are the urban counties of PA? I'm sure that's overstating it a bit, but by how much?

I've always been under the impression it's the level of conservative antipathy for cities found in the rural PA counties which hurt Philly and Pittsburgh.

Contrasting Philly to Boston is always a bit touchy, but this is a case in which Boston clearly lucks out: MA's rural counties are even bluer than Boston's and its suburbs. There are still fair arguments made that Western Mass gets the funding shaft, but there's always clear statewide agreement that Boston's success powers the MA economy on the whole (and most of NH's and RI's economies too).

Even our Republicans are pro-city, especially the governors (Charlie Baker, Mitt Romney believe it or not, Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift, William Weld...).

I can only go on my own cousins' online activity for this, but I think it is slowly changing against urbanity and cosmopolitanism.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Am I wrong in thinking that most of those PA rural counties are socially closer to counties in Alabama than they are the urban counties of PA? I'm sure that's overstating it a bit, but by how much?

Pennsyltucky.

One of my best college friends is from this area, and she’s definitely got more in common with broader Appalachia (inc. the Huntsville and Birmingham areas) culturally and politically than to Philadelphia.

As to your broader funding argument:

Sure, that might play around the margins—in statewide elections, when the suburbs align with the rural areas, to elect a conservative governor who marginally shifts funding to non-urban causes. However, you’re still operating on the assumption of a particular population distribution: the rural areas hold more political power, because they are more populated, comprise a larger share of the population, and have been able to exert considerably more political pull in a much more closely divided state… than Illinois and New York, so of course their anti-urban antipathy matters more when you get to the distribution of funding, whereas the anti-urban antipathy of rural conservatives hasn’t mattered in awhile in Illinois and only mattered until recently in New York (ending when the State Senate finally flipped to actually Democratic control from the multiparty Republican-led coalition). The same antipathies exist in most places, but they are able to exert political control where they are greater numerically.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Aburgh.

Contrasting Philly to Boston is always a bit touchy, but this is a case in which Boston clearly lucks out: MA's rural counties are even bluer than Boston's and its suburbs. There are still fair arguments made that Western Mass gets the funding shaft, but there's always clear statewide agreement that Boston's success powers the MA economy on the whole (and most of NH's and RI's economies too).

Even our Republicans are pro-city, especially the governors (Charlie Baker, Mitt Romney believe it or not, Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift, William Weld...).

Mass doesn't really have typical American rural areas, though. Western Mass is scenic, and full of colleges and second home areas for high income households. The Berkshires aren't remotely analogous to coal counties in PA. Tanglewood, Amherst and Williams, Stockbridge, Barrington, North Adams.

MA, RI, CT and NJ might be the only states with no true rural areas. And NJ is questionable. There's a small geography in deep southern NJ.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Mass doesn't really have typical American rural areas, though. Western Mass is scenic, and full of colleges and second home areas for high income households. The Berkshires aren't remotely analogous to coal counties in PA. Tanglewood, Amherst and Williams, Stockbridge, Barrington, North Adams.

MA, RI, CT and NJ might be the only states with no true rural areas. And NJ is questionable. There's a small geography in deep southern NJ.

Far northwestern MA is sort of rural. It looks just like southwest Vermont.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Far northwestern MA is sort of rural. It looks just like southwest Vermont.

Yeah, it's technically rural, but culturally you have Williams College and wealthy weekend-home buyers. It isn't going to vote like PA coal country, which is really radicalized, poor and deep-red.

IMO fracking really ruined rural PA's long-term prospects. I've heard a lot of people refuse to consider PA for weekend homes due to water/fracking issues. PA was a fracking wild west for a number of years, and there's heavy destruction.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Mass doesn't really have typical American rural areas, though. Western Mass is scenic, and full of colleges and second home areas for high income households. The Berkshires aren't remotely analogous to coal counties in PA. Tanglewood, Amherst and Williams, Stockbridge, Barrington, North Adams.

MA, RI, CT and NJ might be the only states with no true rural areas. And NJ is questionable. There's a small geography in deep southern NJ.

I think it's a bit shortsighted to claim that something has to be conservative to be a "true rural area." Western Massachusetts does suffer from many of the same issues as more rural areas elsewhere in the country; most notably the low number of jobs leading to continual flight of young people and slow population decline.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NYC is the alpha city of NJ, even moreso than NYC is the alpha city of NY.

NJ has a higher share of its population in the NYC metro than NY.

I do think NYC is the alpha of NJ even more than NYS, but I think a higher percentage of NYS lives in NY metro. The distinction is that the rest of NYS is way more geographically dispersed than NJ's population. Just about all of New Jersey is within 100 miles of Manhattan, and 90% of the population is probably within 80 miles of Manhattan.

[Crawford]

Perhaps I should write "typical rural area". Western Mass just doesn't have a typical cultural or economic base. Parts of Vermont, Hudson Valley, NW CT are quite similar, but these are really culturally urban areas. You have the NY and Boston Philharmonic summer residencies and the like. Doesn't compare to some patch of Southeast Ohio.

A lot of the population decline is masked by the second home issue. A lot of these towns have plummeting populations but are quite busy on weekends, especially in the summer months and during leaf season and ski season.

[Docere]

Thoughts on this 5 regions of NJ map?

https://elitesportsny.com/2023/02/21...regions-not-3/

[iheartthed]

^Monmouth County seems very "central Jersey" to me. I'd start "the Shore" in Ocean County. Everything else seems about right, including the split of Morris County between north Jersey and west Jersey.

[Crawford]

That map looks about right to me. The subregions all have a defining narrative.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Am I wrong in thinking that most of those PA rural counties are socially closer to counties in Alabama than they are the urban counties of PA? I'm sure that's overstating it a bit, but by how much?

I've always been under the impression it's the level of conservative antipathy for cities found in the rural PA counties which hurt Philly and Pittsburgh.

I would say that I would say that this is the case with rural populations throughout the US. One could say the same about rural NY, MD, OH counties too, for adjacent regional examples.

And it hurts more than just Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, it hurts all urban areas in the state.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Pennsyltucky.

Nope, it's just Pennsylvania.

Rural Pennsylvania is not like Kentucky; Kentucky is like rural Pennsylvania.

Daniel Boone was from PA. Get it?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Perhaps I should write "typical rural area". Western Mass just doesn't have a typical cultural or economic base. Parts of Vermont, Hudson Valley, NW CT are quite similar, but these are really culturally urban areas. You have the NY and Boston Philharmonic summer residencies and the like. Doesn't compare to some patch of Southeast Ohio.

A lot of the population decline is masked by the second home issue. A lot of these towns have plummeting populations but are quite busy on weekends, especially in the summer months and during leaf season and ski season.

Vermont is not culturally urban, it's just not not culturally stagnant and welcomes the arts, culture and influx of new things from the cities but is very much it's own rural/ small town thing.

[Docere]

North or NE Jersey seems very much a cultural extension of NYC. "West Jersey" seems to be more removed (more neutral accents and less "ethnic") but still in the sphere of influence. Jersey Shore seems to have a culture of its own, but in some ways it's become an extension of Brooklyn and Staten Island because of migration there.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Docere

North or NE Jersey seems very much a cultural extension of NYC. "West Jersey" seems to be more removed (more neutral accents and less "ethnic") but still in the sphere of influence. Jersey Shore seems to have a culture of its own, but in some ways it's become an extension of Brooklyn and Staten Island because of migration there.

I'm far from an expert on this topic, but I think the Jersey Shore is pretty strongly influenced from Philly, too. If it's an extension of Brooklyn and Staten Island, I guess it's also an extension of Philly.

[Docere]

Should have specified Monmouth/Ocean.

[RowanGrad]

Originally Posted by pj3000

The New Jersey side seems to definitely be seen as “other” in a way that is much more present than is the case with NY.

Philly is just much more insular (and obviously smaller) than NY. It doesn’t have the same pull on “its NJ” that NY has. Being in Pennsylvania seems to matter a lot more.

From my perspective as someone who grew up in South Jersey (Camden County) and has since lived in Philly and the PA Suburbs (Delaware County), people from Philly and it's PA suburbs definitely see South Jersey as other, especially PA suburbs people. A lot don't know or consider South Jersey to be it's suburbs.

However, people from the South Jersey suburbs are no less connected to Philly than those from the PA suburbs. For one, it's easier to get to Center City from the Jersey suburbs than the PA suburbs (at least Camden County). Camden County shares a direct border with CC, which Montgomery, Bucks, and Delaware Counties can't say. PATCO also has more frequent service than any of the SEPTA Regional Rail lines. It also has 24/7 service, which not even the SEPTA City subway lines do. Also, most people I know around my age (28) from the SJ suburbs has either a parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent from Philly. They were also generally built out later cause before the bridges it wasn't easy to travel between the states. So there's possibly less generational separation from Philly generally for SJ suburb people than PA suburbs people.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by RowanGrad

From my perspective as someone who grew up in South Jersey (Camden County) and has since lived in Philly and the PA Suburbs (Delaware County), people from Philly and it's PA suburbs definitely see South Jersey as other especially PA suburbs people. A lot don't know or consider South Jersey to be it's suburbs.

However, people from the South Jersey suburbs are no less connected to Philly than those from the PA suburbs. For one, it's easier to get to Center City from the Jersey suburbs than the PA suburbs. Camden County shares a direct border with CC, which Montgomery, Bucks, and Delaware Counties can't say. PATCO also has more frequent service than any of the SEPTA regional Rail lines. It also has 24/7 service, which not even the SEPTA subway lines do. Also, most people I know around my age (28) from the SJ suburbs has either a parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent from Philly. They were also generally built out later cause before the bridges it wasn't easy to travel between the states. So there's possibly less generational separation from Philly generally for SJ suburb people than PA suburbs people.

Yeah, this definitely rings true with what I’ve observed only as a frequent visitor to the Philadelphia area for family, friends, and regular work trips. It seemed to me that so many people from Philly and its suburbs basically had no idea about the part of NJ just across the river that make up a portion of their own metro area.

Anecdotal examples: cousins born and raised in Bucks County, colleague from Drexel Hill, uncle from Ardmore, and boss from NW Philly… none of them had any idea where Moorestown was (where an ex girlfriend was from).