Armed Liberal has discussed "skybox liberalism" here on several occasions, as well as the conceit that the future of our cities belongs to a "creative class" that just so happens to correlate with that political tendency (the "Teixeira vs. Kotkin" debate). It appears that actual evidence suggests the reverse - a "skybox exodus" that is hollowing out the middle class, and pushing city growth away from the "hip".

The kind of hostile environment that skybox liberalism creates for people who are upper lower to lower middle class is definitely part of all this, but a pair of questions occur to me that go beyond the "Red State/ Blue State" dynamic. Maybe you'll find them interesting, too, and i'd welcome comments.

One question is the connection the skybox exodus might have with the current role of the financial sector in the economy, which includes the bubble-creating mentality entrenched in the Fed.

Another involves the long-term viability of the "service economy" paradigm itself, even as I wonder whether this sort of hollowing out might even be a move toward a "service economy" country's natural steady state. Lewy had asked that in the comments a while back, basically what if you created an economy that just needs a small percentage of highly-trained smart people, and the rest are just menial services or a drag? Is this the natural steady state of an economy that abandons the physical production of exportable things? Can an economy like that really prosper or even last, over the long term? If the steady state hypothesis is true, can a free republic?

My answers lean toward: probably, probably not, and no. But maybe you have different answers, or a different take....