Is Life Better in America’s Red States?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Interesting analysis. The blue states have higher concentrations of wealth, but the red states offer a better standard of living for the middle class.

Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.

Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/is-life-better-in-americas-red-states.html

 

[Porker]

Just as long as we can keep dodging those black initiated gunshots.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting analysis. The blue states have higher concentrations of wealth, but the red states offer a better standard of living for the middle class.

Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.

Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/is-life-better-in-americas-red-states.html

But they have to live in Texas, Georgia, Utah or Arizona. The only Red State to which I would consider living is Idaho, though I have enjoyed visiting Savannah, San Antonio and Park City - not so much Arizona, though Scottsdale is fine during Spring Training and the Grand Canyon is spectacular.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Interesting analysis. The blue states have higher concentrations of wealth, but the red states offer a better standard of living for the middle class.

Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.

Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/is-life-better-in-americas-red-states.html

Blue states have better educated people and then often appear to have higher standards of living and more intact families. Red states are are less educated but have not changed their values so quickly in accordance with modern marxist educational standards so tend to be traditional or conservative.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Interesting analysis. The blue states have higher concentrations of wealth, but the red states offer a better standard of living for the middle class.

Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.

Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/is-life-better-in-americas-red-states.html

But they have to live in Texas, Georgia, Utah or Arizona. The only Red State to which I would consider living is Idaho, though I have enjoyed visiting Savannah, San Antonio and Park City - not so much Arizona, though Scottsdale is fine during Spring Training and the Grand Canyon is spectacular.

I was just thinking the same thing -

Its like the threat of going to heaven. Look who else is (supposedly) going to heaven. You really wanna live forever with those people?

Granted that living in a red state wouldn't be forever but, dang! I could sure feel that way. I know that because I lived in AZ for more than 25 years and currently live in another red state.

OTOH, most of the people I associate with are well educated and affiliated with the university so I don't really come into contact with many ignernt RWs.

'cept here.

 

[Mr. H.]

This nation's model "Blue" State...

 

[Dekster]

red states tend to be rural. Being able to afford some land to grow a garden or be able to readily hunt/fish probably helps a lot.

 

[hortysir]

Interesting analysis. The blue states have higher concentrations of wealth, but the red states offer a better standard of living for the middle class.

Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.

Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/is-life-better-in-americas-red-states.html

Blue states have better educated people and then often appear to have higher standards of living and more intact families. Red states are are less educated but have not changed their values so quickly in accordance with modern marxist educational standards so tend to be traditional or conservative.

Now THAT will be a very interesting post backing up these claims.

Thanks in advance

 

[toxicmedia]

It's simple...

People who don't like crowds, tend to be conservative.

People who like crowds, tend to be young

People who are young, tend to be liberal

People who resist tradition, tend to be liberals

People who like tradition, tend to be old

People who are old, tend to be conservative

People who tend to be liberals, like to live in big cities

People who tend to be conservative, like to live in the country

 

[regent]

Interesting analysis. The blue states have higher concentrations of wealth, but the red states offer a better standard of living for the middle class.

Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states. But red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the November midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.

Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/is-life-better-in-americas-red-states.html

But they have to live in Texas, Georgia, Utah or Arizona. The only Red State to which I would consider living is Idaho, though I have enjoyed visiting Savannah, San Antonio and Park City - not so much Arizona, though Scottsdale is fine during Spring Training and the Grand Canyon is spectacular.

Just moved from Idaho back to California after 30 years, gotta hand it to Californians they can endure, but why?

 

[Freemason9]

red states tend to be rural. Being able to afford some land to grow a garden or be able to readily hunt/fish probably helps a lot.

Also, rural populations tend to be highly dependent upon transfer payments from the federal government--older populations get retirement benefits, fatter people get disability, and farmers get subsidization.

There is (per capita) more federal money spent in rural areas than in others.

There's irony for you.

 

[Dekster]

red states tend to be rural. Being able to afford some land to grow a garden or be able to readily hunt/fish probably helps a lot.

Also, rural populations tend to be highly dependent upon transfer payments from the federal government--older populations get retirement benefits, fatter people get disability, and farmers get subsidization.

There is (per capita) more federal money spent in rural areas than in others.

There's irony for you.

It is only ironic if you are looking to be holier than thou. "Per capita" is meaningless. Those really expensive highways through flyover country are not there to benefit the rural folks, but Californians to get their almonds to New York.

 

[Freemason9]

red states tend to be rural. Being able to afford some land to grow a garden or be able to readily hunt/fish probably helps a lot.

Also, rural populations tend to be highly dependent upon transfer payments from the federal government--older populations get retirement benefits, fatter people get disability, and farmers get subsidization.

There is (per capita) more federal money spent in rural areas than in others.

There's irony for you.

It is only ironic if you are looking to be holier than thou. "Per capita" is meaningless. Those really expensive highways through flyover country are not there to benefit the rural folks, but Californians to get their almonds to New York.

I live in a rural area. Trust me, those "expensive highways" allow rural areas to exist--and rural populations owe their livelihoods and property to the generosity of taxpayers.

 

[Dekster]

red states tend to be rural. Being able to afford some land to grow a garden or be able to readily hunt/fish probably helps a lot.

Also, rural populations tend to be highly dependent upon transfer payments from the federal government--older populations get retirement benefits, fatter people get disability, and farmers get subsidization.

There is (per capita) more federal money spent in rural areas than in others.

There's irony for you.

It is only ironic if you are looking to be holier than thou. "Per capita" is meaningless. Those really expensive highways through flyover country are not there to benefit the rural folks, but Californians to get their almonds to New York.

I live in a rural area. Trust me, those "expensive highways" allow rural areas to exist--and rural populations owe their livelihoods and property to the generosity of taxpayers.

I have no reason to trust you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

red states tend to be rural. Being able to afford some land to grow a garden or be able to readily hunt/fish probably helps a lot.

Also, rural populations tend to be highly dependent upon transfer payments from the federal government--older populations get retirement benefits, fatter people get disability, and farmers get subsidization.

There is (per capita) more federal money spent in rural areas than in others.

There's irony for you.

It is only ironic if you are looking to be holier than thou. "Per capita" is meaningless. Those really expensive highways through flyover country are not there to benefit the rural folks, but Californians to get their almonds to New York.

I live in a rural area. Trust me, those "expensive highways" allow rural areas to exist--and rural populations owe their livelihoods and property to the generosity of taxpayers.

I have no reason to trust you.

its true, post office, cell, roads, airports, water, electricity, gas in rural areas tend to be very expensive becuase of the low density and so get subsidized by folks in more dense areas.