Posted on 09/14/2007 7:46:35 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Bears and partisans are exuberant about the August employment report, which recorded a loss of 4,000 jobs in a labor market that employs 138 million. Employment, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was “essentially unchanged,” with losses concentrated in the manufacturing (-46,000) and government (-28,000) sectors. This was no surprise: Manufacturing has contracted in August in eight of the last ten years, dating back to the Clinton era.
Employment is a broad economic indicator, and last Friday’s less-than-stellar report deserves attention. But another monthly BLS report on regional and state employment offers a view of the jobs market through an alternative lens. In particular, this report allows one to compare employment growth between the so-called Blue and Red states.
Political pundits identify 18 bona-fide Blue states, which backed Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, and 29 clear-cut Red states, which supported Republican President George W. Bush both times out. Blue states are said to be “liberal,” and Red states “conservative.” But there might be another reason to term certain states “blue”: weak employment growth in a period of expansion.
Total Blue-state employment growth has been only 3.3 percent during the current expansion, which began in November 2001, compared with the U.S. rate of 5.5 percent. Meanwhile, total Red-state employment growth has been 7.5 percent, more than double that of the Blue states.
In baseball terms, one might say the Blue team is hitting only 5-for-13 for a mere .277 average, while the Red team is slugging 18-for-29 for a league-leading .621.
Here’s a closer look at the stats:
Job growth has trailed the U.S. average in 13 Blue states. California, the largest Blue-state labor market, fell behind by the narrow margin of less than a half-percent, while growth has been slower in Rhode Island (5%), Minnesota (4.1%), Wisconsin (3.1%), New York (2.8%), New Jersey (2.7%), Pennsylvania (2.7%), Vermont (2.3%), Maine (2.1%), Connecticut (1.5%), Illinois (1.1%), Massachusetts (-0.2%), and Michigan (-5%). The job losses in Michigan and Massachusetts have been the most severe, falling below 2001 levels.
Regionally speaking, this blue-streak continues. The Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and New England regions, all predominantly Blue, have trailed the U.S. jobs-growth average. The only Blue region to beat the average has been the West, fueled by above-average jobs gains in Hawaii (15.2%), Washington (9.5%), and Oregon (9%). Two other Blue states — Delaware (5.8%) and Maryland (6.1%) — also have bested the U.S. average.
Now for the Red team:
Of 29 certified Red states, a full 18 have topped the U.S. jobs-growth rate. And here an interesting trend appears: Red states with no income taxes — Nevada (25.7%), Wyoming (15.2%), Florida (13.9%), Alaska (10.2%), Texas (9.1%), South Dakota (8.3%), and Tennessee (5.5%) — have all witnessed above-average job growth.
Not surprisingly, three of four Red regions have led the U.S. in job growth: Red states in the West have expanded 15.9 percent followed by the Plains (7.7%) and the Southeast (7.5%). The only Red region to trail the U.S. jobs-growth average has been the Midwest (1%).
This trend is not new. It has merely been overlooked by the mainstream media. Labor is colorblind in the political context of Red and Blue states. And as long as the Red states let Americans keep more of what they earn, jobs will unevenly flow their way.
-----------------------------------------------------
— Greg Kaza is executive director of the Arkansas Policy Foundation.
And lib-voting blue-staters will move there and vote up the taxes until equilibrium is reached.
Equal misery for all.
That needs to broken down between domestic and military spending. I don't think you'd want the ICBM bases in North Dakota located near the highly populated urban areas like the northeast which has lots of blue states.
Yes, but like locusts, liberals destroy their own blue feeding grounds and then move to ripe red feeding grounds and repeat.
Why not? Let’s build some missile silos in Boston....put a few in Berkeley, Calif. for good measure.
I'd be willing to bet grain price supports, Indian money, and welfare payments wildly exceed the budget for ICBM bases in North Dakota. Further, coastal blue states have more than their share of military bases and still send more money to the Feds than they get back.
I think that was the main point of the article.
Suckers ;-)
That arguement has been made by liberals many times. They speak of “donor states” and “recipient states” and brag that blue states are subsidizing red states. The devil, of course, is in the details.
First of all, consider two of the federal government’s biggest expeditures: social security and medicare. Those who receive these benefits are not evenly distributed around the country but are concentrated in places such as Florida, Texas and Arizona. These senior citizens often retired to warmer and cheaper climates from blue states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It is not logical to count these expenditures against a donor/recipient tally.
Second, consider transportation dollars. It is true that Washington is spending more money on new roads in growing cities such as Phoenix, Charlotte and Jacksonville. This work comes only after decades of heavy concentration on highway construction in blue states. These red states are actually finally getting their fair share.
Third, military installations are more likely to be found in red states. This has occurred for a number of reasons including favorable attitudes towards the armed forces and the fact that many of these bases were established in cheap open areas. The development grew up around them (Cocoa Beach). Only a leftist who thinks of the military as a government entitlement rather than the institution that defends us would count defense spending in a donor/recipeint tally.
Fourth, red states have more kids. Education spending goes where the kids are. If blue states want a bigger share, then stop having abortions.
Social Security payments are a part of federal spending. I would guess that, due to the high cost of living in blue states, many retirees leave them for better and more affordable places to live.
Furthermore, much defense money is spent on manufactured goods from red states, which is not surprising considering the high cost of business in blue states.
I don’t believe that. Individuals in high tax states can deduct that portion paid to the state against that due the Fed.
Delaware= DuPont.
OK, California, New Jersey, and Connecticut all donate recipients to the states you cite because their housing costs are so high.
It is not logical to count these expenditures against a donor/recipient tally.
Sure it is, because salaries in those blue states are so high that housing costs go with them. That means income tax revenues are high too.
This work comes only after decades of heavy concentration on highway construction in blue states.
Seen the roads in California? They're among the worst, and that's without freezing weather. Highway construction here is almost nil.
Third, military installations are more likely to be found in red states.
Ever heard of the NAVY? Guess where the military electronics development contracts go. I don't buy it.
Fourth, red states have more kids. Education spending goes where the kids are. If blue states want a bigger share, then stop having abortions.
Oh we have PLENTY of anchor babies from illegals instead. Want em?
Many Red State FReepers huss and moan about Blue State transplants moving into their communities and turning them Blue. The question is - Why don’t conservatives remind their new neighhbors of the failed liberal policies that they escaped from and show how the conservatism made the Red States great?
****blue states in general (such as New Jersey, Connecticut, and California) contribute far more in net Federal revenues than do the red states listed above (such as Wyoming and South Dakota), many of which are net Federal recipients.****
Your post explains why conservative states like North Dakota is happy to send Rodents to Congress.
As a former North Dakotan, I used to bat heads with the peace weenies all the time. The argument was that North Dakota would be targeted because we had the ICBM and ABM bases. Likewise, the bases were located there because we were sparesly populated.
I've spoken to a lot of military people there and elsewhere since and neither argument holds water.
From the viewpoint of an enemy intent on inflicting maximum damage, population centers and industrial areas are far more tempting targets. Notice that boxers go for the areas where the opponent is most vulnerable (head & stomach) not the areas most likely to hit back (arm muscles, fists, forearms).
Likewise, the location of the bases are geographical (center of North America, best chance to intercept inbound missiles), not due to sparse population. The Nevada desert is far more empty than North Dakota. So is the Missouri breaks area of Montana, almost all of Alaska, Wyoming and other areas. Geography, not sparse population, plays the leading role in the location of these bases.
Ditto for economics. Yes, the government spent a small fortune to begin construction of the ABM bases in North Dakota in the early 1970's. And yes, it produced a few hundred new construction jobs during that period. But by the end of the decade, the idiot Carter gave away the ABM advantage and the current RAT U.S. Senators became heros for the populace when, as state tax department officials, they went after the FEDS for the damage they'd left in the wake of Carter's sudden closure. Fortunately, Reagan reversed the idiot decision, but the premanent jobs generated were a few hundred at the most.
A single naval base (Groton) in one pissant blue state (Connecticut) employs more than ten times the people than all of the ICBM and ABM bases in North Dakota.
It's a fact. IIRC California gets back $0.74 on the dollar. Connecticut is the worst at over $2500 net outflow per capita. OTOH, the state with the highest net inflows is New Mexico. Here's per capita source data.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.