Posted on 01/05/2015 2:34:47 PM PST by SeekAndFind
One of the great conundrums of the American political scene is why the poorer states, colloquially known as “red” states, tend to vote Republican or conservative, while the richer states, the “blue” ones (and let it be said that this is very confusing for this European, for over here the colours tend to work the other way around, red is Labour, or left wing) tend to vote Democrat. We would think that it should be the other way around, the poor people voting for more from that Great Big Pinata which is government. But it seems that there’s a simple solution to this: the red states aren’t actually poorer in terms of the way people live.
If we measure by consumption patterns then it’s the blue states that are poor, the red states that are rich:
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Red states are far kinder to a middle class standard of living while blue states punish their middle class with high taxation.
They thereby become states with a wealthy elite supporting a huge welfare class while the mid to lower middle class gets squeezed out and flees.
Conservative states are also far less obsessed with race and “fairness” and far more charitable with their own money.
Up to and including 2000, red was used to denote the “challenger” in the election. Example - 1984, when Reagan won 49 BLUE states and Mondull had one state plus the District of Corruption.
The media decided post 2000 to “stick” the right with red because the red/communist connection with the democrats would be a little too “truthy”.
Call me a broken record; it’s Ok. At least I’m not a ‘parrot’.
it would be interesting to see this broken down by race and how that effects the states’ totals.
Fewer, smaller rathole cities.
Huh? California has 12% of the US population but has 34% of the nation’s welfare recipients.
Rich is relative; if one says NY is rich, then really, it is a socialist state, where you have uber rich and also poor...take Bloomberg for example. Some are so rich the tax rate doesn’t matter, that’s why Bloomberg, Gates and Buffet all want higher rates because the little secret is they never want anyone else getting to their level, so the higher the better tax rate to them. That keeps the poor dependent on them and their crony politicians and keeps the middle class from ever getting better and even forces some to become poor...
Now, red means redneck, so maybe it was a useful trade.
Calling Americans "consumers" is humorously offensive and arrogant...A biggov term...
But I personally "consume/buy" as little as humanly possible. It's my little way of starving the bloated controlling government monster.
Fix your own, make your own, grow your own and maintain your own.
Don't unnecessarily feed the bloated evil monster.
“Poor States Are Red and Rich States Are Blue”
My immediate thought was to add the line “and blue states are broke.”
Actually the article goes on to explain how lower cost of living in red states actually makes them “richer” in terms of relative purchasing power. “Flyover country” ain’t so bad, is it? The major battle we have now is with Blue Staters moving in and attempting to implement their failed socialist progressive garbage. Dumbarses.
Agree. Almost a hundred years of Red Army, Red Brigades, Red October, Mao’s Little Red Book, etc . . . I’ll never associate red with conservatism.
Up through the 60’s, the NE and Rust Belt states ruled Congress, and continually sucked resources from the South/Southwest. As a result, jobs were not growing. But with the collapse of the Rust Belt and beginning of the energy boom, jobs began to move south, along with people.
But with a history of limited government and low taxes, wages remain low as compared to the Northeast, but economic strength is much higher as the dollar goes so much further. It doesn’t matter so much what you make, but what your buying power is.
All the liberal propaganda withstanding, no truly rich person pays income tax. It’s not applicable to their revenue streams. Americans, in general, are completely clueless about business and economics.
I don’t call my state red or blue. I just call it....TEXAS!
but don’t forget red necks
Let me walk over to the sink and see if the water is still wet.
I believe the red vs blue state moniker was created by the media as a poke in the eye to republicans when Reagan was running.
Kalifornia also now has major cities where hispanics are the majority.
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.