Posted on 01/04/2015 12:01:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The new Congress that starts work this week is the latest reminder of America’s stark political divisions: The parties in Washington are more polarized than they have been in decades, the partisanship gap between rural Republicans and urban Democrats has grown, and the battle for suburban voters keeps intensifying. Much less is said, however, about the equally significant economic division between conservative “red states” and liberal “blue states.”
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).
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Camden is probably better then it was ten years ago; the empty moonscape is better than the violent hordes...
Glad to read of a modicum of common sense still in existence in that setting. I commend you for being forthright in your instructional endeavors. I can only hope your student audience is taking it in as a principled position that should be emulated.
This twit made a pass through Oklahoma City when I lived there. I was amazed at the way he totally bamboozled the leadership and they accepted everything like it had come down on tablets from the mount.
Nope. Suicide was one of Canada’s rationale for banning or heavily restricting handguns.
What happened: the suicide rate remained the same. People just switched to other means.
No one commits suicide because there’s a gun within reach. They kill themselves because of a mental illness and the gun or rope or bottle of pills or car exhaust fumes are all merely means to the same end.
Outlawing guns changes nothing with regard to suicide and it certainly won’t make people change their minds get help.
And I don’t mean to be flippant about the subject, either. It is a dark topic and I wish there were some way to reach through to every person in that mental distress and get them the help they need. But, taking away sane peoples’ means of self protection isn’t it.
Do you really believe suicidal behavior is caused by gun ownership?
Actually this is a fallacy... do a search on the top states which suck on the federal teat. I’ve never understood why the dems are so pro tax, considering the wealthiest blue states are funding the poorer ones. I seem to recall South Carolina gets the most back from the feds, something like 7 bucks per dollar sent... no wonder Lindsey Graham keeps being reelected.
actually, those stats are skewed by social security payments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
social security got hosed by the dems under johnson who stole it from all americans and used it to fuel their social programs (i personally think they should be held accountable)
Yep - in some areas (ours for instance) whole communities are known dangers to those who would come in and try to rob or hurt us...
Clinging to Bibles offers some protection - not as much as a vest, but some...
Clinging to guns generally makes the Bibles unnecessary as shields...
Guns are a great tool for death. And many people choose such tool to kill themselves. And it is every effective in doing such. I only brought up the cultural connection of the states with the least gun ownership also have the lowest suicide rate.
No. I don’t.
Sigh...I am not taking the time to explain to you what I mean. Instead I suggest that you google up the term demographics and read about it. Then order a copy of Race and Culture by Thomas Sowell.
It all has to do with what culture lives there. Within 20 miles of my home there are two cities. One city has seen a huge influx of immigrants from Asia, the other has seen an influx of immigrants from Haiti. You can imagine the huge disparity in what those areas have become.
We have the same thing on either side of my town; Newark NJ to the west has Haitians and other Caribbean immigrants, while Jersey City to the east has a lot of Asians.
Night & day.
Night & Day = Poverty versus Prosperity in my experience.
The interesting fact in the piece focused on the concept of inequality, using the Gini coefficient, a widely accepted measure of inequality.The states featuring the highest levels of inequality in 1979 were compared to those at the top of the list in 2012, the most recent year statistics were available.
In 1979, three “blue” states were listed among the top 20. Those being New York (7th), New Mexico (10th) and California (13th).In 2012, the number of “blue” states in the top 20 tripled to 9. New York (1st), Connecticut (2nd), California (6th), Massachusetts (7th), New Jersey (12th), Illinois (13th), New Mexico (14th), Rhode Island (19th), and Pennsylvania.
This is an astounding tact that goes to the very heart of liberalism.
Recall that the core promise of liberalism and collectivism is equality. The promise is equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity.
The concept of equality has been the rallying cry of politicos from Lenin to Robespierre to Pelosi.How interesting that while the size and scope of government has grown, inequality has grown.Interesting that the states that most vigorously practice the politics and policies of “equality” are experiencing just the opposite.
Conversely, the coefficient also shows that nearly every state in the top 20 in 1979 has fallen down the scale.While California, Connecticut and Massachusetts have skyrocketed UP the scale, states like Alabama, Kentucky, and Arkansas have tumbled Down the scale.
It doesn’t at all surprise me at all that the capitalism practiced in Arkansas has resulted in more equality (and an increased standard of living for the middle class) than the socialism practiced in New York.
Then again, let’s recall that “equality” isn’t truly a liberal goal. It’s merely propaganda to entice the unwashed masses to buy into the concept of governance by the elites.
We have wind towers in rural North Dakota but none on Martha’s Vineyard. Nearly every wealthy kid in Washington, DC attends private school, nearly every poor black kid attends public school.ObamaCare is for the masses, but not the Harvard Faculty that wrote the legislation.The simple answer to the question of prosperity, equality, and wealth is unfettered capitalism, not collectivism.
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.