Census Bureau: Majority of Affluent Counties In Northeast US

An anonymous reader writes "I'm not a big fan of heat maps, but the US Census Bureau has just released a set of maps that succinctly capture average income distribution across the US. BusinessInsider points out that well over half of the most affluent counties in the US are concentrated in the Northeast (counting Virginia, presumably for the suburbs of Washington, D.C. located in that southern state). Of course, the cost of living is higher in those counties as well. Meanwhile, poor counties tend to be clustered in the southeast and in southwestern states on the Mexican border. There is good news for the northern prarie states, though, particularly North and South Dakota, as they lead in the number of counties with gains in household income over the past five years."

Comments

red v blue

[Jack Griffin]

I'm not from the US, so I never understood why poor people vote conservative? All the red states seem to be poorer yet these are the people that would benefit most from a "socialist" left govt. In every western democracy I've been in there's a clear cut bias, rich white people vote right and all the multi-coloured worker-bees vote left. Why is the US the opposite?

Re:red v blue

[Attila Dimedici]

The key difference between the U.S. and other countries in this regard is that in most countries your choice is between a "left" and "right" that both favor increased government power over the economy. In the U.S. the "right" actually proposes reducing government power and, to the extent it actually does so, thus opens greater opportunities for those who are not yet wealthy. As government power increases and it regulates ever more minutely the opportunities for those who do not have wealth and/or political connections are diminished.

Re:red v blue

[Anonymous Coward]

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” --Steinbeck

Re:red v blue

[AHuxley]

Re poor people vote conservative?
Think of the USA as a vast melting pot of people escaping the poverty and evil of a faith/class/wealth/royal systems of their old countries.
When entering the USA they saw that they had many new 'freedoms' but still had a wealth/power structure to consider if they every wanted to move up in society.
In different parts of the US the party machines where unique to each region and over generations set patterns of votes.
Local issues of farm taxes, hunting rights, corruption, inheritance taxes, faith, crime rates, gov spending (unemployment spending or military industrial complex) can all shape regions or not.
Some parties can just ignore regions or people knowing they will never get their 'vote' - over generations it becomes a way of life no matter the total corruption.
Add in think tanks and massive spending on shaping voters emotions and the US can be very interesting per region swapping out a political duopoly :)
Other parts of the world have a more clear rich vs poor, working class vs power systems and faith.

Re:red v blue

[mjm1231]

Or look at it the other way around. Overlay the blue state/red state voting patterns. Now tell me which party's economic policies lead to more favorable outcomes.

Re:red v blue

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth vs Reality. The media would have you believe that evil white republicans are all from the S. and W. part of the country. While the educated liberal elites who want to help humanity are all from the N. and E. parts of the country. In reality in order to help someone you have to be better than them. A poor person can't do much good for a poor person. However a rich person can do a great deal of good for the poor. In order to be rich you have to have more money than a poor person. How do you get more money than a poor person. You provide low cost housing to the poor. The liberal east coast do gooder elite are all in bed with the centers of power in the United States. They offer subsidized housing and food for the poor because they are such nice guys. In the process they make billions. It is only right that the rich educated east coast elite should make some money of their generosity. The stupid white racist living in the S. and W part of the country see what is going on and object. They are therefore conservative (not republican, which is pretty much the same thing as a demoncrat it is just spelled differently). They are therefore painted as rabid right wing idealogs who want ot kill president Obama. The media is making money of the present system so they are content to let things pass the way they are and keep reporting the news; and by news I mean discuss important things like Mylie Cyrus twerking.

Re:red v blue

[davide marney]

The reason why some poor people vote conservative is because they are still independent-minded. They believe that to be beholden to another is to be in their debt, which puts one in a lower social position. To be self-sufficient is to be proud and free.

However, there aren't actually that many poor people who vote conservative. Large cities attract poor people precisely because of more liberal government programs, and large cities are overwhelmingly liberal. Look at http://www.politico.com/2013-election/results/map/#/Governor/2013/VA as an example. Liberals live in big cities. Conservatives live in the country.

Re: red v blue

[alen]

There Are a lot of public schools in the northeast better than most private schools. Too bad most them cost a lot of property taxes to get into

Re:red v blue

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really believe what you just wrote (that the "right" actually proposes reducing government and that less government opens greater opportunities for the poor), then your comment explains the situation perfectly, but not in the way you intended.

Re:red v blue

[djmurdoch]

I'm not from the US, so I never understood why poor people vote conservative?

They don't. In each state, the poorer people are more likely to vote Democrat, the richer people are more likely to vote Republican.

However, richer states are more likely to vote Democrat, and poorer states are more likely to vote Republican.

So perhaps the question should be posed the other way: if your state votes Republican, why is it poorer?

Re:red v blue

[BasilBrush]

The reason why some poor people vote conservative is because they are still independent-minded.

Far from it. They believe whatever Fox News or Talk Radio tells them to think.

Re: red v blue

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to tell you that while others may try to pick apart your answer, you were dead on. I grew up in suburban New Jersey, went to public school, never finished college and still managed to land a $150k job just based on my skills and public school education. Ignore the naysayers. You nailed it.

Re:red v blue

[peragrin]

Bullshit the "right" wants to reduce power.

The "right" only say they want to reduce prower, but in reality want to expand it as much as the "Left"

Take the TSA, Dept of Homeland Security, etc. Or if you want something more recent the "right" republican author of the patriot is pissed the law is being used the way it is. He thinks it is gross over step and proposed a law to change it. His solution? Spend tens of millions of dollars annually on high priced lawyers with top secret clearances to act as a legal advocate for the people so it wouldn't just be the NSA and the judge in FISA court room.

If you actually believe in the bullshit about power reduction then you are a fucking idiot. Because not one of their laws actually will reduce government power. They just want to push that power to the corporations. The "spending" cuts basically only take away services that the poor use. while taxing them for the privilege of being able to use the remaining. If the "Right" really wanted smaller government the the DHS, TSA, and DOD each need to be cut in half. Cut those down and i will agree to cut equal cuts elsewhere.

But no one on the "right" will ever actually make the government smaller just shuffle it around so their Rich friends gets all the benefits.

Re:red v blue

[immaterial]

As an AC pointed out, your (delusional) reply illustrates the problem perfectly.

Common sense and hard data both point to strong social safety nets improving opportunity, and increasing entrepreneurship and the number of small businesses. There are two main reasons for this:
1. The safety net makes it much more possible to take the chance of starting your own business. Failure means you may lose your investment capital, but your family won't starve, won't lose their healthcare, won't lose their retirement, and won't lose access to a thorough education.
2. The safety net levels the "benefits" playing field between small business and large corporations. Not only does the US's system of employer-based healthcare make it more difficult and risky for those who try to start a small business, but it gives large, established companies an advantage because they have the size and weight to push for better deals.

The ONLY people whose economic opportunities are strengthened by the lack of a social safety net are the people who are already on top, who already own large companies and already make loads of money. They don't want competition from employees who can easily quit and start their own company. But even the rich would probably benefit in the long run, because pushing your customer base into abject poverty is not a way to increase sales (IMO right now they're coasting along on their ability to make goods dirty cheap by using third-world labor).

Re:red v blue

[Attila Dimedici]

Of course, the flip side of that is that the increased regulations of every kind of business that are implemented alongside of those "safety nets" make it harder to start a business. You are correct that employer based health insurance (not actually health care itself, but merely the way that it is paid for) make it more difficult to start your own business. Of course, the solution to that is NOT the government taking control of health care and being the only source of a way to pay for health care. Rather the solution is to eliminate the tax preferences given for employer provided health insurance.
The question I have is, if the only people who benefit from times when the political philosophy of reducing government power are those already on top, why does income inequality increase when the President favors income redistribution (such as currently) and decrease when the President favors empowering people to take control of their own lives by reducing federal regulations (such as when Ronald Reagan was President)?

Re:red v blue

[Eggplant62]

I give you this map of the US and its average IQ by state. Compare and contrast. http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5047299_f520.jpg

Re: red v blue

[peragrin]

You would rather vote for some one who would lie to you about their Intention's?
The first thing republicans do in office isn't to make a smaller government. It is to force Christian values on everyone. Usually in government run and paid for systems.

Re:red v blue

[Kilo Kilo]

Not all poor people vote conservative, look at how all the inner city areas vote. Also, "conservatives" don't like the idea of govt handouts. Not that this would prevent the trailer trash from taking the welfare check, but this would go against a basic conservative belief.

Re:red v blue

[mjm1231]

If you are looking for empirical evidence, maybe instead of looking at the wish lists of Presidents, you might want to look at what was actually implemented by the congress at the same time.

Re:red v blue

[gtall]

You are not making the right distinctions, in some sense the gp wasn't either. The Tea Party is not the old right wing of the Republican Party in the sense of Reagan. The Tea Party is essentially composed of libertarians who really do want less government including the TSA, the military, no EPA, no OSHA, no federal money for schools, etc. The older right wing of the Republican Party believes in a strong TSA, a strong military, no EPA, no OSHA, no federal money for schools, etc. The Republicans in general in the country are probably somewhere in between...at least until the terrorists acquire real weapons (chem, an odd nuke or two). The current debate over NSA and its reach is also only applicable up until the terrorists get those weapons, then there won't be that much opposition from the Libertarians except the die head Paul supporters.

Re:red v blue

[cellocgw]

It pretty much comes down to "you can't fix 'stupid' ."

Re:red v blue

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, considering that a significant factor in the increased income inequality under our current President is a result of laws passed during his first two years, when Congress was controlled by people who also favor wealth redistribution. It is worth noting that 1/2 of Congress is STILL controlled by the Democratic Party which openly espouses wealth redistribution (while being composed of some of the richest people in the country and whose think tanks and political action committees receive the bulk of corporate political contributions).

Re:red v blue

[Livius]

Normally, people embrace beliefs that favour their own self-interest. People who are rich believe in capitalism, people who are poor believe in socialism, and people with nothing believe in communism.

For all their talk, the US, especially the less educated, subconsciously believe in the Great Chain of Being, the mediaeval notion that people have a divinely ordained place in a social hierarchy. Since God choose the rich to be rich, and the poor to be poor, it is God's will that the rich steal from the poor, and the poor are expected to be grateful when it happens to them.

Re:red v blue

[dale.furno]

>Citation Needed

Re: red v blue

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to Republicans, who read the clause in the First Amendment about Freedom of religion as "freedom of Judeo-Christian beliefs." It's one thing to practice your religion. It's another to use the law to force those values on others. If you believe that, Attlila, I can get you a white hood or a brown shirt that would fit you better.

Re:red v blue

[fatphil]

This "left" you speak of, where is it?
Certainly not in the UK: http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif
Duverger's law in action...

Re:red v blue

[cellocgw]

A true statement today as well as then; but AFAIK this quote has yet to be verified. Undoubtedly matches Steinbeck's views, but nobody's been able to track the wording down.

Re:red v blue

[fatphil]

Or anywhere else in the EU apparently: http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart

Re:red v blue

[Flammon]

All the red states seem to be poorer yet these are the people that would benefit most from a "socialist" left govt.

YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG.
Disclaimer, I'm a reforming socialist.

Educate yourself before making such ridiculous claims.
Starting with the basics, watch the Free to Choose series by Milton Friedman.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=free+to+chose+1980&sm=3

Re:red v blue

[DogDude]

You are correct that employer based health insurance (not actually health care itself, but merely the way that it is paid for) make it more difficult to start your own business.

You don't know what you're talking about. Companies don't even have to think about employee health insurance until they have 50 employees.

Now what are these other "regulations" that you speak of that supposedly make it so difficult to start a business in the US?

Re: red v blue

[JWW]

I just love hearing liberals complain: you ignorant fucks should vote for us because you're stupid.

I'm sure that'll convince them. Perhaps they don't support you libs because you hate and ridicule them. It's your prerogative, you can do that if you want. But if you think ridiculing people will make them want to vote your way, then who is the stupid one?

Re:red v blue

[elbonia]

That's not that case AT ALL. Take a look at California which has a very wealthy population, the rich there lean more to the left. The rich put Obama into office. Also in the South, Republicans tend to provide the people with most of their jobs since Republicans are very heavy on defense spending. Most military bases and recruitment are in the South and with the US spending nearly 3/4 of a trillion dollars each year on defense the South gains the most.

Re:red v blue

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, if your post is true then nobody would be a conservative. Many people, including intelligent ones (and most doctorate level people outside of academia) are conservative. QED you didn't answer the question but instead substituted your own rationale for being liberal, which is somewhat irrelevant.

Southerners traditionally favor autonomy and distrust the government for various historic reasons. Those who rise out of poverty often overly value initiative and hard work, and would rather keep more of their earnings than to support those without it. Finally, from my experience in living in ground zero for poverty, welfare doesn't do much except make you dependant on the government. My home county has lost essentially all non-government jobs due to the free money, so people live a humiliating and destitute existance on $710 per month.

Re:red v blue

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up in the deep south so I can explain. Most of middle America is very rural and homogeneous. You grow up white, protestant, and middle class around people who all share similar conservative beliefs and are rarely exposed to different ways of thinking that would challenge those beliefs, and you are sheltered from life experiences that would challenge your beliefs. So, a sort of group think takes hold. Politically, the group think revolves around social conservative issues: gay marriage, abortion, taxes, guns, etc. You live your whole life never knowing anything else and you become afraid of anything that might challenge that.

Where as on the coasts, the population is more exposed to immigrants, there is more trade activity involving foreign countries, the larger population density allows more opportunities for people to exchange ideas, etc.

Re:red v blue

[tranquilidad]

We just started a training business last year.

It cost us about $10,000 to start that business. $4,000 was spent on the material we needed, web site, logos, etc.

$6,000 was spent, mostly on legal fees, on licenses and making sure we adhered to government regulations at multiple levels.

Those things we needed to build the business that came from private parties (bank accounts, uniforms, office supplies, etc.) could be satisfied in a matter of days. The longest and most difficult was getting an extended validation SSL for our web site - that took two weeks because we needed a letter from our attorney.

Anything we needed from a government agency took months with multiple calls.

All items that came from the private sector came from companies that wanted our business and we had choices of providers. This created an incentive for good service and responsiveness.

All items that came from regulatory agencies generally came from organizations that said this is how it is, live with it and you better not fail any of the steps or you, literally, won't be in business.

I can say that there was one agency that approached the problem like the private sector and that was a state agency responsible for issuing state-level trade and service marks. This particular state had a web-site and 24 hour response to our applications.

We used a particular service to walk us through the various government regulations at a total cost of about $1,500. Without that service it would have taken months and months just to figure out what regulations we needed to follow and, frankly, we probably wouldn't have even attempted the exercise.

Re:red v blue

[DogDude]

We used a particular service to walk us through the various government regulations at a total cost of about $1,500. Without that service it would have taken months and months just to figure out what regulations we needed to follow and, frankly, we probably wouldn't have even attempted the exercise.

Almost every town and city has an economic development office which can help you with all of this for free. There is also the Chamber of Commerce and other quasi public/private entities such as the SBTDC that can help you with this for free.

That being said, if you had to spend $1500 for help figuring out the gov't stuff, either the people running your company aren't too sharp, or you're doing something absurdly complicated, like generating power for public utilities.

THAT being said, a few grand to start an apparently complicated business is NOT a large barrier to entry.

For most simple, small businesses in the US, it's a matter of forming an LLC with the Secretary of State, getting a town/city permit, getting an FEIN, and you're good to go. You seem to be describing a business that is a web site. Again, unless that web site is doing something very exotic, it shouldn't take that much effort.

Re:red v blue

[amiga3D]

Public schools get a lot of federal funding. That is part of the problem as federal funding comes with federal regulations. Public schools have to put up with a lot of silly rules that have little to do with education. Unfortunately a lot of the private schools were set up not with excellence in mind but simply so that rich white kids don't have to associate with poor whites and blacks. At least they don't, for the most part, have to deal with the disruptions and lack of discipline which is the standard in the public schools.

Re:red v blue

[amiga3D]

I always love the Orwellian references.

Re: red v blue

[jmac_the_man]

You have a $150k/yr job in NJ with no college education? What are you, a state legislator?

Seriously, though, I graduated from a public high school in Morris County. (This is Slashdot, so I'm guessing at what TFA says rather than reading it, but I bet Morris County, NJ is on this list.) The public schools were set up to defend the New Jersey Education Association. You give 90% of the teachers I had in high school half a chance, and they'd shoehorn pro-teachers' union propaganda into whatever they were supposed to be teaching us.

On issues of politics (civics and history classes, but also tangentially related classes like English, which was taught by the head of the union), expressing any opinion other than the approved doctrinal opinion of the teacher would get you shouted down.

A few years ago, I was going to donate money to a candidate who wanted to take a harder line in the upcoming negotiations with the NJEA

I live and work in Morris County today, but my wife and I are going to move before we have kids, because there's no way I would send my kids through that.

Re:red v blue

[jmac_the_man]

You are not making the right distinctions, in some sense the gp wasn't either. The Tea Party is not the old right wing of the Republican Party in the sense of Reagan. The Tea Party is essentially composed of libertarians who really do want less government including the TSA, the military, no EPA, no OSHA, no federal money for schools, etc

There is a "liberal/Rockefeller Republican" vs. "conservative/Tea Party Republican split," but you're putting Ronald Reagan on the wrong side of it. Reagan was against the EPA (by the way, founded under a liberal Republican) and the Department of Education, and Tea Party types are not as pro-military spending cuts as you seem to think.

The Bushes are among those in the more liberal wing of the party; George H.W. Bush opposed Reagan all three times he ran for the nomination. The Tea Party was formed in part from conservatives who were frustrated by the bailouts at the tail end of George W. Bush's administration; and the Bushes and their allies oppose Tea Party candidates today.

Re: red v blue

[jedidiah]

> As opposed to Democrats who proceed to make Christian values illegal?

Democrats do nothing of the kind.

What you are talking about are the mindless hysterics of the theocrat fringe that define oppression as the inability to impose their views on the rest of us. These are people with benign sounding names like "Famiy Research Council".

The GOP needs to stop pandering to and aligning themselves with these American Talibans.

Re:red v blue

[jedidiah]

I can live much better in a Red State than I can in the "wealthy notheast".

This kind of survey conveniently ignores the big picture in favor of the kinds out of context superficial information you typically find in news soundbites.

It's a perfect example of abusing statistics.

The "more favorable outcome" is counterintuitive.

Re:red v blue

[Ksevio]

That's a dubious map - where is the data from? It's not like we have regular IQ tests for citizens. Usually they're based on student test scores.

Re:red v blue

[tranquilidad]

A company that provides a service for money I consider a business. I've built more than one and fully understand the IRS issues.

But then again, isn't the IRS is just the face of more regulations making it difficult to start a business?

Re:red v blue

[tranquilidad]

Multiple jurisdictions doing things differently. One state demands one set of documents and another state demands another. Same thing happens at the county/parish levels and at the town levels.

The $1,500 wasn't spent to "figure out the gov't stuff", it was to expedite it. Any particular regulatory requirement is easy to understand and, with time, compliance isn't difficult. Getting ALL regulatory components managed in an efficient manner and, in particular, making sure none are missed is another story entirely.

If the regulations weren't a burden then why do the states need to establish the SBTDC organizations to begin with?

Re:red v blue

[EmagGeek]

It's simple, really.

They believe more in personal responsibility than shared responsibility. I live in the South, and the overwhelming majority of people I know would rather work hard for what they earn than take it from someone else without working for it. They believe that you must earn what you have, rather than simply be given it. And, they are okay with the fact that they don't have as much as others. They are happy with what they have.

I've lived in ultra-liberal and ultra-conservative parts of the country, and everywhere in between. The liberals I know are miserable. They can never be happy with what they have - they always see the grass being always greener elsewhere. They are also overwhelmingly underachievers with expectations that their slack will be taken up by "someone else."

Also, you have to take the data with a grain of salt. I live in a "poor" area by national standards - the median individual income in my city is approximately $30,000. However, the median home price is only about 2.5x. You can buy a "nice" home for $120-140k. My wife and I recently purchased a 2000 square foot home on 2 acres for $140k.

So, it's important not to confuse "poor" with "behind in the inflation race."

As far as my personal beliefs, I would rather shovel shit for minimum wage that reach into your wallet and steal your money. That is wrong, and I won't do it. So, it's not about voting in my own self interest, it is about voting for what is right.

Re:red v blue

[mjm1231]

Of course, why didn't I see it. I'd be much better off living in a place with a high rate of poverty than a place with a low rate of poverty.

This assumes, of course, that I'm not one of the people actually living in poverty. Which, if I'm living in a place with a higher rate of poverty, I'm more likely to be.

Re:red v blue

[PPH]

Its due to people voting their social beliefs. The social conservative movement has been quite successful in maintaining a faithful voting block which maintains a wealthy minority in power at the expense of their political base by exploiting their religious beliefs.

Re:red v blue

[russotto]

So, what you are saying is that politicians claim to be on the "right" and then once they get into power, they operate from the "left's" perspective that increasing government power is in their own interest? And your answer to this problem is to vote for politicians who openly ADVOCATE for increasing government control over your life?

It's almost as if you're damned either way. (And if you take the position that the left is more honest, please examine Mr. Obama's various broken promises).

Re:red v blue

[mjm1231]

Well, considering that a significant factor in the increased income inequality under our current President is a result of laws passed during his first two years

Well, if you accept as axioms things which have no support in fact or evidence, then sure, you can prove whatever you want. But why even bother with the pretense of proof if you take that route?

Or, for a starting point, try here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-mystery-of-income-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/

Re:red v blue

[ganjadude]

Talk about hypocracy, you got flaming liberals that are all for killing unborn humans but are aghast that we would kill someone for something like , i dont know shooting up a school. This is why Im not a democrat or a republican, they are both hypocrites, and until one can take the blinders off and see it from both sides, you always will think "the other side" is the bad guy, because "your side" conditioned you that way

Re:red v blue

[swb]

It strikes me that at least initially that at least initially the Tea Party (when it at least appeared to be an organic movement, and not something co-opted by any Republican politicians) acknowledged the corruption of government by Big Business, hence the criticism of government bailouts.

But the Tea Party DID get co-opted by elements of the Republican party. It's not clear to me if there is a cohesive grouping of these elements. Most of them seemed to be the kind of noisy, Christian anti-tax types like Michelle Bachman. But as they co-opted the more organic Tea Party movement, they seemed to drop the part about Big Business influence on government, and it became basically just "government is bad, taxes are bad" and the politicians who co-opted merely seemed to gain some kind of mainstream support from business groups.

Right now the split in the Republican party seems less to do with ideology and more to do with more basic political control of party, which is where you kind of get the liberal vs. conservative split, or at least a sense of it.

The Democrats, especially embodied in Elizabeth Warren, seem to have seized on the big business/Wall Street/banking issue and given the historical association of these groups with Republicans have made those issues off-limits to any Republican.

Which is too bad, because I think those issues are really important and I don't think you can get any traction on them by traditional liberal Democrats because their stands on on a lot of issues make them otherwise unpopular. A Republican willing to take them on while maintaining more traditional Republican stances might gain more support.

Re:red v blue

[readin]

Yes, one of the problems with the heat map is that it doesn't capture population density well. If you look at where the poor are concentrated in large cities in America, you find that they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Detroit hasn't had a Republican administration in ages. Has Chigaco? New York city was a mess until a Republican was elected.

There is another dynamic at work as well.

One should also consider the split personality of what we call "conservative". Many Americans consider themselves conservative because they believe in traditional and family values, and the left has made a huge assault on those values. Many Americans consider themselves conservative because they have libertarian leanings, and the left has made a huge assault on freedom (freedom of sex being their own exception - they seem to hold that one freedom sacred). Some Americans consider themselves conservative because they think that means helping big business against corrupt unions and corrupt government, and the left likes to make big businesses out to be bogeymen and government and unions to be saints.

As the left has largely (though not totally) succeeded in pushing so much of their agenda of the last 70 years (with the obvious exception of unions), they have pushed together diverse groups in to the "conservative" camp.

The group that supports traditional and family values includes a lot of lower middle class because those values are values that help the less capable succeed. It's been pointed out many times that if you graduate from high school, avoid getting pregnant while a teen-ager, avoid getting pregnant until you get married, and stay off drugs and alcohol, you have a very high chance of avoiding poverty in America. This is true even if you have lower-than-average intelligence or aren't a great athlete. It's true even if you don't necessarily understand the reasons for the values you're living by. If you believe in marriage, if you believe in respecting your elders and listen to them when they tell you not to try drugs or alcohol. If you get a job like your parents say you should and work hard at it simply because it is the right thing to do. For many people, this is what their religion tells them to do so they do it regardless of whether they understand the secular benefits.

That's why, absent welfare, WF Buckley was right to say that conservatives aren't stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. Unless the government is there to bail them out, stupid liberals tend to remove themselves from the gene pool, or they figure out that they need to become conservatives.

That's why so many of the less wealthy conservatives are proud of their self-sufficiency and don't want to support programs for the poor. They earned their survival - not by being smart or gifted or lucky or born in to rich families - but by living their values and working hard. They don't see why others can't do the same and they don't want their hard-earned money going to people who don't follow the same values. They're barely scraping by and the last thing they need is for the government to interfere and drag them down.

Re: red v blue

[readin]

You point out a huge dilemma for conservatives. Do we vote for the people who promise to save the country and then try to destroy it? Or do we vote for the people who promise to destroy the country and keep their promise?

This dilemma was made most apparent during the years the Republicans controlled the House and Senate during the Bush the Younger years and spent like Democrats. They were punished at the polls in the mid-term elections by many conservatives staying away or voting third-party.

Fortunately a solution to the problem arose from the grass-roots, we have the tea parties. The Republican establish hates them of course. The Democrats and their media hate them of course. The monied interests who rent-seek from both parties hate them of course. As such they are demonized by all those groups and the ignorant believe those demonizations. But at the moment, they're the only ones who seem to be honestly seeking to expand freedom by limiting government spending and government regulation.

Re: red v blue

[readin]

Ok, so if you believe contraception is immoral, why are you forced by the Obama administration to violate your religion?

Re:red v blue

[ganjadude]

right, we should watch more liberal shows like ed shultz, or martin bashir, or american idol. Be good little sheep

Re:red v blue

[readin]

Exactly. The tea parties seem genuinely interested in freedom, which makes everyone who has power - the Republican establishment, the Democrats, the media, the rich rent-seekers - very afraid of them. That's why they get so much bad press causing so many people have become dismissive of them and hateful toward them. It all started with the Big Lie about racism. The tea parties want freedom from government, and when the government isn't doing anything it is very hard to use the government for racist goals. Freedom is for everyone.

Re:red v blue

[Hognoxious]

So, what you are saying is that politicians claim to be on the "right" and then once they get into power, they operate from the "left's" perspective that increasing government power is in their own interest?

I forget what the logical fallacy you just committed is called, but you remind me of this old joke:

There's this man driving along, when all of a sudden a car cuts him up. "^&&*@%^$ women drivers!", he yells. His wife is sitting next to him and says, "Honey, it was a man!".

"Well," he replies, "he sure drives like a woman!".

Re:red v blue

[readin]

There is a positive correlation between religiosity, lack of intelligence and formal education, and conservatism. Why is that so I can only speculate.

Because if you live by the traditional values promoted by most religions, you'll tend to be conservative AND you'll be able to survive even if you lack intelligence. Traditional values are traditional in part because they work. If you live by them, you'll get by. If you don't, you might get by if you're smart enough, born into wealth, or otherwise gifted. But if you don't live by traditional values and aren't gifted, you'll either kill yourself or live off someone else's hard work.

Re:red v blue

[readin]

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” --Steinbeck

Of course he wrote that a long time ago. Socialism has since taken root.

Re:red v blue

[readin]

I would be interested in seeing the median IQ too.

Re:red v blue

[readin]

Which is too bad, because I think those issues are really important and I don't think you can get any traction on them by traditional liberal Democrats because their stands on on a lot of issues make them otherwise unpopular. A Republican willing to take them on while maintaining more traditional Republican stances might gain more support.

You what the media would call a Republican willing to do that? A "racist". He would never get traction.

Re:red v blue

[ShanghaiBill]

Talk about hypocracy, you got flaming liberals that are all for killing unborn humans but are aghast that we would kill someone for something like , i dont know shooting up a school.

Liberals are not "for" killing unborn humans. They are for someone other than politicians making the decision. I see no hypocrisy in being both pro-choice and anti-death-penalty: In both cases, I am opposed to government officials having life and death power over the citizenry.

Re:red v blue

[hey!]

Having done business with local governments around the country, I can tell you that the stereotypes about southerners or northeasterners are inaccurate. It's not like everyone from Georgia is a conservative and everyone from Massachusetts is a liberal. You find the same *kinds* of people everywhere, but in slightly different mixes.

Control of most states happens at the margins. If you have slightly more conservatives in a state, you get consistent conservative victories and if you have slightly more liberals you get consistent liberal victories. Incumbents tend to get re-elected too; that gives the ascendant fringe leverage over the low-information middle voters, and puts the weaker side in an up-hill battle for success. Lack of success for a minority party powerfully weakens that party, and it may have difficulty fielding strong candidates. Things tend to *look* hopeless after several decades of dominance by one party, but I think that's an illusion. A strong centrist candidate can win anywhere against a weak majority party candidate, as with Scott Brown who won the Ted Kennedy Senate seat in Massachusetts 2010.

Red states tend to have a history of hard luck and social upheaval, and this produces marginally more skepticism about government. By contrast Massachusetts, indisputably the bluest state in the nation, has enjoyed remarkable good fortune since the founding of the nation, and that produces *marginally* less skepticism about government here. But it's still there. In Massachusetts you still hear *exactly* the same range of opinions as you would in a red state. It's just that minority parties are structurally disadvantaged in states where one party has had a long record of success.

We just had a special election here to fill Ed Markey's congressional seat. The Democratic winner walked away with 65.9% to the Republican's 31.7%. That may seem like a landslide, but consider this. Almost a third of the voters came out for a totally unknown Republican, a political neophyte who nobody thought had a chance of winning against a well-known and popular politician. That strikes me as a remarkable showing, and I think it shows that even the bluest state is more purple than we imagine.

Re:red v blue

[swb]

The racist tag is added to pretty much everything Republicans do, I'm not sure how they would get much mileage out of a Republican challenging the influence of business in government as racism, but I consistently underestimate the ability of the left to twist issues into accusations of racism.

Re: red v blue

[NJRoadfan]

Good luck with that, although some NJ districts aren't as influenced by the NJEA as others. I always thought the teacher's union was a conflict of interest. By their very nature, they put "teachers first" and not "students first" as it should be in education.

Re:red v blue

[scamper_22]

Well this affects a lot of people. You'll often hear American Democrats say the 'poor' vote against their self interest.

That's actually a remarkably arrogant statement. As if they 'know' Democratic policies benefit the poor.

In reality, it is much more complex.

1. I'm in Canada and a lot of poor people anecdotally have changed to either vote NDP (very left) or conservative. Their reasons are that the Liberals (more similar to Democrats in the US) aren't working for their interests. They work for the public sector unions and special interests groups... Some have enough hope in government and vote NDP. Other say screw it, the government will never care about the poor and just vote conservative hoping to at least keep what they can.

2. A lot of people really do wish to be left alone. It's not against their interests, if their goal is to be left alone. I grew up in Africa. One thing I can tell you is that apart from the violence, I liked the life down there. I don't know what my poverty level was, but it was probably pretty poor. The thing is, we had a roof on our head and lived pretty much okay. I suspect a lot of people in 'red states' might appreciate the independent living and simple life more than those in other states. You can live very cheaply in red states. It might not be the best life. It might not have the best healthcare. It might not bring them above certain poverty threshold numbers. But they can live in their own home and do their own thing.

I honestly couldn't picture myself poor in a 'blue state' I'm currently in a city (Toronto) in Canada. I certainly couldn't bring myself to live poorly here. Housing and property taxes up the wazoo. Fees, fees, and more fees.

If I ever lost my job or became poor, I would also seek the best way to reduce my cost of living and live a simple life. I'd move out to the boonies somewhere.

I know this is not everyone's cup of tea. But it is what it is.

3. The US is not some socialist state that helps the poor. I think Canadians are starting to see this in their own policies as well. If you look at Europe and others, you'll start to see the same thing as money gets tight. But it's especially true in the US. The Democrats aren't 'left' enough to really help the poor. Much like in Canada, they really just help the public sector unions, and a few sectors like the auto industry and healthcare... They're not out there giving poor people jobs. Sure, they speak in the name of the poor. But people have heard that before.

4. This last point, I think is more on the values level for the red-state. They know everything has a cost and things will have to be paid for. Also values play an interesting role. You mentioned the 'multi-coloured worker-bees vote left'. Well think about that from the red-state American. These 'colored' people are leaving their ghetto country and have ghetto leftist values that made their country ghetto. If we need to keep America prosperous, we need the values that made America great.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with that, but let it sink in for a second. Red-states aren't getting immigrants on mass from Finland/Germany. They're getting it from Mexico.

Re:red v blue

[readin]

Take a look at the "Change in median household income, 2007-2012, by county." map in TFA, Then consider northern Virginia as an example. Conservatives ran the place and it became very successful, leading to population growth. Much of that population growth came from failing states that had been conservative and became liberal (I'm looking at YOU California). These liberal voters entered Fairfax County which in the last few years has become controlled by Democrats. Now it is nearby Loudon County that is growing and becoming rich.

Conservative policies lead to growth, which attracts liberals, which leads to liberal policies which leads to stagnation and decline.

Re: red v blue

[stox]

I graduated from a public high school in Essex county. From my experience to date, I received one of the finest public high school experiences in the country. Quality of schools is very localized, and can change radically from one town to the other.

Re:red v blue

[Attila Dimedici]

No, I am saying that in the U.S., the definition of "right" in politics is reducing government power over private citizens. The definition of "left" is wishing to increase government power over private citizens. Therefore anyone who increases government power is on the left.

Re:red v blue

[CAIMLAS]

I live in the US and I don't see the division you're speaking of. It's more like:

* entitlement and statist culture votes left: yuppies, inner-city citizens, welfare recipients, Marxist idealists, etc.
* self-reliant and culturally conservative culture votes 'right': business owners, contractors, people who depend on strong economic growth for livelihood

IE, it's not a racial thing. (Of course, there's a looooot of back and forth. Eg. a small family farmer voting for a Democrat (eg. left) because of farm subsidies but also voting for a Republican for another seat for moral/ethical issues. There are quite a few single-issue voters in the US.)

Populist states - NA, CA, NJ, etc. - at the top of the redistribution curve, and due to their income have less to lose by increased taxes. The threshold between "what I make" and "just getting by" is significantly larger, not only as a percentage of income but also absolute dollars.

I've noticed there seems to be a fairly significant association between "people who do the actual market production and keep things moving" and conservative voting habits (eg. engineers, business owners, laborers, and other male-dominated fields) and "people who do high-level/service work and 'liberal' voting habits. The more abstracted from the everyman's existential needs, the more likely they are to vote with a leftist policy.

When you're making 30k, a 1% tax increase means you need to make household budget cuts, because that tax increase 'trickles up', to abuse a term used by economists. That 1% tax increase may cost a chunk of your income, but you'll also have to contend with the increased prices of goods and services which results from the increased costs of doing business, which is caused by needing to increase pay of their employees and increased material costs, all caused by people needing more money to cost justify a specific job.

If I'm making $100k a year, I'm probably not even going to notice a 1% tax increase.

Another part of it is ideological affinity. To many people in Western states, it doesn't matter how poor they are. Sure, they want to have more money, but there is a certain pride in eg. the Western US states about being able to say, "I did it my way, pulled myself up by my bootstraps". Ironically, my experience is that it's notably more difficult to actually make a go of a business in these states due to population density, and possibly due to a higher sense of cultural self-reliance and minimalism which naturally leads to less consumption of amenities.

I would be interested in seeing a county wealth heatmap like this, after adjusted for total cost of living (including state and local taxes). I'm in South Dakota, where we have no state (income) tax, sales tax is 4%, and municipal taxes aren't more than another 2%, IIRC. $40k here goes a lot further than $100k does in eg. the SF Bay area or downstate NY. On 40k, you can comfortably (with spending discretion!) start a family, buy a house with a yard in a nice neighborhood, have paid-off used-in-good-condition vehicles, have money for vacations and/or activities, and not live paycheck to paycheck. That's with a single income, I might add.

Re:red v blue

[CAIMLAS]

Strong social safety nets (or any other social program, really) are not practical or cost effective unless you're dealing with a largely urban environment. So that's where they have the most success, and where they're most often tried.

Of no significant coincidence, I'm sure, urban environments have more people, which tends to result in a higher amount of diversity of need and thus, a stronger likelihood that a random enterprise may succeed.

In smaller locales (outside the general interest realm of massive and monopolistic corporations), business owners tend to be highly involved in the community, fostering growth in the community (largely out of self interest).

Re:red v blue

[tomhath]

It's not the opposite in the US. The difference is that the US has a large, predominately white working middle class. Not rich and no desire to depend on the government. They tend to vote more conservatively than people who expect the government to support them.

Re:red v blue

[CAIMLAS]

There are plenty of stupid liberals out there, plenty. They'd be stupid conservatives if it wasn't for their drug abuse, welfare recipience, and extra-marital children.

Re:red v blue

[CAIMLAS]

Something you should probably consider is youth exodus, for both maps.

The best and brightest tend to leave home at a young age and never come back. They go to where the opportunity is, which, if you have an advanced degree or a specialist degree, is not anywhere near your home state (more often than not, if it's got a low population density).

Also, other data/studies I've read contradict this map. For instance, CA has one of the lowest IQs in the country. Observe:

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2010/05/state-iq-estimates-2009.html

(This information can be found elsewhere 'officially' but this is quick/easy to digest.)

Note that CA is the 4th lowest, DC is the lowest, etc. with the more staunchly conservative states right up there with Massachusetts and Vermont (SD, ND). This is composed from official US education data. (I'll note that military brats, who have tumultuous upbringings by anyone's standard (and stereotype), score notably higher than eg. NY, Hawaii, RI, CA, etc. as well. And yes, this data suggests the South is not likely to rise again...)

Re: red v blue

[Trinn]

I...are you serious? I honestly thought this view really had finally passed into the stone age. Guess there's still work to do for girls like me. Unless you're being facetious, you in the parent post here practically are the textbook definition of thosenwe stand against in my not-so-secret secret society.

Re:red v blue

[Hognoxious]

getting an education is helped by high parental income

FTFY.

Re:red v blue

[wavedeform]

By that definition, every republican elected in my lifetime is a left winger.

Re:red v blue

[wavedeform]

I think the Tea Party is an unholy marriage of the John Birch society, the KKK, and some behind the scenes money.

Re:red v blue

[tomhath]

However, richer states are more likely to vote Democrat, and poorer states are more likely to vote Republican

Not quite. Look more closely at voting maps and you'll see that states dominated by big cities tend to have concentrations of wealth in the suburbs and large but very concentrated levels of poverty in the city. The city dwellers vote Democrat in such large numbers it makes the state Democrat in spite of a couple of wealthy counties with high median incomes nearby. Even New York and Massachusetts have plenty of Red counties once you get away from the coast.

Re:red v blue

[Attila Dimedici]

Your point?

Re:red v blue

[Hognoxious]

I would rather shovel shit for minimum wage that[sic] reach into your wallet and steal your money.

And when someone in India is willing to shovel twice as much shit for a tenth of that?

No doubt it'll be Ubuntucare or gay marriage or abortion that made the US uncompetitive. You don't have to figure out which one right now, Fox News will tell you when the time comes.

Re:red v blue

[wavedeform]

That the more government/less government axis is not a particularly useful way to define the red/blue divide.

Re:red v blue

[cold fjord]

Look at the butthurt Republican mad that someone called out the GOP for the flaming hypocrites that they are.

Saying that you stand for something and actually standing for it are two ENTIRELY different things.

It's a damn shame that the Republicans don't actually measure up to their rhetoric.

I think this sums up the situation nicely.

Hmmmm, my spider-sense is warning me some down mods may be coming since this isn't a criticism of Republicans.

Re:red v blue

[ShanghaiBill]

so they are ok with killing unborn humans as long as the government doesnt decide?

Just because you think something should be legal, doesn't mean you are "ok with it". I think that abortion, adultery, prostitution, violent pornography, and smoking pot are all morally wrong, but I don't think any of them should be illegal. They should be discouraged by moral persuasion, not law enforcement.

Re:red v blue

[ganjadude]

hey, me as a libertarian also agree with all those things being morally wrong (well except for pot) and I also believe they should be legal.

Re:red v blue

[Solandri]

I'm not from the US, so I never understood why poor people vote conservative? All the red states seem to be poorer yet these are the people that would benefit most from a "socialist" left govt.

Poor people don't vote conservative. You're falling for something called Simpson's paradox. When you divide a population along arbitrary lines, the outcome per group can run counter to the outcome overall. The most famous example was the 2000 election where Gore won the popular election, but Bush won the electoral votes and thus the Presidency. Even though Gore won more votes, by dividing his votes among state lines, Bush ended up carrying more states (weighted by population) to win the Presidency. Another example is when in the 1980s, Southwest airlines won the award for best on-time flight ranking for the nation, even though at every airport they serviced they finished no higher than 2nd.

The same thing is going on here. Democrats on average tend to have lower income than Republicans. It's just that the really wealthy Republicans tend to live in or near urban areas, which vote heavily Democratic, so they end up living in states which vote Democrat. Thus if you try to analyze this on the basis of "poor states" and "rich states", you incorrectly assign those rich Republicans' income to the Democrat column because the state happens to vote Democrat. (This is also the flawed reasoning behind the common misbelief that because blue states are net contributors of federal funds and red states net receivers, that Liberals fund the government and Conservatives take from it. It's just the arbitrary state lines which create Simpson's paradox making it seem that way. In reality the opposite is true - Conservatives tend to have higher income so pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.)

The red states tend to have a greater proportion of their population in rural areas, and rural people tend to vote Republican, urban people Democrat.

Re:red v blue

[Solandri]

It's just Simpson's paradox. The really rich Republicans tend to live near urban centers. Urban centers tend to vote Democrat. By arbitrarily dividing the population among state lines, you are incorrectly assigning the taxes paid by the rich Republicans living in Democrat-voting states to the D column.

If you eliminate the arbitrary divisions (states) and base it purely on individuals, Republicans tend to have higher income so pay higher taxes than Democrats.

Re:red v blue

[real gumby]

...so I never understood why poor people vote conservative

You appear to subscribe to the idea (going back most famously to Burke) that "the people" will just vote more of others' money to themselves until everything breaks down. Apart from the subtle reasons why that end is not guaranteed, there are perfectly rational reasons not to simply vote the party that offers the most of other peoples' money:

1. You may believe that taxes are unattainably high (or close thereto), so that you would prefer not to make thinks worse and ultimately lose what benefits you will get.
2. You believe that you are only temporarily on the receiving end and that you will soon be out of that, so you don't want to support making things worse for you in the future.
3. You think support is bad, even though you get it yourself (this was the case, for example, of Ayn Rand who happily collected social security etc).
4. You think most of the benefits are going to people you don't like/don't deserve it (unlike you)/are different and/or you support cuts that affect others.

Variants of these are used by the republicans, and for that matter the democrats too.

In every western democracy I've been in there's a clear cut bias, rich white people vote right and all the multi-coloured worker-bees vote left. Why is the US the opposite?

My personal experience is only in France, Germany, Australia and the US but I think this distinction you describe is clear only in France, if anywhere at all.

Re:red v blue

[BitterOak]

In the U.S. the "right" actually proposes reducing government power

Like when they impose laws requiring [completely irrelevant] vaginal ultrasounds prior to aborts, or outlawing sodomy? Or when they act in order to increase military spending?

Although I disagree with the parent, I think he/she was modded down unfairly, as some valid points are raised. The problem is, in America, there are two right wings: the libertarian wing and the social conservative wing. They agree on some issues and disagree a great deal on others. It is the libertarian wing that favors smaller, less powerful federal government, and the social conservative wing that favors restrictions on abortions, restrictions on gay rights, etc. Their positions on those types of issues are often opposed. So, in America at least, it isn't so simple as a right vs left or liberal vs conservative split.

Re:red v blue

[happyhamster]

>>In the U.S. the "right" actually proposes reducing government power and, to the extent it actually does so, thus opens greater opportunities for those who are not yet wealthy.

>>As government power increases and it regulates ever more minutely the opportunities for those who do not have wealth and/or political connections are diminished.

Both statements are non sequitur. Your logic is faulty.

Re:red v blue

[djmurdoch]

I don't think you understand Simpson's paradox.

It is Simpson's paradox that makes it appear that poor people vote Republican and rich people vote Democrat, when the reverse is true. That comes from ignoring the other variables that are implicitly included when you subset by state.

Your final paragraph agrees with my claim: richer people tend to vote Republican, poorer people tend to vote Democrat. That's what I said originally.

The interesting fact is at the state level: Republicans living in blue states tend to be richer than Republicans living in red states (just as everyone else in blue states tends to be richer than in red states). If you were a Democrat, you'd attribute this to the success of Democrat policies. If you're a Republican, you say that they are rich in blue states because of the Republicans, despite all those Democrat voters.

Re:red v blue

[readin]

That would be the idealistic "screw you, I've got mine" response that's pretty typical of American conservatives. The myth of the self sufficient poor and the self made millionaire don't hurt either.

But if you actually have worked your ass off and supported yourself and your family without taking handouts from the government or anyone else, how can someone tell you it is a myth?

Then too, the US has always had a disturbing cultural meme where people actually believe in upward mobility, and that some day they'll be rich and they don't want to screw it up for themselves. Reality is of course quite a bit different than that, as upward mobility in the US is actually among the lowest on the planet.

It used to be that America did have high rates of upward mobility compared to the rest of the world. Of course at that time we also had more economic freedom than most of the rest of the world. Now the myth is that America is still economically free. But the truth is that we are very heavily regulated, we much a huge amount of government spending, and we are no longer the free country we once were.

Reality check though: places with very large intrusive governments also tend to be very screwed up. It's almost as if (here's a thought nobody in the US seems capable of) the trick is to have the right amount of laws, regulation, and social safety nets and then people can be happy and prosperous. Oh, and don't let any one group stay in power for too long. It tends to make the inevitable corruption even worse, and it also tends to radicalize the opposition so that when they eventually do get into power, they screw things up even worse than they already are.

There is a lot truth in what you say here.

Re:red v blue

[readin]

Yes, there certainly were federal contracts, but southern Maryland and Washington DC had the same opportunities. Northern Virginia lead the growth and it was the only one of the three to have Republican government.

Re: red v blue

[ultranova]

You point out a huge dilemma for conservatives. Do we vote for the people who promise to save the country and then try to destroy it? Or do we vote for the people who promise to destroy the country and keep their promise?

That problem is not limited to conservatives, or the USA for that matter.

Re: red v blue

[ultranova]

Ok, so if you believe contraception is immoral, why are you forced by the Obama administration to violate your religion?

Obama administration is forcing people to use contraception? How does that work? Do you have to submit used condoms for genetic testing? If you're ugly and poor, does the federal government grant vouchers for Nevada institutions?

Re: red v blue

[shutdown -p now]

What Christian value, exactly, you cannot practice yourself because it is illegal?

Re:red v blue

[goodmanj]

The difference between the U.S. and other places is frontier mentality. Unlike most places in Europe, rural America still carries a tradition of independence and do-it-yourself attitude from the frontier days. The wealthy urban right actively encourages this spirit in the rural right, and uses it to push the rural right to vote against their economic interests.

The only other place I know like it is Australia, where (correct me if I'm wrong) rural areas also tend to lean right.

Re: red v blue

[readin]

Obama administration is forcing people to purchase contraception.

Re: red v blue

[dj245]

There Are a lot of public schools in the northeast better than most private schools. Too bad most them cost a lot of property taxes to get into

Depends on what your reference is I guess. The town south of me here in Connecticut has some of the best public schools in the nation. Property tax there is about what I had in a Milwaukee suburb. The Milwaukee suburb had solidly mediocre to slightly under average schools at best.

On the other hand, the Milwaukee suburb had good emergency response times for real emergencies. "Infant nonresponsive" is about the most urgent call you can make to 911. That Milwaukee suburb had an average of 3 minute response times for this. The average here in Connecticut is about 20 minutes in an area of similar population density.

Re:red v blue

[speedlaw]

Actually, I just read the benefits here in NY. Chemo is covered....I hope to never need that "benefit".

Re: red v blue

[gmhowell]

What's wrong with an organization set up, funded, and intended for the benefit of teachers being for the benefit of teachers? Why should students be first? Let their parents form an organization to advocate for them. Oh, wait, most schools have a PTA or PTSA.

Re:red v blue

[gmhowell]

Look at the butthurt Republican mad that someone called out the GOP for the flaming hypocrites that they are.

Saying that you stand for something and actually standing for it are two ENTIRELY different things.

It's a damn shame that the Republicans don't actually measure up to their rhetoric.

I think this sums up the situation nicely.

Hmmmm, my spider-sense is warning me some down mods may be coming since this isn't a criticism of Republicans.

I like that cartoon, but it needed a setup panel where each side got to set their own hurdle height.

Re:red v blue

[Jack Griffin]

The liberals I know are miserable. They can never be happy with what they have - they always see the grass being always greener elsewhere. They are also overwhelmingly underachievers with expectations that their slack will be taken up by "someone else."

So all liberals are sad losers and all conservatives are God's happy hard working children. Got it...

Re:red v blue

[Jack Griffin]

That's not that case AT ALL. Take a look at California which has a very wealthy population, the rich there lean more to the left. The rich put Obama into office.

That was my point. Rich states vote left in the US. In every other western democracy they'd be voting right.

Re:red v blue

[guises]

This is a poor example. Chicago public schools are actually reasonably good, their record is worse than competing private schools because the public schools are required to admit the problem students while the private schools can just push them away. If you control for high-risk students the graduation rate is about the same.

Re:red v blue

[Jack Griffin]

Australia is a little different because our right is a coalition party of the Liberals (big L traditional right wing conservative party) and the Nationals who are simply a pro-rural farming party. All the farmers vote National because we have a huge agricultural economy supported by subsidies (Socialism!) that they want to hang on to. So strangely, the Nationals could be considered a liberal (small L) lefty party, except they hate gays and rock music so are considered conservative. If you look purely at the Liberal party (big L) votes, they are squarely in all the affluent suburbs of the major cities, everywhere else is Labor (left) or National (farming special interest).

Re:red v blue

[russotto]

But if you actually have worked your ass off and supported yourself and your family without taking handouts from the government or anyone else, how can someone tell you it is a myth?

Then they pull out the schools/infrastructure/defense argument, as if those were the same as welfare.

Re:red v blue

[Entropy98]

Wealth was concentrated in those areas long before modern economic policy. Hell a map of the northeast from 1813 probably wouldn't look all that different, wealth concentrated in and around the major cities.

Re: red v blue

[readin]

What secret society is this? The one that says other people should be forced to pay to protect you from the natural consequences of your your recreational activities even if they find doing so immoral? Should hunters be allowed to force PETA to pay for ammo?

Re: red v blue

[readin]

There are some Christians who believe birth control is immoral. Under the administration's enforcement of Obamacare, those Christians will be force to pay for birth control.

Re: red v blue

[shutdown -p now]

They aren't forced to pay for birth control - they are forced to pay for insurance, which, among other things, provides for birth control.

Indirectly paying for something that you don't like is not at all new, and all of us have been in that situation. For example, I don't like the US foreign policy in the Middle East, but my income taxes still fund it.

Re:red v blue

[vux984]

THAT being said, a few grand to start an apparently complicated business is NOT a large barrier to entry.

Pretty much this.

Not being able to risk leaving your job (with a health plan) to start a business because you can't get affordable healthcare for a child born with even some relatively nominal condition is a barrier.

Not being able to start a business because you don't have a defensive patent portfolio is a barrier to entry.

Not being able to start an enterprise that requires 10s of millions in capital is a barrier to entry.

$1500 to navigate some regulatory red tape is not a barrier to starting a business. Hell, 10x that, or $15000 to navigate red tape is not a barrier to starting a business. If your business plan flounders over $1500 in red tape that's not a business that's going to feed anyone or create jobs. Its a hobby enterprise that will maybe supplement your income if you are lucky.

Re:red v blue

[ultranova]

I think that abortion, adultery, prostitution, violent pornography, and smoking pot are all morally wrong, but I don't think any of them should be illegal.

Just out of curiosity, what's morally wrong with smoking pot?

Re:red v blue

[mcgrew]

Whoever modded that "troll", sorry if I offended you, but it's true. Rich kids get private school or public svhool in a high tax district, poor kids are screwed.

Also, poverty is soul-crushing and leads people to drink. Drunkenness by drunken pregnant women leads to a mentally retarded baby. Even if they stay sober they don't get the kind of health care the middle class gets, at least in the US.

That said, rich folks are often stupid, although they at least get a chance at a decent education.

Re:red v blue

[Vermonter]

Except that a problem arises when you view an unborn child as a human being, and then an abortion means ending the life of another human being. This is not the case with adultery, prostitution, violent pornography, or smoking pot. It is a far more complicated issue.

Re:red v blue

[EmagGeek]

I never said that. I am only speaking of the people I know.

It could just be that the liberals I know are not happy in the south where they don't have the expectation of having micro-managerial control over everybody else.

But yes, it is absolutely true that I don't know a single liberal who isn't bitching incessantly about something all the time.

Re:red v blue

[DogDude]

I have to disagree with your suggested idea that a separate legal entity should be able to be created with zero effort and $0 cost. I think it's unnecessary, and probably a very bad idea. I think the whole corporate system is already badly abused as is in the US.

Re:red v blue

[ShanghaiBill]

Just out of curiosity, what's morally wrong with smoking pot?

I think pot should be legal, but I know many pot smokers and my observation is that it makes them apathetic and stupid. There is scientific evidence to back this up. I believe that every person should live up to their potential, and work to make the world better. You aren't going to do that if you are intentionally making yourself stupider.

Re:red v blue

[captainlavender]

Honestly? Aggressive fear-based propaganda. About sums it up.

Re: red v blue

[mcgrew]

What Christian values would those be? Note: I am a Christian. I have an illustrated King James Bible on my web site (note it isn't yet fully illustrated).

I've read the whole thing, especially the New Testament. I know of no laws that outlaw any beliefs whatever. That said, as a Christian I MUST respect the mores and values of other religions, and even the atheists. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You might also remember judge not, lest you be judged yourself. It isn't up to you or me to dictate Christian values to anyone; THAT would go against Christian values.

Re: red v blue

[coolsnowmen]

Well, it isn't. There are religions that call blood tranfusions a sin, but, well, I'm not convinced. We live in a world were simply declaring something immoral doesn't make Obama an asshole. Please provide a pursausive argument for why contraception, the most liberating device made since the car is immoral. The fact is that young poor women get their lives derailed completely by pregnancy and contraception can keep them at their job ( and in school ) and so off welfare.

  It is in the US society's best interest to keep them on a productive path and off government money.

If that woman believes it is wrong to use contraception than that is her choice. I consider it basic heathcare and so does most of America. You declaring it immoral and removing it from basic health care is removing that choice from poor women across the country. I find that immoral, and bad for America.

Re:red v blue

[sunsurfandsand]

In the U.S. the "right" actually proposes reducing government power

Does it, in practical effect, count as reducing government power if all you actually do is transfer that power from the constitutional government to large corporations? If so, is that a good thing? Isn't it in fact marginally worse for me if completely unaccountable corporations wrest power from a nearly unaccountable government? Government does a lousy job of protecting me from AT&T, Goldman Sachs, and Monsanto...but AT&T, Goldman Sachs, and Monsanto don't protect me from government at all, and certainly not from themselves.

Re:red v blue

[Lord Lemur]

I have heard this self same argument used to describe how Hitler was a Leftist/Liberal. I beleive this is what they teach in Texas, as the man whole explained this to me was publicly schooled there.

Re: red v blue

[Lord Lemur]

No, the Obama Administration pushed ACA, which was written by the same think tank as every thing Ronald Regan did that Conservatives love. ACA requires for profit companies to buy insurace coverage that covers contraception.

Re:red v blue

[tranquilidad]

I never said it should be either zero effort or zero cost.

My original comment was related to your request for a list of other "regulations" that make it difficult to start a business in the US.

My example pointed out that 60% of our start up costs were related to government regulations. I followed up with the fact that states find regulations so burdensome that they've adopted organizations designed to guide people through those regulations. I also replied that a market has been created to provide services to make it easier and, finally, I pointed out that the IRS is the face of unmanageable regulations.

I never argued for zero regulations or cost but to claim that there's little to no regulatory barrier to starting a business is a bit of a stretch.

Re:red v blue

[Magius_AR]

In every western democracy I've been in there's a clear cut bias, rich white people vote right and all the multi-coloured worker-bees vote left. Why is the US the opposite?

It's not. The "multi-coloured worker bees" as you call them still vote left in the US. It's just the "white poor" that vote Republican. And it's either due to other conservative party stances (pro-war/religion/abortion/anti-gay/etc) or they're just not that self-centered with their political voting (thinking more for society than personal gain).

Re:red v blue

[volmtech]

I think you are exactly right.

Re:red v blue

[surd1618]

Red states do use the most social services. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html But they vote by the supposed moral stances of the parties. Why? Propaganda. There's not 2 parties here, but a junta divided across the public and private sectors. This game's been going on for 20 years where moral stances are pronounced on the supposed 2 parties, and they give and take just enough to keep the elderly vote in balance. It's extremely predictable, so it's easy to keep the people needed by the junta in office, which then gives them the needed credentials to move to the private sector as need be. Gerrymandering helps too.

Re: red v blue

[jmac_the_man]

What's wrong with an organization set up, funded, and intended for the benefit of teachers being for the benefit of teachers? Why should students be first? Let their parents form an organization to advocate for them. Oh, wait, most schools have a PTA or PTSA.

The biggest problem with the teachers' union is that they advocate for pro-union policies on the taxpayer dime. Obviously, public school teachers are paid with tax money. Obviously, they're supposed to be the authority figures in their classroom. However, there are teachers who abuse their authority figure status to berate students who have/whose parents have different political beliefs, and everyone is forced to pay them to do it. This is already illegal, but students, parents, and taxpayers have NO RECOURSE WHATSOEVER.

If teachers were accountable to PTAs in the way students are accountable to teachers, you'd have a point. But they aren't, and I think you know that. Your argument about PTAs is a meaningless red herring.

Re: red v blue

[jmac_the_man]

Is the district you graduated from held captive by the NJEA? Do NJEA members berate students who disagree with them on politics in the classroom?

I made reference to moving, and I meant Pennsylvania, but it would be easier to get to my job from Essex county than PA. What district are we talking about?

Re:red v blue

[Hognoxious]

That you redefine words to mean whatever you don't like.

It's like me saying that cutting property taxes for millionaires is "Manchester Utd".

Re: red v blue

[readin]

So your religion doesn't have a problem with contraception and blood transfusions. Neither does mine. That doesn't mean we have the right to deny freedom of religion to those we disagree with.

I'm not removing a woman's right to contraception. I'm not a big fan of the government paying for contraception, but for me that's not an issue of my religion forbidding it. But for those people whose religion considers contraception immoral, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

This is a lot like conscientious objector status during the draft. If your religion has a long history of opposing something and you have a well-established participation in that religion (i.e. you didn't just make up the religion or join the religion to get out of following the law) the government should have to meet a very high standard to force you to comply. At the very least it should make reasonable accommodations.

People who opposed contraception lived their lives peacefully without disturbing their neighbors for years and years, and then one day the government got in their face and told them to go purchase contraception for someone or else!

Re: red v blue

[gmhowell]

Your entire comment is a red herring if it's meant to address what I wrote. Nowhere have you (or the poster I was replying to) given a moral, ethical, or legal basis for why teachers' unions should be worried about anything other than teachers.

And people do have recourse against teachers and the systems in which they work. First is the ballot box to replace school boards. Second is the court system.

Re: red v blue

[jmac_the_man]

Nowhere have you (or the poster I was replying to) given a moral, ethical, or legal basis for why teachers' unions should be worried about anything other than teachers.

The problem I am addressing is that teachers are advocating to students on behalf of the union, rather than teaching what they are ostensibly there to teach.

This is unethical because they are being paid to teach a specific subject, and they aren't because they are agitating on behalf of the union instead. (Note that the taxpayer is probably OK with paying a teacher to teach kids English, but if the taxpayer doesn't support the union, they would probably object to paying someone to propagandize on its behalf.)

It is immoral because teachers are the authority figure in the classroom. They can punish students for not having the same political views as the teacher, or for their parents not having the same political views as the teacher. The reason we have a secret ballot in this country is to make it harder for your boss to fire you for your political beliefs.

Because it is unethical and immoral for teachers to propagandize to students on behalf of the union instead of teaching, there are laws to make that illegal. In NJ, it is illegal for teachers to advocate for or advocate against a particular candidate for a school board, or to advocate for the passage or defeat of a school budget while they are acting in their capacity as teachers.

The problem is that there is no enforcement of this law.

And people do have recourse against teachers and the systems in which they work. First is the ballot box to replace school boards.

The school board can't fire teachers for advocating on behalf of the union during class time. They union would never allow it. (By the way, if you run against the union, the thugs in the NJEA are going to retaliate against your child.)

Second is the court system.

Huh? You can't sue teachers for malpractice. The court can't punish teachers for violating ethics laws unless the teacher is charged with it, and nobody enforces that law. If it's not a crime, and it's not a tort, what the hell do you want the courts to do?

Speaking as a non-American

[arcite]

But I have observed that whether there is a big D or R as POTUS, it doesn't really affect political outcomes as much as it may seem. Take for example the relatively new in vogue maneuver of 'redistricting' and 'gerrymandering', perhaps the true root of systemic dysfunction. Essentially a practice of 'divide and conquer', where private interests successfully co-opt larger societal movements. Witness the dysfunction in Congress --- the power players love it! All those political lobbyists, media manipulators, spin doctors, fringe politicians preaching destruction of the government, fat cat hedgefunders, and sycophants of every political and religious affiliation ect... Who would want to change the status quo when they're making so much money from it?

Re:Speaking as a non-American

[Attila Dimedici]

Take for example the relatively new in vogue maneuver of 'redistricting' and 'gerrymandering',...

Considering that the term "gerrymander" was coined in 1812, I am not sure how you conclude that it is relatively new. I remember reading in the 1980s about a Congressional District that snaked its way across a state. The district was 1 or 2 miles wide and about 100 miles long. This practice has been going on for basically as long as the United States has been around.

Re:Speaking as a non-American

[Anonymous Coward]

It's as if it was named after someone....

Re:Speaking as a non-American

[Weh]

it's called gerrymandering I believe. Democracy in the US is absurdly broken, corporate and special interests campaign money, gerrymandering, fillibustering, all degrade the once shining example of democracy that the US once was.

Re:Speaking as a non-American

[readin]

TFA has an enlightening chart called "Change in median household income, 2007-2012, by county." It might explain voting patterns a little better.

Re:Speaking as a non-American

[dj245]

Yes, but with today's computers and all the information available, you can carve out exactly the ridiculously-drawn district you need, considering the needs of your fellow party members in other districts. Thousands of calculations about ideal demographics, balancing against nearby districts, etc can be done per second. This certainly must have been substantially harder in the 1800s. The more you gerrymander, the more extreme you have to be to win your primary. Then, you need to gerrymander some more to get the moderates (swing voters) into a different district. It is a vicious cycle which has taken some time to reach the point we are at today.

Today the Senate is a much better representation of the people living in their state than the House. When they consider the needs of all the people they represent, it is a big and diverse slice. Not so in the House.

Gains in North Dakota

[Anonymous Coward]

That's mostly due to the oil boom. 3 years ago, you'd be lucky to make $9/hr at the local Wal-mart when at that point apartment rates had already hiked up to $900-$1000/month.

While the oil found is certainly helping economic stimulation, apartment rent prices and food prices have traditionally been higher and only continue to spiral out of control while all standard forms of common labor drag their heels.

Imagine my surprise moving to a major metropolitan area on the west coast where prices on apartments around the same price or cheaper and where a gallon of whole milk went from $4.99 down to $3.59 and all prices matched about fairly while pay rates are significantly higher.

If you're not in the oil industry or something that pays well (farmers?) then there is literally no reason to stay there.

Wyoming

[LordNacho]

Looks quite green. What do they get up to there? Big agro / natural resources?

Something must be done

[davide marney]

Hey, this is an easy one. Just move 9/10ths of those people out of the cities and force them to live in rural counties. Problem solved! No more "inequality"

Something must be done
This is something,
Therefore it must be done.

Re:Something must be done

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Just move 9/10ths of those people out of the cities and force them to live in rural counties.

. . . or the other way around.

There is plenty of room on the sprawling Kennedy Mansion estate in Hyannis Port for a trailer park. The Kennedy's are always talking about helping out the poor folks like me. I'm sure they wouldn't mind if I set up camp in my trailer on their front lawn.

The heat maps are misleading

[djmurdoch]

Those maps are reasonably accurate from a geographic point of view, but they hugely distort the actual distribution of wealth in the population, because the population isn't distributed evenly. They would be less misleading if they had used cartograms, e.g. this one of 2012 election results. Those would show that there is a big concentration of wealth on the west coast and near Chigago as well as the one on the east coast.

Re:The heat maps are misleading

[jedidiah]

Wealth and affluence aren't the same thing. Even income and affluence aren't the same thing.

If I made double what I do now but lived in the "wealthy northeast", I would have LESS wealth than I do now rather than more. I probably wouldn't have any more spending power either. My "affluence" improvement would simply be a mirage.

Possible link?

[jamesl]

Of course, the cost of living is higher in those counties as well.

If there weren't so many highly paid people living and working there, chasing housing, food and services with their dollars, perhaps the cost of living wouldn't be as high.

Or you could say ...

Of course, the cost of living is lower in the poor counties as well.

Dakota is getting richer

[Vincent77]

The map on this page http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/how-oil-made-north-dakota-rich-in-one-map-20131212 also makes clear that oil makes the difference for Dakota. The "increase/decrease of income" completes the heatmap.

The Bakken Oil Patch Is the Plains Income Source

[jfischersupercollid]

The counties with the sudden increase in income match up with the Bakken oil patch. This is a decent article with a map to illustrate

Sadly, the oil will be extracted, the land will be poisoned, and the workers will leave for another boom and/or gold rush elsewhere, so the counties will be no better off unless they tax the oil extraction effort now.

eh

[buddyglass]

Heat map by county seems like too blunt an instrument. In every county I've lived in there have been pockets of concentrated wealth and pockets of extreme poverty. In the same county. Not sure how useful a county-wide average is.

Re:The Bakken Oil Patch Is the Plains Income Sourc

[Anonymous Coward]

"so the counties will be no better off unless they tax the oil extraction effort now."

And they don't really. The area of Dickinson already went through an oil boom in the late 70s early 80s.
They didn't learn from their mistakes. Most of the area around Villard and to the west was a testament to what happens when you think the money will never stop flowing.

Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue]

[Geoffrey.landis]

I'm not from the US, so I never understood why poor people vote conservative?

Liberals don't understand this either, so your lack of understanding doesn't stem from not being from the US.

Liberalism is, overall, the urban and suburban political philosophy; conservatism is typically the rural political philosophy. Rural counties are poorer than urban ones, resulting in the political split you see.

Liberalism is not really marketed to people outside of the urban centers. Most liberals don't seem to have much interest in what people in those areas think, other than making quips like that one: "We have a very very very stupid population". (The people in rural areas think exactly the same thing.)

Re:Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue]

[Applehu Akbar]

If there were no New York City, we would to import half of our snottiness from Europe.

Re:Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue]

[Anonymous Coward]

Amusing to know that most people in the Urban centers would starve to death of not for the Rual areas.

No, they wouldn't. If the Rural areas didn't exist, the people in those Urban Centers would then need to be producing their own food. Since the rural areas do exist, though, there is food importation. Paid for with money from the economic activities Urban areas do have.

Which is what they export.

Of course, if New York was wiped off the face of the planet, people would have to do without....um...what?

Well, New York is the 16th largest economy in the world, behind South Korea, so the state probably produces a lot of things you don't realize you buy. Lots of cabbage, apples, cherries, as well as dairy products and honey.

Or did you mean New York City? Well, besides the obvious Stock exchange, there's plenty of research in the fields of information technology and healthcare, but also manufacturing. Garments, food products (there's a reason why that Picante sauce commercial referenced another brand being made in New York City, that's where a ton of factories are). New York City is also a major center of film and television production. Not to mention book publishing and journalism.

Of course, you, in your snobby rural superiority kick, may not value such things, you may decide to dismiss all of this as unimportant and unnecessary, all the while deriding urbanites for their arrogance, as they aren't the plain and simple folk of the rural areas who do what's important.

Re:Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue]

[Anonymous Coward]

Your definitions of conservative and liberal are strange to people outside the US, even your liberals are just rightwing conservatives to many other countries.

Re:Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue]

[couchslug]

"Most liberals don't seem to have much interest in what people in those areas think, other than making quips like that one: "We have a very very very stupid population""

Work in the education system in rural Red States and you'll KNOW they have a VSP. What's cruel is that VSP infects its children who are thereby made education-averse.

Re:Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue]

[gmhowell]

If there were no New York City, we would to import half of our snottiness from Europe.

I have faith in the ability of LA to pick up the slack.

Re:Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue]

[Maudib]

Funny, but fortunately not accurate.

Food production is now a big company thing, done by companies owned by those of us who live in NYC. A more accurate rephrasing of your statement is:

"If the people who actually have power and money suddenly didn't, and uneducated rednecks were in charge, things might be bad for people in NYC".

Also, you should be relieved to note that NJ, NY and New England have more then enough agriculture to feed ourselves. It really isn't a Urban vs. Rural argument either, as we love rural folk up here and vice versa. Its really about NYC & New England versus fly over country.

Re:Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue]

[Maudib]

Good riddance? Yes, say goodbye to those of us who have incomes, pay taxes and largely cover the costs of you schools and roads.

By all means, lets secede. No more wealth transfer from NYC Metro to the rest of you leachers.

Re:Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue]

[ganjadude]

actually where I live in the hudson valley, we pay more in taxes and get less back than either the city or northern NY. Trust me, Im all for NYC becoming its own state as are most of us up here

Cost of Living

[Jon the Engineer]

What about the map that shows the cost of living? The cost of living (food, gas, etc.) is higher in the north east than the south east. Just because somebody makes $100K in the north east doesn't mean they are living any more lavishly or comfortably than some one in the south east making $75K.

Actually I've heard it's a curve

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Where the really poor/stupid and the really rich/smart tend to vote democrat. The group that I've heard that tends to vote republican is the middle class, especially the upper middle class. (No I don't have a site for that. Also I'm not going to say lib/conservative because to be blunt they don't seem that different to me.)

Alternative visualization of census data

[seyyah]

If you don't want the heatmap approach, this is a good way of exploring the data: http://workshops.boundlessgeo.com/tutorial-censusmap/_static/code/censusmap.html

Not true

[TarPitt]

The rate of social mobility in the US is the second lowest in the industrialized world (after the UK). Many poorer, developing countries actually have higher rates of upward mobility:
"Social immobility erodes the American dream", Washington Post
"The Myth of the American Dream", CNN

This, combined with the highest income inequality in the industrialized world, is the legacy of 40 years of anti-government policies, breaking trade unions, and reducing taxes on the wealthy.

The roll-back of the New Deal has produced this, not the imposition of whatever you call "socialism"

northern nevada

[will_die]

I can understand almost all the rich patches, but have not clue about the huge area of northern Nevada.
Anyone have the clue on why that huge area is so high?

Re:northern nevada

[PPH]

Low tax rates.

Re:northern nevada

[ChrisMaple]

For a guess, the area is sparsely populated, so a few well-off people can skew the statistics. Note, however, that it's not the deep green of the most prosperous areas, but the medium green of incomes near $65,000.

Re:northern nevada

[will_die]

Was kind of thinking that but I have driven through there a few times and alot of the towns along the highway are really shabby places.

Not a heatmap

[seyyah]

That's not a heatmap guys. It's a Choropleth map.

Re:Not a heatmap

[NJRoadfan]

Recommended reading, has a whole section on how choropleth maps can be manipulated to suit an agenda: http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Maps-2nd-Edition/dp/0226534219

Not surprising.

[MtViewGuy]

Here's why the Northeast has so much affluence: the extreme earning wealth from the financial sector around New York City. You have a LOT of money managers in the New York City area earning yearly incomes that would make even Yankees' 3B Alex Rodriguez (before he got into his recent troubles with illegal drug doping) seen like a poor man in comparison in terms of earnings per year.

Re:Liberalism Works!

[ChrisMaple]

Wealth is the target for the biggest thieves of all, the government. Big, successful cities are the ripest plums, have the highest concentration of money to steal. Not having the intelligence to recognize when they're bleeding the rich victims too much, or the moral stature to care, "liberal" ("progressive") governments eventually cause today's Detroit.

Re:The Bakken Oil Patch Is the Plains Income Sourc

[NJRoadfan]

The local governments will spend the new found wealth like drunken sailors. When the oil dries up, they will be left with a giant deficient on the balance sheet and cry for help.

Civil war

[moschner]

This seems to me as if the wealth distribution is because of the civil war. Victorious, the north was able to build wealth while the southern economy had to rebuild and has never caught up.

Not supported by the data...

[Anonymous Coward]

The title is misleading. Yes, the high-income green is concentrated in the northeast, but that's accidental. Where the income is (mostly) concentrated is in cities, regardless of what part of the country they're in, while poverty is more widespread in rural areas (and the exceptions look like they're mostly the result of the fracking boom). That the cities are concentrated in the northeast is just an accident of history — the northeaster cities were founded before cars and railroads existed, so they tended to be both closer together and have higher population densities.

The correct conclusion, as I look at the graph, is that there's an urban-rural divide with the wealth concentrated in the cities.

-JS

Title is Bogus

[pubwvj]

These areas are not representative of the Northeast or New England. Most of the concentration is around the area from Washington, DC to NYC. This is not the north east but rather the high urban political and financial markets lane.

Re:Liberalism Works!

[readin]

Look at the map in TFA that shows income growth since 2009. It tells a very different story.

Why would DC and NYC be a collection of wealth?

[Karmashock]

Could it be that that is where they sent all our money?

DC doesn't have an economy. It is the federal government. It profits because federal employees profit.

As to NYC... they went broke. And then suddenly they had all the money they wanted. Where did it come from? Federal Reserve wished the money into existence. Effectively devaluing everyone's currency to bail out the bankers.

We hear people complaining about the "hair cut" in Cyprus. Where they were going to take a percentage of everyone's bank account's to pay the national debt. Well... our government did the same thing. They do it every time they devalue the currency.

These regions of the country are only wealthy at the expense of the rest of the country. DC and NYC robbed the rest of the country. Point blank.

Northeast has many poor people

[akreider]

The Northeast has many poor people. A geographical representation of the data is distorted. Notably the poor people in Philadelphia and Baltimore are overwhelmed by their less dense and wealthier suburbs. Also, I'm doing a higher resolution map of income and race with open map layers - very early version: http://www.justicemap.org/ The final version will have an API and allow for basic GIS analysis.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion