Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of deeply Republican areas are experiencing a lot of economic growth, Georgia, the Carolinas, Alabama, etc. all come to mind. Most foreign companies look at the South/Sunbelt first and foremost, which has a notorious reputation for ideal business/industry environments. It's no wonder they continue to vote for the GOP, since they have done better in these past 8-10 years than ever before.
Georgia picked up Kia, Alabama got Hyundai, Mercedes, and others. Mississippi landed Toyota. You rarely hear about these kinds of industries locating in the Northeast or West.
The fact that the South has been minimally hit by the economic turmoil and the housing crisis should be a clear indication of how well the state politics are doing. Sadly, some of these prosporous states are probably going to go Blue, which could make places like North Carolina or Georgia the next Michigan.
Of course, there is direction corellation that Blue states support the service industry and Red states support manufacturing. There isn't really any other way to go, and the transition is usually rough going from industrial jobs to purely service industry.
These states that subscribe to Republican rule have lower wages and depend heavily on federal tax dollars that Washington doles out to states like Tennessee, Georgia and the Carolinas. Instead of going to China, they went to you. That isn't something to be particularly proud of. Michigan, Illinois and Massascusetts are the reason why Washington has that money to give you. So before you talk about how well your state is run, remember who else butters your bread.
Also, I really don't see how the South is doing any better than the rest of us. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...e_april_08.png
These states that subscribe to Republican rule have lower wages and depend heavily on federal tax dollars that Washington doles out to states like Tennessee, Georgia and the Carolinas. Instead of going to China, they went to you.
Are you suggesting that investing in our own country is somehow worse than putting our money into foreign nations with questionable human rights violations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan
That isn't something to be particularly proud of. Michigan, Illinois and Massachusetts are the reason why Washington has that money to give you. So before you talk about how well your state is run, remember who else butters your bread.
I would like a reputable source to confirm that MI, IL, and Mass. give money directly to TN, GA, NC, and SC besides the plethora of new migrants fleeing those areas you mentioned.
Most places have yet to be hit by the housing crisis. Florida is a no-brainer, they've been having troubles for years. Atlanta has a high foreclosure rate, mostly from recent transplants who did not do enough finanical research (obviously).
Notice that on the map you posted, most of the Red states are lighter colors, signifying lower foreclosure rates.
I'm from a Blue state (MI). I live in a Blue state (CA). I see little in common between the economies of the two places. No, I don't think it has to with red or blue, things just aren't that simple.
Are you suggesting that investing in our own country is somehow worse than putting our money into foreign nations with questionable human rights violations?
I would like a reputable source to confirm that MI, IL, and Mass. give money directly to TN, GA, NC, and SC besides the plethora of new migrants fleeing those areas you mentioned.
Most places have yet to be hit by the housing crisis. Florida is a no-brainer, they've been having troubles for years. Atlanta has a high foreclosure rate, mostly from recent transplants who did not do enough finanical research (obviously).
Notice that on the map you posted, most of the Red states are lighter colors, signifying lower foreclosure rates.
While, I am an anti-American liberal. It's good that jobs aren't being offshored, but they are being "in-sorced" to areas that don't have strong labor or tax laws. Businesses coming in and setting up shop in the South are doing so on the same general idea as those who do so in China, Mexico and Vietnam. They are going to your states because people there are generally willing to work for cheaper wages and without the protection of labor, not because of anything they have done to improve themselves. Kudos for being the cheapest labor whores in the Union. You are still trying to win blue-collar manufacturing jobs even 20 years after those jobs began leaving. The rest of America is moving on, and your resistance will ultimately bite you in the ass.
I never said those states give money directly. The government has inter-state welfare set up for states like Miss. and Tenn. One is almost tempted to use the word socialism to describe it.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg (broken link)
Note how of the states that voted for Kerry, only five took more from the federal gov't than they gave. Of the states that voted for Bush, only five were net donators to Washington. Eight of ten states with the lowest ratios went for Kerry, and the other two were swing states. It is real easy for Gov. Palin to say how she cut taxes when her state gots back twice as much money as it gave to the federal government.
The division between these states that we are talking about have no coorelation to foreclosure rates. Michigan, Ohio, Georgia and Florida are hammered, Minnesota, Mississippi and Vermont are fine. The map was to illustrate that the South is not immune or untouched by national trends.
I'm from a Blue state (MI). I live in a Blue state (CA). I see little in common between the economies of the two places. No, I don't think it has to with red or blue, things just aren't that simple.
The difference is that California is diversified and Michigan is not. The Mich. economy would be fine if it would have been based on cars and time machine manufacturing. Beyond that, the fundamental systems of those two states are fairly similar. They are both highly unionized states, with high minimum wages. They have higher taxes that the state recycles into the economy by way of capital improvements, investments in higher education, et cetera. You have Berkeley, CalTech and Ann Arbor. Georgia has a really good football team.
San Francisco, CA is probably one of the most liberal places in the country, Provo Utah is probably one of the most conservative.
In SF, you would need to spend 87% of the median family income to buy a median priced home. In Provo, you only need to spend 32% of the median family income to buy the median priced home.
John Burns Real Estate Consulting - Local Analysis (http://www.realestateconsulting.com/Intelligence.aspx?quicklaunch=true®ion=local - broken link)
So while the median family income is more than twice as much in SF $79,423 versus $37,205 in Provo. Because in SF, you need to come up with $745,000 to buy a median price home versus $190,265 in Provo, even people making very high salaries in SF feel that they are poor needing government assistance to buy a home. In Provo even if they salaries are still fairly low, the locals are still able to save for the children's college, have stock portfolios and add to the Roth IRA. There incomes may be low, but the feel act and feel rich.
If you live in Provo, most people can afford to get married and raise a family. So people get married fairly early in life. In SF, it may take quite a while to save enough money if ever to buy a house and get married, so a lot of people who live in SF just never get married.
In SF because a lot people who live in SF feel that they will never be able to buy in SF, support ideas like rent control that seem nuts to someone who lives in Provo. Support keeping the rents low in a rent controlled apartment is one of the things in SF, that turns Republicans who move to SF into liberals. In Provo, almost anyone who wants to buy a house probably can afford to buy a house. So no one in Provo sees a need for rent control. When a liberal from SF moves to Provo, home ownership is one of the things that starts making them feel like property might not be theft after all.
A lot of the democratic platform in effect is about making it easier to have sex without anytype of consequences to yourself. Make abortion legal, subsidise health care, give away condoms, ensure the availability of morning after pills, make drugs and alcohol more available so its easier to create a good time where you might get lucky.... When you are single, this argument has the most appeal.
Because your sister in law caught herpes in college, she had trouble concieving. Meanwhile your brother who spent all that times in bars becoming a ladies man is now an alcoholic. When you get married and start having kids, you want to protect your children from the mistakes of your own youth. The idea of just saying no to drugs and alcohol has a lot more appeal.
I am sure that the degree to which the local housing market is regulated doesn't explain the entire Conservative/Liberal divide, I do think it explains more of it than people generally acknowledge.
In a place like, Provo, a lot of the policies of the Republican party really do have an internal logic and in a place like SF, a lot of the policies of the Democratic party also have an internal logic. Moreover, the local government tend to make decisions that re-enforce that internal logic.
In SF, one can always win a local election by arguing to tighten housing regulation in order to preserve the supply of rent controlled units. In Provo, more housing means cheaper housing for everyone and more jobs for people working in the construction industry, who in Provo would oppose this?
A lot of deeply Republican areas are experiencing a lot of economic growth, Georgia, the Carolinas, Alabama, etc. all come to mind. Most foreign companies look at the South/Sunbelt first and foremost, which has a notorious reputation for ideal business/industry environments. It's no wonder they continue to vote for the GOP, since they have done better in these past 8-10 years than ever before.
Georgia picked up Kia, Alabama got Hyundai, Mercedes, and others. Mississippi landed Toyota. You rarely hear about these kinds of industries locating in the Northeast or West.
The fact that the South has been minimally hit by the economic turmoil and the housing crisis should be a clear indication of how well the state politics are doing. Sadly, some of these prosporous states are probably going to go Blue, which could make places like North Carolina or Georgia the next Michigan.
Of course, there is direction corellation that Blue states support the service industry and Red states support manufacturing. There isn't really any other way to go, and the transition is usually rough going from industrial jobs to purely service industry.
You completely ignore the high tech industries, which cluster around areas of education -- San Francisco, Boston, Austin, Minneapolis, New York City, Washington DC, etc. Jobs that rely on intellectual capital are the highest paid jobs in the country. These workforces are inherently Blue.
The South for 50-100 years has been attracting jobs based upon its low cost manual labor, but with globalization and the rise of China, that play is over. As the South attracts a more educated workforce it too turns Blue.
San Francisco, CA is probably one of the most liberal places in the country, Provo Utah is probably one of the most conservative.
In SF, you would need to spend 87% of the median family income to buy a median priced home. In Provo, you only need to spend 32% of the median family income to buy the median priced home.
John Burns Real Estate Consulting - Local Analysis (http://www.realestateconsulting.com/Intelligence.aspx?quicklaunch=true®ion=local - broken link)
So while the median family income is more than twice as much in SF $79,423 versus $37,205 in Provo. Because in SF, you need to come up with $745,000 to buy a median price home versus $190,265 in Provo, even people making very high salaries in SF feel that they are poor needing government assistance to buy a home. In Provo even if they salaries are still fairly low, the locals are still able to save for the children's college, have stock portfolios and add to the Roth IRA. There incomes may be low, but the feel act and feel rich.
If you live in Provo, most people can afford to get married and raise a family. So people get married fairly early in life. In SF, it may take quite a while to save enough money if ever to buy a house and get married, so a lot of people who live in SF just never get married.
In SF because a lot people who live in SF feel that they will never be able to buy in SF, support ideas like rent control that seem nuts to someone who lives in Provo. Support keeping the rents low in a rent controlled apartment is one of the things in SF, that turns Republicans who move to SF into liberals. In Provo, almost anyone who wants to buy a house probably can afford to buy a house. So no one in Provo sees a need for rent control. When a liberal from SF moves to Provo, home ownership is one of the things that starts making them feel like property might not be theft after all.
A lot of the democratic platform in effect is about making it easier to have sex without anytype of consequences to yourself. Make abortion legal, subsidise health care, give away condoms, ensure the availability of morning after pills, make drugs and alcohol more available so its easier to create a good time where you might get lucky.... When you are single, this argument has the most appeal.
Because your sister in law caught herpes in college, she had trouble concieving. Meanwhile your brother who spent all that times in bars becoming a ladies man is now an alcoholic. When you get married and start having kids, you want to protect your children from the mistakes of your own youth. The idea of just saying no to drugs and alcohol has a lot more appeal.
I am sure that the degree to which the local housing market is regulated doesn't explain the entire Conservative/Liberal divide, I do think it explains more of it than people generally acknowledge.
In a place like, Provo, a lot of the policies of the Republican party really do have an internal logic and in a place like SF, a lot of the policies of the Democratic party also have an internal logic. Moreover, the local government tend to make decisions that re-enforce that internal logic.
In SF, one can always win a local election by arguing to tighten housing regulation in order to preserve the supply of rent controlled units. In Provo, more housing means cheaper housing for everyone and more jobs for people working in the construction industry, who in Provo would oppose this?
There's a simple economics reason for why home prices are cheaper in Utah, fewer people want to live there.
You completely ignore the high tech industries, which cluster around areas of education -- San Francisco, Boston, Austin, Minneapolis, New York City, Washington DC, etc. Jobs that rely on intellectual capital are the highest paid jobs in the country. These workforces are inherently Blue.
The largest research park in the world is located in North Carolina (Research Triangle Park). It has been compared to places like Silicon Valley since it was started, and most would say it far surpasses it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch
The South for 50-100 years has been attracting jobs based upon its low cost manual labor, but with globalization and the rise of China, that play is over. As the South attracts a more educated workforce it too turns Blue.
We aren't as greedy as the rest of the country (apparently?). We don't need a Union to give us a raise every day to make us feel good about ourselves.
But on a serious note, the cost of living is a lot less expensive, and I would certainly attribute that to a lack of intrusive Unions, as well as an overall hands-off state/federal government. As a result, our city and county governments control their own business influx, therefore the politics and economics of each city/region is fine-tuned at the optimal point of equilibrium; something cities on the Rust Belt have yet to discover.
And while I know it probably burns to see places that aren't solidly Blue succeed, the fact is whatever we have is working. I see no reason to frown upon someone else's success, especially after all these years of getting to this point. Accept the fact that Liberal isn't perfect, and at the end of the day it is all a matter of perspective (as pointed out so eloquently by edwardius).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
