~Southern New England Demographic Update 2016 (2015) ~

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Yes and no. A large part of that money flowing showed in those "studies" include military spending, where there is of course a large presence in states like NC and TX. And yes those states do tend to have higher poverty (always have), so more social assistance money goes there.

Military spending doesn't make it not relevant. That money is flowing through the communities. It's still a subsidizing of the local economy.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by MMS02760

Do people feel the rest of the state is actually growing at a good rate? How do you explain cities such as Lawrence, Lynn, Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford, Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, and Holyoke?

No. Without the Boston area, MA would probably resemble the rust belt (or worse).

Originally Posted by timberline742

Military spending doesn't make it not relevant. That money is flowing through the communities. It's still a subsidizing of the local economy.

Of course it's relevant, but some people talk as though there is some sort of conspiracy where all those backwards red state hicks are robbing us dignified super educated New England folk in the middle of the night. Mass. benefits in its own ways as well. All those hospitals and educational institutions for which Boston's economy is hugely dependent on, are likewise dependent on federal subsidies. When a student from Ohio attends university in Boston with federal loans, or one from Maine is treated at a Boston area hospital paid for through federally subsidized insurance; I do not believe those would show up in these figures. There are many different types of federal spending. Either way, MA makes out better than a state like NH that doesn't benefit in ANY way. Meaning, it doesn't have high poverty so it doesn't receive much in social spending, it doesn't have a significant military presence or other federal facilities, nor does it have a large number of non-profits that bring in a lot of indirect subsidies.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Of course it's relevant, but some people talk as though there is some sort of conspiracy where all those backwards red state hicks are robbing us dignified super educated New England folk in the middle of the night. Mass. benefits in its own ways as well. All those hospitals and educational institutions for which Boston's economy is hugely dependent on, are likewise dependent on federal subsidies. When a student from Ohio attends university in Boston with federal loans, or one from Maine is treated at a Boston area hospital paid for through federally subsidized insurance; I do not believe those would show up in these figures. There are many different types of federal spending. Either way, MA makes out better than a state like NH that doesn't benefit in ANY way. Meaning, it doesn't have high poverty so it doesn't receive much in social spending, it doesn't have a significant military presence or other federal facilities, nor does it have a large number of non-profits that bring in a lot of indirect subsidies.

Loans are loans. Different thing entirely.


And it's not a conspiracy, its quite purposeful. Bash northern more progressive states, and yet rely on them for economic existence. There is no conspiracy, it is quite blatant. With how representation is apportioned, and how more rural areas have far far more political clout than urban areas, they can afford to be blatant.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Loans are loans. Different thing entirely.


And it's not a conspiracy, its quite purposeful. Bash northern more progressive states, and yet rely on them for economic existence. There is no conspiracy, it is quite blatant. With how representation is apportioned, and how more rural areas have far far more political clout than urban areas, they can afford to be blatant.

Doesn't make any sense. It's the liberals and progressives who advocate for all this social spending, and still claim we aren't spending enough. You cut it, you'd be screwing rural Alabama but you'd also be screwing Chelsea, or South Side Chicago. The Democrats want more, Republicans want less.


I live in a poor, rural, blue northern state (Maine) that receives more than it pays. What do you propose, that I pay a higher rate of taxation or that the poor in my state receive less food aid and health care than in MA. Or would you prefer that all these responsibilities go back to the states so you don't have to worry about subsidizing my state's economy? That sounds like a pretty conservative approach to me.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Doesn't make any sense. It's the liberals and progressives who advocate for all this social spending, and still claim we aren't spending enough. You cut it, you'd be screwing rural Alabama but you'd also be screwing Chelsea, or South Side Chicago. The Democrats want more, Republicans want less.


I live in a poor, rural, blue northern state (Maine) that receives more than it pays. What do you propose, that I pay a higher rate of taxation or that the poor in my state receive less food aid and health care than in MA. Or would you prefer that all these responsibilities go back to the states so you don't have to worry about subsidizing my state's economy? That sounds like a pretty conservative approach to me.

Makes perfect sense. It isn't the social spending that gets us in hot water. It is the military spending. The social spending is pretty minor. Cut the bloated ridiculous military spending. We could spend way more on social services and still cut the budget drastically with no threat to us as a country.


I would not mind states having to deal with it more than the Feds, and long as minimal standards were maintained, and cut the transfer of wealth. Most people I know consider me rather conservative though.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I lived near Nashville for about a year. Williamson County taxes are actually very low, lower than Davidson County or anywhere in MA. Can't comment about Memphis or Appalachia, but comparing the rougher parts of Davidson to Boston I didn't see anymore suffering or starvation among the poorest of people. There is a larger white underclass down there but I actually saw more upward mobility among the blacks there. The blacks there seemed to be doing much better than in the Boston area. My neighborhood was majority black and middle class, it was fine. I would NOT live in a majority black neighborhood anywhere in MA, save for maybe a small part of Milton. Infrastructure was superior THROUGHOUT the Nashville area, not just in wealthy Williamson. I've just driven through East TN, but the roads there also seemed better than MA. Knoxville area has all newer roads/utilities, etc.


On health care, you may be surprised that TN was once at the forefront of reform (way before MA) with their TennCare program. It has been scaled back over the years, for their inability to control costs. I believe the poorest still qualify for Medicaid like anywhere else, and those with pre-existing conditions are still eligible. Nashville is home to the HMO industry, so naturally there was/is a lot of corruption in that relationship. TN has been #1 for prescription drug use/abuse, it shouldn't be a mystery why.


https://www.tnjustice.org/tenncare/t...able-care-act/

You can preach this gospel from the mountaintop a but Madsachusetts residents love to say that blacks/Hispanics have it better here than in the south, despite all the anecdotal and concrete evidence to the contrary. And we "just don't know how bad it is [everywhere else]"... as though renting on a floor of 110 year old 5 room three decker disconnected from public transit in a high crime area in Brockton or Lynn is the set up for success..