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.
I’m a “liberal” (mainly on economic issues). But this “red states are welfare bums mooching off the blue states” narrative is pure baloney.
Rural areas are red, cities are blue. Yes, cities have to spend money building road networks in sparsely populated areas with rich resources. How else are those resources going to get to the cities for processing and consumption? Also, cities like to be connected to each other, which sometimes involves building stuff in the rural areas between the cities (oddly enough). Obviously the locals can’t afford to build the networks themselves since there aren’t enough of the locals.
Where are military bases? Usually away from cities where the land is cheaper and there aren’t as many people to complain about the noise.
The problem is, only a limited number of things are lower cost such as housing. But other things like a new car, a big screen TV, water heater, cost of airfare, college tuition, etc; are pretty much the same whether you live in San Francisco or Independence, MS.
However, the wage is significantly higher in SF vs Independence.
Yes, housing cost is a big factor; but once a person gets a handle on it (say saves up enough to buy a house and let it ride for a few years) he/she can generate wealth at a much faster pace than an equal in Independence. This is how the rich gets richer.
.
Just went through this debate with a relative in a low cost state.
If I do the math, I still come out on top in New York, simply because salaries are so much higher in certain areas and occupations. In other occupations and areas, not so much. But then you move. So even if I get a much cheaper house with cheaper groceries and lower taxes...my entire net existence is 35-40% cheaper...if our net take home is 45-50% less, it makes no sense to move because at the end of the month, I have more cash. I can then take my price inflated house, sell it, and take our savings and retirements and move to a low cost state. This is what many people do.
Perhaps that business about Trump voters earning more is just BS.
Not vouching for the content, but the linked (hopefully I can post a link here) bears out that the average Trump voter's income is $72,000 and the average Hillary voter's income is $61,000
In case the link doesn't post correctly, here's the text I read on the USA Today web site I provided the link for above.
"As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data.
That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both."
It should be noted that the figures quoted in this article aren't averages, but the median, which means that half are above, and half are below. In this instance I think median is much more informative than average would be.
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.
