Why is Missouri always in the middle of the pack compared to other states? (St. Louis: insurance, assessor)

[Cali BassMan]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

I'm put off by rural legislators that can't or won't acknowledge that without STL and KC, Missouri is a big nothing. Missouri's best interest is in satisfying KC and STL's needs, whatever they are and whatever they cost. I'm put off by "christians" that vote for policy that does nothing to alleviate human suffering. I'm put off by homers with that completely useless love it or leave it attitude.

That's how California is run, what ever LA area wants it gets, and be damned the rest of the state..
You see how well it works there.....do you really want that???

[Flyover_Country]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

I'm put off by rural legislators that can't or won't acknowledge that without STL and KC, Missouri is a big nothing. Missouri's best interest is in satisfying KC and STL's needs, whatever they are and whatever they cost. I'm put off by "christians" that vote for policy that does nothing to alleviate human suffering. I'm put off by homers with that completely useless love it or leave it attitude.

You are an urban liberal who is put off by anybody who opposes the liberal urban ideology because they are "wrong." STL and KC already have a huge influence on where state money and attention go. They don't need more. If you gave STL and KC all of the money and influence in the state, you'd end up with Illinois. IL is bankrupt and everywhere that's not Chicago might as well secede and join surrounding states as they are completely ignored except at the time taxes are due. Minnesota isn't much different, the folks from small areas in MN usually don't like the Twin Cities very much as they usually get ignored except having to pay for things that only benefit the Twin Cities. I hear that quite a bit from MN expatriates as well and it is often a reason (along with generally high taxes) why they left the state. The farther away from the Twin Cities you get, the more you hear this generally.

Missouri benefits by having a less concentrated population and no single large city with a large chunk of the population dictating terms to the entire rest of the state. That way everybody gets a say no matter where they live rather than the city with >50% of the population just voting to take everybody else's money and pass laws that affect them without any of their input. Thankfully MO has two larger centers at opposite ends of the state and a third smaller center in another corner of the state rather than one large city. That way we aren't like IL or MN and have one area taking everybody's money and dictating terms to everybody, even if they live 300 miles away from that one large city.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Flyover_Country

You are an urban liberal who is put off by anybody who opposes the liberal urban ideology because they are "wrong." STL and KC already have a huge influence on where state money and attention go. They don't need more. If you gave STL and KC all of the money and influence in the state, you'd end up with Illinois. IL is bankrupt and everywhere that's not Chicago might as well secede and join surrounding states as they are completely ignored except at the time taxes are due. Minnesota isn't much different, the folks from small areas in MN usually don't like the Twin Cities very much as they usually get ignored except having to pay for things that only benefit the Twin Cities. I hear that quite a bit from MN expatriates as well and it is often a reason (along with generally high taxes) why they left the state. The farther away from the Twin Cities you get, the more you hear this generally.

Missouri benefits by having a less concentrated population and no single large city with a large chunk of the population dictating terms to the entire rest of the state. That way everybody gets a say no matter where they live rather than the city with >50% of the population just voting to take everybody else's money and pass laws that affect them without any of their input. Thankfully MO has two larger centers at opposite ends of the state and a third smaller center in another corner of the state rather than one large city. That way we aren't like IL or MN and have one area taking everybody's money and dictating terms to everybody, even if they live 300 miles away from that one large city.

Rural areas of IL and MN also have less in the way of concentrated rural poverty and low levels of jobs compared to Missouri, although neither of the three states have very much development outside of their respective metropolitan areas. Regardless of what your feelings are on the Twin Cities they are one of the best performing metropolitan areas in the Midwest and have attracted a good deal of in-migration. The Twin Cities are home to dozens of Fortune 500 companies and a strong diversified economy. South Dakota lacks both. That is why South Dakota is a low tax, low income, low wage, and a low service state. It pays its teachers amongst the absolute lowest salaries of any state in the country.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by Flyover_Country

You are an urban liberal who is put off by anybody who opposes the liberal urban ideology because they are "wrong." STL and KC already have a huge influence on where state money and attention go. They don't need more. If you gave STL and KC all of the money and influence in the state, you'd end up with Illinois. IL is bankrupt and everywhere that's not Chicago might as well secede and join surrounding states as they are completely ignored except at the time taxes are due. Minnesota isn't much different, the folks from small areas in MN usually don't like the Twin Cities very much as they usually get ignored except having to pay for things that only benefit the Twin Cities. I hear that quite a bit from MN expatriates as well and it is often a reason (along with generally high taxes) why they left the state. The farther away from the Twin Cities you get, the more you hear this generally.

Missouri benefits by having a less concentrated population and no single large city with a large chunk of the population dictating terms to the entire rest of the state. That way everybody gets a say no matter where they live rather than the city with >50% of the population just voting to take everybody else's money and pass laws that affect them without any of their input. Thankfully MO has two larger centers at opposite ends of the state and a third smaller center in another corner of the state rather than one large city. That way we aren't like IL or MN and have one area taking everybody's money and dictating terms to everybody, even if they live 300 miles away from that one large city.

Truth to white power!

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Rural areas of IL and MN also have less in the way of concentrated rural poverty and low levels of jobs compared to Missouri, although neither of the three states have very much development outside of their respective metropolitan areas. Regardless of what your feelings are on the Twin Cities they are one of the best performing metropolitan areas in the Midwest and have attracted a good deal of in-migration. The Twin Cities are home to dozens of Fortune 500 companies and a strong diversified economy. South Dakota lacks both. That is why South Dakota is a low tax, low income, low wage, and a low service state. It pays its teachers amongst the absolute lowest salaries of any state in the country.

BS-drive around rural Illinois and get back to me.

Start with East St. Louis and Cairo - and get back to me. Go to Sparta and any number of places and get back to me. Check out Decatur, Peoria, and Rockford. Go to Belleville, Granite City and Columbia.

Get your facts straight.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

BS-drive around rural Illinois and get back to me.

Start with East St. Louis and Cairo - and get back to me. Go to Sparta and any number of places and get back to me. Check out Decatur, Peoria, and Rockford. Go to Belleville, Granite City and Columbia.

Get your facts straight.

I look at entire county level economic, statistical, and demographic indicators. I was specifically referring to RURAL COUNTIES that do not contain a micropolitan city or part of a metropolitan area. No rural counties in Minnesota have poverty rates above 20% and the only that do in Illinois are in the far southern portion of the state. Missouri has numerous rural counties with over 20% of the population below the poverty line. The small city comparisons are for another thread. I never denied the fact that Illinois has many underperforming cities. The obvious answer for why that is goes back to an economy that is not as well diversified as it should be and overall demographics

[Cali BassMan]

"Overall Demographics"
Hmmm

[Moboy32]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

I look at entire county level economic, statistical, and demographic indicators. I was specifically referring to RURAL COUNTIES that do not contain a micropolitan city or part of a metropolitan area. No rural counties in Minnesota have poverty rates above 20% and the only that do in Illinois are in the far southern portion of the state. Missouri has numerous rural counties with over 20% of the population below the poverty line. The small city comparisons are for another thread. I never denied the fact that Illinois has many underperforming cities. The obvious answer for why that is goes back to an economy that is not as well diversified as it should be and overall demographics

Since I'm unfamliar with Minnesota, could you please tell me how Minnesota's rural economy is more diversified than Missouri's, and how demographics come into all of this?

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Cali BassMan

"Overall Demographics"
Hmmm

Often relates to educational attainment for specific places. I do not need to elaborate further.

[Moboy32]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Often relates to educational attainment for specific places. I do not need to elaborate further.

In other words, since Missouri has more black people, their educational attainment is lower? Or is it because Minnesota is full of Scandinavians and Norweigians, and Missouri is full of whites who aren't of Norse descent, our educational attainment is lower? Thats what I read from your comment.

I hope this thread doesn't get closed!