Missouri a laggard? Not when ranking its fiscal condition..... (Kansas City: high income, quality of life)

[Flyover_Country]

Epic Systems is also located just outside Madison, WI. They have a bunch of federally-mandated money flowing to them because hospital systems are paying EMR vendors big $$$$$ to try to avoid federal Medicare/Medicaid EMR meaningless use penalties. This is exactly the situation their competitor Cerner is seeing in Kansas City.

[STLviaMSP]

When facts don't cut it, resort to the so-called "freedom" (to suck) index. Funny.

[nealrm]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

So lets say there are two states.

State 1:
Per capita income: $31k
Per capita state debt: $7k

State 2:
Per capita income: $25k
Per capita state debt: $1500

Which one is better off?

In other words, if there is a great mismatch between debt and income, fine. If not, who cares?

BUT, if anyone does wish to talk red state/blue states:

If you take each state's per capita income and subtract per capita debt and sort the net, 15 of the bottom 20 states are red states, including Missouri (32nd place overall), and the bottom 5 blue states being NM, RI, ME, VT, and MI. In the top twenty states (highest net per capita figure after debt subtracted), 14 are blue states, including MD, VA, NJ, MN, CO, CT, NV, CA, NH, FL, NY, IL, and PA. I guess those bankrupt states (NY and CA) of on the coasts and corrupt IL are doing relatively fine! Wyoming is the only red state that cracks the top 10, and number 9. The other red states, clustered between 14th to 20th place are NE, GA, KS, AZ, and TX.

You are assuming that $31K in one state is equal to $31K in another. However, it is clear that earning $31K in California or the NE coast is different than earning $31K in Missouri. $31K in Missouri is a livable wage in Missouri, you will be able to buy a decent house in a decent area, eat well and even save for retirement. I strongly doubt that would be possible in CA earning $31K.

The states you noted as being ranked high, are also the states where the cost of living is the highest. So the results you stated are do to the high cost of living in those state and not due to better real income.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by nealrm

You are assuming that $31K in one state is equal to $31K in another. However, it is clear that earning $31K in California or the NE coast is different than earning $31K in Missouri. $31K in Missouri is a livable wage in Missouri, you will be able to buy a decent house in a decent area, eat well and even save for retirement. I strongly doubt that would be possible in CA earning $31K.

The states you noted as being ranked high, are also the states where the cost of living is the highest. So the results you stated are do to the high cost of living in those state and not due to better real income.

A median household income at that level would not be very sufficient, that would have to be dual income, unless we are talking about VERY CHEAP real estate in less than desirable areas. Metro area incomes in MO are substantially higher than the rest of the state as well. Property taxes would have to be factored in as well. They tend to be "cheap" in rural areas but you get what you pay for.

[STLviaMSP]

I'm assuming that states with higher incomes can afford higher levels of debt, and that said debt would hypothetically be paid off over a number of years in all states. Which gets back to my first post on this thread: unless there is a drastic mismatch between a state's per capita income and its per capita debt (when amortized over a number of years), boasting about how low MO's debt is compared to other states is rather meaningless, especially if our state isn't also performing near the top in other areas such as educational attainment, disease rates, poverty, and so forth.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

I'm assuming that states with higher incomes can afford higher levels of debt, and that said debt would hypothetically be paid off over a number of years in all states. Which gets back to my first post on this thread: unless there is a drastic mismatch between a state's per capita income and its per capita debt (when amortized over a number of years), boasting about how low MO's debt is compared to other states is rather meaningless, especially if our state isn't also performing near the top in other areas such as educational attainment, disease rates, poverty, and so forth.

How's all that debt helping Illinois? Have you seen East St Louis?

No - fiscal responsibility should be applauded, red state or blue state.

[STLviaMSP]

Yes, the 27,000 residents of East St. Louis are such a HUGE priority amongst 12.8M Illinoisans.

With 32 Fortune 500 companies based in IL, versus 10 in MO, with IL's population being only 2x as large, doesn't seem like all that extra debt is all that relevant.

In other words: who cares?

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

Yes, the 27,000 residents of East St. Louis are such a HUGE priority amongst 12.8M Illinoisans.

With 32 Fortune 500 companies based in IL, versus 10 in MO, with IL's population being only 2x as large, doesn't seem like all that extra debt is all that relevant.

In other words: who cares?

I would pick MN to live in over both IL and MO as the Twin Cities have a better overall economy.

[STLviaMSP]

^And no hillbillies to gum up the state politics.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

Yes, the 27,000 residents of East St. Louis are such a HUGE priority amongst 12.8M Illinoisans.

With 32 Fortune 500 companies based in IL, versus 10 in MO, with IL's population being only 2x as large, doesn't seem like all that extra debt is all that relevant.

In other words: who cares?

We've obviously hit a nerve with the left as they feel they have to defend Illinois' fiscal policy - which is a complete disaster.

So we move the goalposts from how the average person lives to how many fortune 500 companies are located there.