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.
The causal correlation appears to actually be that states with low populations and few cities are better run than those with high populations and large cities.
And that's primarily because they're easier to run.
California was a high population state, yet was fairly well run until roughly the Willie Brown era, when Democrats took total control. Even in the 1980's, CA was still known for exceptional higher ed, and for innovation (Apple, Intel, HP, Digital Research, and hordes of others). I know, I know, there was the Gov. Arnold interlude, but IMO he was probably being blackmailed and was neutralized due to his sexual indiscretions. He governed much different from how he had campaigned.
None of those states "have to" be subsidized by the federal government, and they aren't.
Many of the states in your link are areas where the federal government owns much of the land and/or their is a large federal presence (like military installations).
Also, Harrier saw plenty of blue states on the list.
The "red state welfare" talking point has been debunked many times - quit embarrassing yourself by furthering its perpetuation.
My state - MD - should rank lhigher in some repects for obvious reasons, one being the #1 employer in the state is the federal government and pays people unrealistically, it has lots of income. Too bad it is a pi$$ poor state with no real private industry. What is unsaid is only a half dozen counties enjoy the "highest" median income as they are away from the shadow of DC. The western and eastern regions of the state are impoverished in comparison.
The governor sucks and the state government is almost exclusively liberal democrats - Mikulski, Cardin, Hoyer and Cummings are from the state and my dem rep is a POS.
Look this over from this report.
26. Maryland > Debt per capita: $4,250 (16th highest) > Budget deficit: 15.3% (24th largest) > Unemployment: 7.0% (15th lowest) > Median household income: $70,004 (the highest) > Pct. below poverty line: 10.1% (2nd lowest)
Maryland has the nation’s highest median household income at just over $70,000, well above the national median of $50,502. Residents paid 10.2% of their income in state and local taxes in fiscal 2010 — one of the higher rates in the nation. The state’s tax climate is also one of the worst for businesses, according to the Tax Foundation. Maryland was also one of the nation’s smallest exporters, shipping just $1,867 in goods abroad per resident in 2011, well below half the national figure of $4,752. As of August, tax revenue collections had exceeded the state’s Board of Revenue Estimates projections by about $225 million. This may help the state avoid a budget shortfall like the one it had in fiscal 2011, when it faced a $2 billion budget deficit, equal to 15.3% of that year’s budget.
[LEFT]
[/LEFT]
Go spend some time in Williston and tell me how great of a place it is. .
Harrier is considering moving to Williston.
So, you don't think that living conditions and nature of work are worth a high wage?
Fine, us conservatives will take up all the lucrative oil jobs, teach the children of those who did, start small businesses to meet the needs of the boomtown, and provide legal services.
Liberals don't seem to want to get their hands dirty, or take advantage of opportunity when it smacks them in the face
They would rather cry to the "government" and ask for a handout and an Obamaphone.
The causal correlation appears to actually be that states with low populations and few cities are better run than those with high populations and large cities.
And that's primarily because they're easier to run.
I'm going to agree with HistorianDude. And add to it a bit. The whole concept of "worst run" and "best run" seems problematic to me in a country where people move freely about. For example, as a resident of a large progressive city, I find that we have in our midst many people who actually came from small, rural towns but those towns had no place for "someone like them" (whether it's because they are muslim or because they are gay or whatever) -- but in fact this person was from there to start with! So "easier to run" seems to innately involve taking a simplistic approach to things that rules some people out who are really still quite needed and valuable, and then not minding that those people leave and go somewhere else. But the flip side of that is that the places you may call the "worst run" are dealing with the OTHER state's problems!
I would personally find it very fulfilling if people would learn to accept and listen to their own citizens, instead of disowning them as "riffraff" or "foreigners" and then judging other states for having problems because these people have been hurt by someone calling them "riffraff" and "foreigner".
[By the way, I haven't been able to read all the many pages of this topic, but from the way it starts out....isn't this an awfully toxic and partisan original post, for a board that is supposed to be aiming not to be toxic? I know I signed something along those lines. Just wondering.]
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.
