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.
In a capitalist system, those who own more capital are richer (nothing related to free practice of labor). Instead of moving away from capitalism with non-for profit healthcare, free access to housing, and worker cooperatives, less government welfare, etc.
But instead these blue "left" wing states push for more corporate profit and private wealth.
[quote=workingclasshero;52932443]no not being obtuse..
based on the last POTUS election maps... hmm means it changes every 4 years? so the definition (I asked him to define what a red and blue is (instead he just blew me off)) (at least you gave some sort of an answer along with the obtuse remark) changes every 4 years with the winds of a national election???[/quotes]
Many states go the same every year.
Quote:
by all accounts every state is purple
So you ignored my link where the numbers of registered voters of each party were listed. And not for nothing, yes the ratios of each can change over time.
This ignores the reality that many states, NY, Ma, have many, many more liberals than conservatives.
Quote:
so was California considered a red state in 1980 and 1984, and 88??
is Michigan now considered a red state based on the 16 election??
how about based on state level politics?
But not the number of registered voters of each party? Why?
Quote:
Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia has all been democrat controlled for nearly 100 years before 2000 when they switched
It is absolutely deliberately obtuse to ignore the complexity of southern democrats.
This wasn't ranking growth or the size of the economy in a given state. The methodology, from the link, used a combination of "economic growth, poverty, unemployment, job growth, and college attainment rates".
All pretty clearly things vital to a positive economy or not.
Yeah it wasn't ranking growth....just stuff like economic growth, job growth....lol. WTH man.
In short, they heavily rewarded states that had surged recently and penalized the ones that were already doing well.
Back the study up 5 years and you'd get a different story as states like SD, OK etc. were raking in oil money.
I work with analytics for a living and this is merely a fluffy entertainment piece aimed at the innumerate.
Did they even use poverty levels adjusted for area cost of living or just the national level?
That would be yet one more gross error on their part.
But hey, this wasn't meant to be any sort of real study. Just something to draw in readers where most lack the "educational attainment" and work experience to spot all the holes you could drive a truck through.
Yeah it wasn't ranking growth....just stuff like economic growth, job growth....lol. WTH man.
My post was unclear. "This wasn't ranking growth or the size of the economy in a given state" should have read as "This wasn't ranking just growth or the size of the economy in a given state"
My point was they are judging based on other aspects (college being one) which seems to be heavily weighted by looking at the list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
In short, they heavily rewarded states that had surged recently and penalized the ones that were already doing well.
Back the study up 5 years and you'd get a different story as states like SD, OK etc. were raking in oil money.
Not entirely true. MA is almost highly ranked in these "studies" and to your point, some of these states have new booms in their economy, legal pot in CO, WA, CA and the government always bouys MD. Five years ago, I would venture to guess the Dakotas would have been here. I do think they weighted the education thing higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
I work with analytics for a living and this is merely a fluffy entertainment piece aimed at the innumerate.
As do I.
Further, I am not taking this is some sort of gospel of the quality of place. Nor would I say "see, blue, better".
I just left a top 3 state in that ranking, MA, for a middle of the road redish-purpleish one (NC).
If it makes you feel better, I can tell you first hand MA "feels" like it is doing better, the pay cut my employer tried to make me take seems to support the idea........But I'd rather be here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Did they even use poverty levels adjusted for area cost of living or just the national level?
That would be yet one more gross error on their part.
I would agree. That seems like a pretty basic thing you would account for to do a true comp.
If they didn't, then, to steal your line, this was a piece researched by the innumerate.
No, it's not. You'll find a lot of rural counties that have a higher unemployment rate than urban areas, such as San Fransisco. Many rural counties are losing population.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
From the referenced article in OP:
By several measures, the national economy is the strongest it has been in decades. The U.S. monthly unemployment rate now sits comfortably below 4%, and we are in the second longest period of GDP growth since World War II.
24/7 Wall St. reviewed economic growth, poverty, unemployment, job growth, and college attainment rates to compare and rank state economies. The best ranked states tend to have fast-growing economies, low poverty and unemployment rates, high job growth, and a relatively well-educated workforce, while the opposite is generally the case among states with the worst ranked economies.
The economy is "strongest in decades" and we have the second longest period of GDP growth since WWII! It is no surprise some of the coastal states have reaped the greatest gains in this healthy economic environment. They are home to the wealthiest, most educated, most in demand workers. However, let's not forget the middle of the country workers are better off, too, with low unemployment rates and rising wages relative to even two years ago. I think we all should celebrate that fact. most of us do.
All of. These numbers are unchanged from last year wfor the most part which was less than 4 full months into the Trump Presidency
It's so funny to watch Republicans talk about GDP 7 years of growth as if 6 of those 7 weren't under Obama .
My post was unclear. "This wasn't ranking growth or the size of the economy in a given state" should have read as "This wasn't ranking just growth or the size of the economy in a given state"
My point was they are judging based on other aspects (college being one) which seems to be heavily weighted by looking at the list.
Not entirely true. MA is almost highly ranked in these "studies" and to your point, some of these states have new booms in their economy, legal pot in CO, WA, CA and the government always bouys MD. Five years ago, I would venture to guess the Dakotas would have been here. I do think they weighted the education thing higher.
As do I.
Further, I am not taking this is some sort of gospel of the quality of place. Nor would I say "see, blue, better".
I just left a top 3 state in that ranking, MA, for a middle of the road redish-purpleish one (NC).
If it makes you feel better, I can tell you first hand MA "feels" like it is doing better, the pay cut my employer tried to make me take seems to support the idea........But I'd rather be here.
I would agree. That seems like a pretty basic thing you would account for to do a true comp.
If they didn't, then, to steal your line, this was a piece researched by the innumerate.
Thank you for your response. I'm just so used to these hit pieces from EITHER side when the winds of fortune buoy one over the other whether it is a tech surge or natural resources.
It's truly a complex issue, with mechanization and increasing farm size being an ongoing trend leading to de-population of rural areas.
Globalization and robotics are going to be the big drivers of world culture through the future decades, long after I'm gone. It's going to get *interesting*.
There are no red states or blue states. Rural areas are red, urban areas are blue.
When there’s a tech boom, certain blue areas will boom. When there’s a surge in commodity prices, certain rural areas will boom. All these things run in cycles.
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.
