Poorer states Republican/Richest states Democrat, why? (wages, Maine, Arkansas)
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.
Well, I'm not sure how cattle come into this, but without gauging it on a per capita basis it just becomes an issue of population rather than any meaningful statistic. It'd be like saying there are more teen pregnancies in New York City than there are in Nome, Alaska. Means nothing. But if 5 out of 10 teens in Nome get pregnant and only 2 out of 10 in NYC do, then it begins to speak to something.
Because your stats are live births, so you completely ignore teenage pregnancies that happen but for some reason the baby does not make it. To me thats illogical.
It's not only that. Take a look at which states are sucking off the teat of the Federal Government the most. . .
For every Federal tax dollar put in by these states, they take more than a dollar back in Federal spending in their state. I'll color code them to make it easier. Here are the top 25, ranked in order:
New Mexico
Mississippi
Alaska
Louisiana
West Virginia
North Dakota
Alabama
South Dakota
Kentucky
Virginia
Montana
Hawaii
Maine
Arkansas
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Missouri
Maryland
Tennessee
Idaho
Arizona
Kansas
Wyoming
Iowa
Nebraska
You want to know why so many of the red states are "sporting surpluses", perhaps it's because they're not supporting themselves, I'm supporting them.
Lets say you put a nuclear waste depository in the desert of Nevada and ship in waste from all over the US. As a result, Nevada gets billions of dollars of federal money annually for construction, maintenance etc. Your *analysis* assumes that the other states are getting no benefit from paying Nevada for storing nuclear waste there.
I'm sure a lot of the money is related to military spending (bases) and farming (food production). These would both be "goods" that would create benefits outside of the host state.
This is a concept that is covered in some economics texts.
Because your stats are live births, so you completely ignore teenage pregnancies that happen but for some reason the baby does not make it. To me thats illogical.
I don't have any stats. I was just trying to understand your post.
I don't have any stats. I was just trying to understand your post.
You posted repeatedly the live birth stats, thus ignoring the actual number of teens pregnancies. Just because the baby was not born does not mean the teen did not get pregnant.
What does teen pregnancy rate has to do with the original topic of red state vs blue states economics?
Why did we allow the liberals to sidetrack this thread to some irrelevant non-sense.
Lets get back on topic and ignore the irrelevant babble about teen birth rates.
People are LEAVING the traditional blue states (Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania) and moving to areas that have jobs and lower taxes (Texas, Arizona, Florida, Tennessee).
It would seem alot of people are heading to Red States.
Quote:
Six of the 10 fastest-growing states from 2007 to 2008 were Rocky Mountain states: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. Three others lined the South Atlantic coast: Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Link (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/013049.html - broken link)
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.