Solved: Why Poor States Are Red and Rich States Are Blue(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Solved: Why Poor States Are Red and Rich States Are Blue
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/04/solved-why-poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue
10 comments
We are now in the modern age of near-instant electronic communications, social media, Facebook, YouTube, etc. These tools enable the mass education of citizens across the nation, if they choose to partake in the political process.
The idea that we even need an electoral college system anymore is now firmly outdated. And especially since it failed to do its job the last time!
The fate of the nation is now decided by insignificant random counties, by people who appear to refuse to adjust and help themselves. Get retrained, move, do something. But no, they won’t do that. And I get it, life gets in the way.
So the nation needs to move forward and switch to a popular vote. And perhaps even a UBI model, that would alleviate the pressure of making rent, and putting food on the table. This may actually help eliminate the divide, and bring the country together.
The idea that we even need an electoral college system anymore is now firmly outdated. And especially since it failed to do its job the last time!
The fate of the nation is now decided by insignificant random counties, by people who appear to refuse to adjust and help themselves. Get retrained, move, do something. But no, they won’t do that. And I get it, life gets in the way.
So the nation needs to move forward and switch to a popular vote. And perhaps even a UBI model, that would alleviate the pressure of making rent, and putting food on the table. This may actually help eliminate the divide, and bring the country together.
"And especially since it failed to do its job the last time"
It doesn't even make sense to say it failed to do its job. Its original job was to choose the President without direct input from the voters. Now that we have statewide elections, failing to elect the person with the most votes nationally is just how it works, unintended by anyone. It was changed long ago so it has no purpose or job any more.
It doesn't even make sense to say it failed to do its job. Its original job was to choose the President without direct input from the voters. Now that we have statewide elections, failing to elect the person with the most votes nationally is just how it works, unintended by anyone. It was changed long ago so it has no purpose or job any more.
Just like the electoral college, party nominations have also been failing to reflect the wishes of the people. Mainstream "journalism" is complicit in advertising the views of the incumbents who pay their salaries while misrepresenting, ignoring, and slandering any opponents.
Does anyone have a TLDR for people who aren't turning off tracker blockers?
Solved: Why Poor States Are Red And Rich States Are Blue
Blue states, like California, New York and Illinois, whose economies turn on finance, trade and knowledge, are generally richer than red states.
Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states - but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living.
The red states aren't in fact poorer than the blue states.
For blue state urbanites who toil in low-paying retail, food preparation and service jobs, for the journeyman tradespeople who once formed the heart of the middle class, for teachers, civil servants, students and young families, the American dream of homeownership - or even an affordable rental apartment - is increasingly out of reach.
Many are opting to move to cheaper red states instead, further driving their growth.
Restrictive zoning is very much more common in those blue states than it is in the red.
Meaning that by artificially pushing up the cost of housing those blue states are indeed making life worse for the poor.
Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states - but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living.
The red states aren't in fact poorer than the blue states.
For blue state urbanites who toil in low-paying retail, food preparation and service jobs, for the journeyman tradespeople who once formed the heart of the middle class, for teachers, civil servants, students and young families, the American dream of homeownership - or even an affordable rental apartment - is increasingly out of reach.
Many are opting to move to cheaper red states instead, further driving their growth.
Restrictive zoning is very much more common in those blue states than it is in the red.
Meaning that by artificially pushing up the cost of housing those blue states are indeed making life worse for the poor.
(2015)
Did anyone else hear that guitar riff and see the large 70s lettering when they got to the name 'Joe Stiglitz', ala 'Everyone in the German army has heard of Hugo Stiglitz.'
It's this population spread that probably also contributed (among other things obviously) to red states more often running a deficit. One could argue conservatives are hypocrits and need democrat subsidies or one can also look at the cost of providing infrastructure, services and the like for a more spread out population that earns less.
It's so obviously a huge factor that it must either be intentional (which would not be too far fetched given the institution he's part of) or he must be seriously blind to any internalized biases.
[1] https://medium.com/@davetroy/is-population-density-the-key-t...