|
|
|
|
|
|
by zaksoup
3304 days ago
|
|
|
Red states have lower GDP, higher poverty, lower education, and are largely subsidized by blue states through federal grants. I am not implying causation and there are other interesting facts (lower cost of living relative to wages in red states) but as it stands now if blue and red split it doesn't seem like it's all that controversial to imply red would suffer. A little bit of googling turns up many interesting articles and interpretations of this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal... |
|
|
> The red states aren't in fact poorer than the blue states. They're richer: that's why they vote more conservative and more right wing.
The article argues that people who make less move to areas with lower costs of living, because they have more purchasing power in those areas:
> Because those lower income places have even lower prices, making consumption standards higher.
That is, red states aren't poor because of red policies, they're poor because they're cheaper to live in.
Further, the article claims that blue policies hurt the poor!
> What we now need to go on and explain is why those nominally left policies, those blue ones, are so to the disadvantage of the poor they're supposedly helping....