Unemployment 20% higher in Democrat strongholds

Southern Man said:
Again, that's not true, since companies must pay big bucks to keep employees in states with high cost of living: http://www.missourieconomy.org/images/indicators/cost_of_living/col1q2009_map.jpg

Sort of looks like the election map, don't it? :readit:
Click to expand...

and again, that's not a rational argument as a higher cost of living across the board equates with a higher standard of living across the board. It's not relevent to this discussion. As Whomever stated previously. Living in a double wide in KY doesn't equate with living in a beach side split ranch in CA.
 
Mottleydude said:
and again, that's not a rational argument as a higher cost of living across the board equates with a higher standard of living across the board. It's not relevent to this discussion. As Whomever stated previously. Living in a double wide in KY doesn't equate with living in a beach side split ranch in CA.
Click to expand...

Lets compare the highest income state with the lowest, capital cities and what "standard of living" you get for your money. :)

Hartford, CT, $50K income, 5% income tax, 1.5% real estate tax, put down $5000, 5% interest rate on a 30 year mortgage, you can afford a $182K house. Lets look at single family homes in the range of $180K to 184K at realtor.com. In Hartford, there are no homes in this range. There are however several in the $120’s, since Hartford is actually a dumpy city I know, because I lived in the area). So we extend our search to the two nearest cities and find 3 listings. The least expensive was built in 1955, has 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom, and a single car garage. Air conditioning is by separate units, apparently window units.

Jackson, MS, $27K income, 5% income tax, 0.7% real estate tax, put down $2700, 5% interest rate on a 30 year mortgage, you can afford a $105K house. Lets look at single family homes in the range of $104K to $106K. Here we find 11 listings in this range. The least expensive was built in 1978, has three bedrooms, two full bathrooms, a 2 car garage plus a carport. The exterior is brick and wood siding. It has central air conditioning, and

Comparing the two:
• The MS location has more choices, and those choices are actually in the City desired.
• The MS home is 32 years newer.
• The square footage for the MS home is not reported, but looking at the pictures it appears larger. That is likely the case since the according to Means Cost Data (a reference here in my office), the City cost index for Hartford is 1.05, verses 0.765 for Jackson. In other words, you can build 37% more home for a given dollar.
• The MS home has twice the number of bathrooms (a nice feature when you feed the family beans for supper).
• The kitchen in the MS home appears to have about twice the counter space and cabinetry.
• The MS home has ample interior or covered storage for your two cars, lawn equipment and your kids bicycles. In CT, your wife will love the fact that her car won’t fit in the garage, and you’ll be warming it up and shoveling snow off of it for her during the winter.
 
Southern Man said:
Lets compare the highest income state with the lowest, capital cities and what "standard of living" you get for your money. :)

Hartford, CT, $50K income, 5% income tax, 1.5% real estate tax, put down $5000, 5% interest rate on a 30 year mortgage, you can afford a $182K house. Lets look at single family homes in the range of $180K to 184K at realtor.com. In Hartford, there are no homes in this range. There are however several in the $120’s, since Hartford is actually a dumpy city I know, because I lived in the area). So we extend our search to the two nearest cities and find 3 listings. The least expensive was built in 1955, has 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom, and a single car garage. Air conditioning is by separate units, apparently window units.

Jackson, MS, $27K income, 5% income tax, 0.7% real estate tax, put down $2700, 5% interest rate on a 30 year mortgage, you can afford a $105K house. Lets look at single family homes in the range of $104K to $106K. Here we find 11 listings in this range. The least expensive was built in 1978, has three bedrooms, two full bathrooms, a 2 car garage plus a carport. The exterior is brick and wood siding. It has central air conditioning, and

Comparing the two:
• The MS location has more choices, and those choices are actually in the City desired.
• The MS home is 32 years newer.
• The square footage for the MS home is not reported, but looking at the pictures it appears larger. That is likely the case since the according to Means Cost Data (a reference here in my office), the City cost index for Hartford is 1.05, verses 0.765 for Jackson. In other words, you can build 37% more home for a given dollar.
• The MS home has twice the number of bathrooms (a nice feature when you feed the family beans for supper).
• The kitchen in the MS home appears to have about twice the counter space and cabinetry.
• The MS home has ample interior or covered storage for your two cars, lawn equipment and your kids bicycles. In CT, your wife will love the fact that her car won’t fit in the garage, and you’ll be warming it up and shoveling snow off of it for her during the winter.
Click to expand...

again that's anecdotal evidence and is not representative of the entire State nor is it representative of the entire standard of living in the State. that's just one comparison, housing, and your evidence is anecdotal to just two cities. What about other indicators? MA has more and better schools, including colleges and universties and, obviously, greater access to them than MS does. They have more hospitals and doctor per capita then Mississippi, more Registered Professional Engineers per capita then MS. They have a larger and better maintained road network then MS. Ever been on a rural road in MS? It's gravel. The smallest tertiary farm access road in MA is paved and the meanest rural area in MA is electrified. Not so in MS. I can make point after point where the higher cost of living in MA vs MS equates to a higher quality if life in MA vs MS.

So again, as Ayne Rand would have stated. The data and facts contradict your claim and thus your claim is based on a false premise as the data clearly shows that the more liberal States are more productive economically than the more conservative States. End of Argument.
 
Mottleydude said:
Oh please. The data I provided was from the Census Beureau. That's hard cold data that disproves your contention. You are only providing anecdotal evidence from your own experience and the hand picked experience of people you know. That is neither reliable nor objective information. The facts are, liberal States are more prosperous and productive then conservative States. There's no room for debate here. You're just simply wrong.
Click to expand...

I've been following how you systematically deconstruct the assertions by our resident neocons based on the original post of unemployment rates for "liberal" states. You've done a great job using facts and the logic derived from them that the neocons just don't want to consider....which is why the WND fits so well into their mindset (telling half or one side of the story seems to be their forte).

Ill just add one more thing.....how do they figure that the aftermath of 8 years of reaganomics on steroids somehow a condemnation of "liberals"?
 
Taichiliberal said:
I've been following how you systematically deconstruct the assertions by our resident neocons based on the original post of unemployment rates for "liberal" states. You've done a great job using facts and the logic derived from them that the neocons just don't want to consider....which is why the WND fits so well into their mindset (telling half or one side of the story seems to be their forte).

Ill just add one more thing.....how do they figure that the aftermath of 8 years of reaganomics on steroids somehow a condemnation of "liberals"?
Click to expand...

Because they can't do what I did. Look them selves in the mirror and say "Damn, I was wrong!".

No single person, theology, philosophy or ideology has ever cornored the market on the truth. One would probably presume by how aggresively I attacked those on the far right that I am on the far left. I am not. I just despise how those on the far right marginalize those whom disagree with them. How they place ideology above doing the right thing. How they cannot admit either to making a mistake or learning from that mistake and when those mistakes cost people there lives and trillions of dollars in treasure, well there just plain fucked up and that's a fact. For a lot of people, staring an ugly fact in the face is a difficult thing to do, particularly when they contradict long held beliefs.

A rational person can deal with this though.

An Ideolgue cannot.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I've been following how you systematically deconstruct the assertions by our resident neocons based on the original post of unemployment rates for "liberal" states. You've done a great job using facts and the logic derived from them that the neocons just don't want to consider....which is why the WND fits so well into their mindset (telling half or one side of the story seems to be their forte).

Ill just add one more thing.....how do they figure that the aftermath of 8 years of reaganomics on steroids somehow a condemnation of "liberals"?

Mottleydude said:
Because they can't do what I did. Look them selves in the mirror and say "Damn, I was wrong!".

No single person, theology, philosophy or ideology has ever cornored the market on the truth. One would probably presume by how aggresively I attacked those on the far right that I am on the far left. I am not. I just despise how those on the far right marginalize those whom disagree with them. How they place ideology above doing the right thing. How they cannot admit either to making a mistake or learning from that mistake and when those mistakes cost people there lives and trillions of dollars in treasure, well there just plain fucked up and that's a fact. For a lot of people, staring an ugly fact in the face is a difficult thing to do, particularly when they contradict long held beliefs.

A rational person can deal with this though.

An Ideolgue cannot.
Click to expand...

True enough.....I can't remember how many times I've pointed out to folks from the old AOL discussion board (who are now here) that (1) I didn't vote for Clinton for his second term (2) Neither Obama nor Hillary were my personal choice for Presidential candidates in 2008.

But since the last 8 years have given us such preposterous figures and policies to crittique, the new conservative idealogue assumes any criticism is an automatic identification of a "far left" Obama/Clinton liberal. Hey, whatever helps them sleep at night.
 
Mottleydude said:
again that's anecdotal evidence and is not representative of the entire State nor is it representative of the entire standard of living in the State. that's just one comparison, housing, and your evidence is anecdotal to just two cities. What about other indicators? MA has more and better schools, including colleges and universties and, obviously, greater access to them than MS does. They have more hospitals and doctor per capita then Mississippi, more Registered Professional Engineers per capita then MS. They have a larger and better maintained road network then MS. Ever been on a rural road in MS? It's gravel. The smallest tertiary farm access road in MA is paved and the meanest rural area in MA is electrified. Not so in MS. I can make point after point where the higher cost of living in MA vs MS equates to a higher quality if life in MA vs MS.

So again, as Ayne Rand would have stated. The data and facts contradict your claim and thus your claim is based on a false premise as the data clearly shows that the more liberal States are more productive economically than the more conservative States. End of Argument.
Click to expand...

My previous evidence isn't "anecdotal" at all. First of all, housing is a main component in the measurement of "standard of living" since most folks spend the better part of a 24 hour day in their home or on their property. If you'd like, take a percentage of the housing costs that I've presented as the average between CT ans MS and compare those. Or compare the 2nd "poorest" and the 2nd "wealthiest", or the third or 4th. I'm confident that you'll see similar results.

With regards to your new argument, comparing Massachusetts (MA) with Mississippi (MS), you are essentially comparing urban with rural. MA has 766 people per square mile and MS has 60, so it's 13 times more densely populated, and over twice the population. Of course they have more paved roads, hospitals, and schools, as well as more folks, per capita, to take care of all that well-used infrastructure. Rural folks tend to me more self-sufficient and don't need, or necessarily want, all your big city amenities.

You seem to dislike rural areas in general and hence judgmentally disqualify, but that is your opinion, not fact. Many people like to live in less densely populated areas, and see that as an important measurement in their personal "standard of living". That is, after all, why folks emigrated to the US from Europe back in the 17th through 19th centuries, and why many migrated to and populated the West. *shrug*
 
ahahh Souther tool moves away from college grads into redneck ville and is shocked that a high end house is cheaper.
LOFL, what bullshit college did you go to again tool?
 
Topspin said:
ahahh Souther tool moves away from college grads into redneck ville and is shocked that a high end house is cheaper.
LOFL, what bullshit college did you go to again tool?
Click to expand...
I'm not shocked at all. In fact, it is a significant factor in my decision to move out of a rowdy college town to the refined and genteel South. :)
 
more rednecks more guns, less college educated.
I know I'm stuck in bible thumping college hating Louisiana.
Unlike you I'll pay more to move to San Fran, If you rightwingers can just battle harder and crush that liberal place to hell.
 
Topspin said:
more rednecks more guns, less college educated.
I know I'm stuck in bible thumping college hating Louisiana.
Unlike you I'll pay more to move to San Fran, If you rightwingers can just battle harder and crush that liberal place to hell.
Click to expand...
According to Mottleydude in this thread, you should be able to drive your Mom's old Pacer out to San Fran, get the same job flipping burgers there as you have now, get paid twice as much and live in a higher standard than you're accustomed in butt-fuck, Louisiana. Go for it dude and let us know how it turns out. :)
 
New Orleans is 1,000 times better than where you live redneck.
San Fran is so cultured that a home like yours would be 3x as much out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top