Comments on: Rich state, poor state

By: MarkT

MarkT — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:53:08 +0000

I think a lot of the conclusions drawn in the comments are not fully supported by the chart. They might be consistent with the chart but there is no way of knowing just from this chart.

What jumped out at me was that the shift from poor to middle turned 19 states red, most east of the Mississippi, while the shift from middle to rich turned only 8 states red. Could not tell from an electoral college perspective what the effects were, although some of those 8 states had high numbers of electoral votes. All I can gather from this is that the Democrats won the nonpoor voters in only a few states and but for poor voters Bush had a landslide. Depressing.

By: lamontct

lamontct — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:08:44 +0000

To summarize, it’s Catholics (and Jews). The wealthy more educated blue states are mostly correlated with more Catholics, who aren’t less religious (as red staters like to think), they just have a more orthodox tolerant take on Christianity drummed into them at church every Sunday. That results in more Catholics voting for a more compassionate, yes more communalistic, approach to society. The fact that that generates a much wealthier, educated, cultural and entrepreneurial society (with much better food) is a benefit that many of those educated Catholics understand. There is also a direct correlation to less divorce and less violence in the blue states, which is also a result of all those Sunday sermons at church.

By: LogicGuru

LogicGuru — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:27:38 +0000

Purely speculative, but maybe it’s social capital that makes the difference. Ethically homogeneous small towns in poor states have lots of it. Families stay put, people are embedded in social networks including churches and (think they can) count on relatives, friends, neighbors and voluntary organizations to help them out. Relative will of course put you up, friends will help you get a job, the church will provide charity and support services, etc. They believe government is unnecessary and intrusive—and are taken be conservative anti-government rhetoric.

In big cities, particularly on the coasts, people are mobile, not likely to be living surrounded by relatives or neighbors they can count on, bowling alone. Without social capital, detached from those informal support networks, they know they need formal institutions, government in particular, to supply services and safety nets.

There’s some cause for optimism since even people who are embedded in these social networks are beginning to recognize that neighborly neighbor and voluntary organizations are just not up to the task.

By: Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Blogwatch

Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Blogwatch — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:48:54 +0000

[...] Rich State, Poor State, Henry of Crooked Timber discusses some political differences between the states. These maps show [...]

By: conchis

conchis — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:22:58 +0000

An alternative hypothesis, a la Benjamin Friedman: in rich states the rich don’t see their interests in as stark opposition to those of the poor. In poorer states, they do.

By: Thom Brooks

Thom Brooks — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:18:43 +0000

More reason for me to be proud of being from Connecticut!

By: bluuue

bluuue — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:19:45 +0000

#48 makes an excellent point.

Also, it is much easier to delude yourself into thinking that you are 100% self-reliant in the middle states. You can have such a huge exurban home with its own mini-orchard, swimming pool, etc, etc, that you can easily begin to think that you are a self-contained unit. In big cities, you realize that government intervenes to prevent you from driving each other completely insane, and provides useful common infrastructure. You need government-made playgrounds because you don’t have 2 acres with a public-park-sized play structure of your own. etc.

By: LizardBreath

LizardBreath — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:13:51 +0000

I think keupo has it—it’s urbanization. Poor states are less urban, and one thing cities create is physical proximity between the rich and the poor. On an elevated spiritual level, that promotes compassion in the rich. On a primitively self-interested level, the hedge-fund manager who takes the subway to work wants, e.g., services for the mentally ill so that they aren’t abandoned to harass him during his morning commute.

If this is right, it would be testable—I’m guessing that ‘rich’ and ‘urbanized’ correlate pretty tightly, but it should be possible to tease them apart enough to see whether we’re talking about rich people in rich states, or rich people in urban areas.

By: keupo

keupo — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:30:27 +0000

These maps have really been nagging at me, I have another theory. People in the northeast, greater New York, Boston, DC, Philly, Baltimore, have seen the effect that government can have on society; in the recovery of those urban centers during the 90s from the blight of the 80s. Also in NE, the rich come into contact with poverty in their urban areas, and they vote to fight it since it affects their lives. These people are willing to pay higher taxes since they have a noticeable effect, i.e. reducing crime and vagrancy. It’s not so much noblesse oblige as actual self interest. In less densely populated states the rich are more isolated from the poor and have had less effective governance so they don’t see point in investing in it. Oil barons aren’t accosted by panhandlers in Dallas, but hedge fund managers driving through the Bronx have to explain what a crack-head is to their kids.

By: My Suburban Destiny » Blog Archive » Politics: The City vs Country and the Rich vs Poor Divide

Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:45:24 +0000

[...] about class warfare, look at these maps on the split between the rich & the poor’s voting habits. When the rural/urban and rich/poor split is so stark, makes you wonder how much of politics [...]

By: Yan

Yan — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:33:28 +0000

Sometimes this discussion feels like: “People who are culturally, educationally, and economically disadvantaged sure suck. They just don’t display our deep sympathy for people who are culturally, educationally, and economically disadvantaged.”

By: NabaFEMA

NabaFEMA — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:26:02 +0000

Be interesting to overlay those maps with GSP and export earnings maps for the lower 48.

By: Toby

Toby — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:44:31 +0000

Paul Krugman has discussed this paper, and another one, at his blog. Bassically, the picture of the gun-toting, misogynistic, racist, white thrash, trailer-park redneck as the archtypical Republican in the south is false.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/bubba-isnt-who-you-think/

By: Jor

Jor — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 02:45:08 +0000

doug t, i was thinking the same thing. Need a relative income metric rather than an absolute one.

By: Darrin927

Darrin927 — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:33:35 +0000

“All business people are Republicans.”

Yeah, I’ve been hearing that one almost my whole life. It’s not true! More small & medium sized business owners are realizing that the repugs are only pro-business when it’s a big business.