Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Twist

[Carjosse]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a

While they don't have children, they're childless. And thus don't have the same demands on time and income, thus skewing statistics.

The wouldn't it make more sense for people in red states to start doing the same? Then their incomes would increase as more people focus on successful careers. It is not skewing results, in blue states it pays off, as people have more disposable income form better careers.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a

The wouldn't it make more sense for people in red states to start doing the same? Then their incomes would increase as more people focus on successful careers. It is not skewing results, in blue states it pays off, as people have more disposable income form better careers.

Again, that doesn't happen anywhere to that extent even in the bluest of states.

 

[YoungConserv]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

Texas is the tenth largest GDP in the world so there's another hole in your argument.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a

To all -

The reason why there is such a disparity between red states and blue states is the level of developed urbanization. Wherever you go in the world - even in third-world nations - the greater the level of developed urbanization, the greater the social disparities between the cities and the countryside. Even in the most conservative of nations, the people in the cities are generally more liberal (as compared to the social mores of the nation in question) than the people in the countryside. People in the cities have better access to quality health care, better education, and more opportunities than those in rural areas...

...and in almost every case, social services can be found in large cities that are not found in rural areas.

What's more, people in cities are exposed to a much greater cross-section of humanity, and thus are less apt to reject others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference...and thus become generally more liberal than their counterparts in rural areas where those who are different are often looked upon with suspicion (as I should know, having grown up in the MS Delta). And this is why those in cities generally support - again, using the regional social mores as a guide - candidates who are more liberal than those supported by those in rural areas.

For a wonderful example, look at Houston, Texas, which elected a lesbian mayor in 2009 and reelected her in 2011. Would she have stood a chance in rural Texas? I think not. As we can see, the cities of Texas are significantly more liberal - or at least less conservative - than the rural areas.

What's more, if you'll think about it, how many of our best universities are in rural areas? Few if any. Major industries seldom move out to the boonies - even those that move to red states almost always stick to the cities because of logistical concerns. And as time goes on, as a city grows, the more liberal (as compared to regional social mores) that city becomes.

This is why the disparities I listed in the OP had nothing to do with liberal or conservative governance, and everything to do with the level of urbanization.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

Texas is the tenth largest GDP in the world so there's another hole in your argument.

Actually, fourteenth - but the statistics still apply - Texas is still on several of those lists I referenced. Think about it, guy - 40% of all teachers in Texas - instead of spending time helping students, making lesson plans, and grading tests and homework like teachers the world over have historically done - have to have second jobs in order to make ends meet.

That's inexcusable, and it's hurting the children of Texas.

But hey, it saves you a few tax dollars, I guess. Those dollar bills, they're so much more important than giving teachers a living wage so they can properly teach our children, I guess....

 

[YoungConserv]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

Actually, fourteenth - but the statistics still apply - Texas is still on several of those lists I referenced. Think about it, guy - 40% of all teachers in Texas - instead of spending time helping students, making lesson plans, and grading tests and homework like teachers the world over have historically done - have to have second jobs in order to make ends meet.

That's inexcusable, and it's hurting the children of Texas.

But hey, it saves you a few tax dollars, I guess. Those dollar bills, they're so much more important than giving teachers a living wage so they can properly teach our children, I guess....

I'm so sick of this living wage crap if you can't get the raise you need quit and get paid if no one will pay what your asking that usually means that your labor is not worth that. Also we have a strained education problem due to the influx of imagrants legal and illegal that use our system.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

I'm so sick of this living wage crap if you can't get the raise you need quit and get paid if no one will pay what your asking that usually means that your labor is not worth that. Also we have a strained education problem due to the influx of imagrants legal and illegal that use our system.

Ah. So FORTY PERCENT of the teachers in Texas are not worth a higher wage? And you would rather them have to work second jobs instead of having time to help students who need extra help, or to make lesson plans, or to grade tests and homework?

Here's a clue about living in a first-world nation, guy - you get what you pay for...and if you're not willing to pay the taxes necessary to make a first-world nation run, then go find a third-world nation where you'll pay almost nothing in taxes (even though sites on the internet say they have high tax rates, in reality they usually pay very little)

And when it comes to illegal immigrants, if you'd paid attention, you'd have learned that over the past few years, we've had ZERO effective illegal immigration from Mexico - just as many are going home as are coming here. Why? Because our economy sucked for a while. When our economy gets better, we'll get more illegal immigrants. You might not like that, but that's reality - and it's not going to change no matter what you put up at the border.

 

[YoungConserv]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

Ah. So FORTY PERCENT of the teachers in Texas are not worth a higher wage? And you would rather them have to work second jobs instead of having time to help students who need extra help, or to make lesson plans, or to grade tests and homework?

Here's a clue about living in a first-world nation, guy - you get what you pay for...and if you're not willing to pay the taxes necessary to make a first-world nation run, then go find a third-world nation where you'll pay almost nothing in taxes (even though sites on the internet say they have high tax rates, in reality they usually pay very little)

And when it comes to illegal immigrants, if you'd paid attention, you'd have learned that over the past few years, we've had ZERO effective illegal immigration from Mexico - just as many are going home as are coming here. Why? Because our economy sucked for a while. When our economy gets better, we'll get more illegal immigrants. You might not like that, but that's reality - and it's not going to change no matter what you put up at the border.

1 throwing money at the problem won't fix our schools if that worked Chicago would have some of the greatest schools in the country. 2 even if there is 0 net illegal imigration we still have almost 2 million still in Texas. And because of this by federal law we have to spend good money teaching classes wholey in Spanish to these kids. As for teachers salaries you are a public servant it's not supposed to be glamorous.

 

[humbolt]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

If you are willing to ignore the crime, filth, congestion, pollution, and corruption, living in an urban area is a fabulous choice.

 

[Dickieboy]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a

For a wonderful example, look at Houston, Texas, which elected a lesbian mayor in 2009 and reelected her in 2011. Would she have stood a chance in rural Texas? I think not. As we can see, the cities of Texas are significantly more liberal - or at least less conservative - than the rural areas.

Perhaps she is a Lesbian Cowboy ...which would probably appeal to the rural folks in Texas also...

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

1 throwing money at the problem won't fix our schools if that worked Chicago would have some of the greatest schools in the country. 2 even if there is 0 net illegal imigration we still have almost 2 million still in Texas. And because of this by federal law we have to spend good money teaching classes wholey in Spanish to these kids. As for teachers salaries you are a public servant it's not supposed to be glamorous.

1 - That's the problem - you're fixated on a city, but you can't see the success of the blue states as a whole that contain those cities. Why are the red states beset with so much more social and economic problems than blue states? You see the proof in the numbers I presented - do you have a better explanation for why blue states generally have a better standard of living, and are generally better places to raise a family?

2 - You get what you pay for - teachers love to teach, but if you're only going to pay peanuts for teachers, then the best and brightest won't be teachers - they'll go do something else to make money. If you want better teachers, then you have to be willing to pay them better. Go look at the nations that have better educational results than here in America...and look how much they pay their teachers. You get what you pay for, guy.

And please take no offense at this, but when it comes to education, earlier you said "imagrants" instead of 'immigrants' and in the most recent, you used "wholey" instead of 'wholey'. Perhaps it would have been better for you if you'd gone to a school where the teachers were paid enough to attract better teachers.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

If you are willing to ignore the crime, filth, congestion, pollution, and corruption, living in an urban area is a fabulous choice.

Do you have any better explanation for the generally higher standards of living, of the generally lower divorce rates and teenage pregnancy rates in blue states?

And if blue states were filled with crime, filth, congestion, pollution, and corruption as you seem to think they are, then explain the lower murder rates, the higher life expectancy rates, and the lower birth mortality rates in blue states.

 

[PerfectStorm]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

How many of the red states are going bankrupt?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

How many of the red states are going bankrupt?

California finally has a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in the state congress. And they just balanced the budget.

Feel free to give any other explanations you may have for why blue states have higher standards of living and are better places to raise a family.

 

[PerfectStorm]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

California finally has a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in the state congress. And they just balanced the budget.

Are you speaking of this California?

Smoke and mirrors.

When Capitol politicians and others talk or write about "the budget," they are referring to the "general fund," which Gov. Jerry Brown proposes to be a bit over $97 billion in the next fiscal year.

However, that's never been the entire budget.

Whenever it's passed by the Legislature, it also includes "special funds," as well as "bond funds" and federal funds. And there's been so much recent jockeying on how the state keeps its books that referring merely to the general fund as the budget is not only incomplete, but downright misleading to the voting and taxpaying public.

The budget package now before the Legislature would also spend about $80 billion in federal funds, mostly for health and welfare services and education, so the real budget is more like $225 billion, which is the equivalent of 10 percent-plus of the state's economic output.

Moreover, a truly complete budget would also include tens of billions of dollars in "tax expenditures," or what most of us would call loopholes.

It's misleading to talk about a budget that's just a fraction of the real total, and it's high time that the governor, legislators and others frame it more fully and accurately.

Dan Walters: Real budget numbers way higher than politicians let on - Dan Walters - The Sacramento Bee

 

[apdst]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

California finally has a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in the state congress. And they just balanced the budget.

Feel free to give any other explanations you may have for why blue states have higher standards of living and are better places to raise a family.

They used the passage of massive tax hikes on the private sector to balance the budget on paper.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

California finally has a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in the state congress. And they just balanced the budget.

Feel free to give any other explanations you may have for why blue states have higher standards of living and are better places to raise a family.

LOL

I love to read the twisted BS from Progressives.

Your claim about California and it's budget is about as big a lie as the ones liberal/progressives tell to voters to keep them happy.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a

To all -

The reason why there is such a disparity between red states and blue states is the level of developed urbanization. Wherever you go in the world - even in third-world nations - the greater the level of developed urbanization, the greater the social disparities between the cities and the countryside. Even in the most conservative of nations, the people in the cities are generally more liberal (as compared to the social mores of the nation in question) than the people in the countryside. People in the cities have better access to quality health care, better education, and more opportunities than those in rural areas...

...and in almost every case, social services can be found in large cities that are not found in rural areas.

What's more, people in cities are exposed to a much greater cross-section of humanity, and thus are less apt to reject others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference...and thus become generally more liberal than their counterparts in rural areas where those who are different are often looked upon with suspicion (as I should know, having grown up in the MS Delta). And this is why those in cities generally support - again, using the regional social mores as a guide - candidates who are more liberal than those supported by those in rural areas.

For a wonderful example, look at Houston, Texas, which elected a lesbian mayor in 2009 and reelected her in 2011. Would she have stood a chance in rural Texas? I think not. As we can see, the cities of Texas are significantly more liberal - or at least less conservative - than the rural areas.

What's more, if you'll think about it, how many of our best universities are in rural areas? Few if any. Major industries seldom move out to the boonies - even those that move to red states almost always stick to the cities because of logistical concerns. And as time goes on, as a city grows, the more liberal (as compared to regional social mores) that city becomes.

This is why the disparities I listed in the OP had nothing to do with liberal or conservative governance, and everything to do with the level of urbanization.

FAIL

The problem is, you've allowed your political and ideological bias to enter into your theory.

You think everyone in an urban setting is walking their dogs along green belts lined with flowering trees?

Do you think they are all stopping by the nearest Starbucks for the latest in hyper inflated java creations?


Here are the facts about the urban settings you are so confused about. This is just one link, your meme is not worth the extra effort. Since 2000, the year of this study, the situation has grown worse.

Unfinished Business: Why Cities Matter to Welfare Reform | Brookings Institution

Unfinished Business: Why Cities Matter to Welfare Reform

This report tracks welfare caseloads in the 89 counties that contain the 100 largest U.S. cities. It finds that, over the last five years, welfare caseloads have become predominantly urban. In 1994, when national welfare rolls hit a historic high, 48 percent of welfare recipients lived in the 89 counties. By contrast, in 1999, these counties were home to 58 percent of the nation's welfare recipients. The fact that families on welfare are concentrated in urban areas has important implications for the success or failure of welfare reform.

Key Findings

The bulk of America's welfare families now live in urban areas, which has important implications for the success or failure of welfare reform. This survey analyzes welfare caseloads in the 89 urban counties that contain the 100 largest U.S. cities between 1994 and 1999.​

When one becomes dependent on the income of others to live, becoming "liberal" is the normal thing.

Nice try guy, but you really need to consider how much your bias warps your view.

 

[Carjosse]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

If you are willing to ignore the crime, filth, congestion, pollution, and corruption, living in an urban area is a fabulous choice.

Rural areas can also be corrupt your also forgetting the perks.

 

[humbolt]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

Rural areas can also be corrupt your also forgetting the perks.

My rural area isn't corrupt. There just aren't enough people around to get some good corruption going. I wouldn't rule out conspiracy, collusion and corruption on the part of the wildlife, though. Urban perks are real enough, but I find that I can enjoy them on my terms at times of my preference with brief forays into the urban jungle. I misspent my youth around Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, DC, Baltimore and NYC.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

My rural area isn't corrupt. There just aren't enough people around to get some good corruption going. I wouldn't rule out conspiracy, collusion and corruption on the part of the wildlife, though. Urban perks are real enough, but I find that I can enjoy them on my terms at times of my preference with brief forays into the urban jungle. I misspent my youth around Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, DC, Baltimore and NYC.

I'm of the opinion the urban centers are awful areas to raise children and states with a large segment of their population in urban centers complete with the sleaze and slime, hoods and crime that go along with them, are almost invariably blue. Urban jungles are no place to raise a child.

 

[humbolt]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

I'm of the opinion the urban centers are awful areas to raise children and states with a large segment of their population in urban centers complete with the sleaze and slime, hoods and crime that go along with them, are almost invariably blue. Urban jungles are no place to raise a child.

I agree, and I didn't raise mine there.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

I agree, and I didn't raise mine there.

Me, either.

 

[Diving Mullah]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

Confused...based on your link (above) these are the top 15 for murders:

New Jersey
Virginia
Missouri
Maryland
Louisiana
North Carolina
Illinois
Ohio
Georgia
Michigan
Pennsylvania
New York
Florida
Texas
California

It appears there are only 5 that are 'red' states in this list...what am I missing?

Actually you are...

Larger cities tend to be the more center for migration wealth and education, diversity with higher level of education tend to breath more Liberals and more people migrate to those states because of better jobs and higher standards of living, this closeness also breaths more opportunity for crime and murder.

Also keep in mind Even the RED States cities you listed tend to go blue even though the State itself maybe red. Also keep in mind....Correlation does not imply causality.

Diving Mullah

 

[Drake McHugh]

Re: Blue States Are Better Places to Raise a Family Than Red States, But There's a Tw

Actually, guy, here's the list of the top ten states when it comes to "federal largesse":

1. New Mexico Indian reservations, military bases, federal research labs, farm subsidies, retirement programs

2. Mississippi Farm subsidies, military spending, nutrition and anti-poverty aid, retirement programs.

3. Alaska Per capita No 1 recipient of federal benefits; infrastructure projects, DOT and pork projects.

4. Louisiana Disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, military spending.

5. W. Virginia Farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid.

6. N. Dakota Farm subsidies, energy subsidies, retirement and anti-poverty programs, Indian reservations.

7. Alabama Retirement programs, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, federal space/military spending, farm subsidies.

8. S. Dakota Retirement programs, nutrition aid, farm subsidies, military spending, Indian reservations.

9. Virginia Civil service pensions, military spending, veterans benefits, retirement, anti-poverty aid.

10. Kentucky Retirement programs, nutritional and anti-poverty aid, farm subsidies.

Funny, but I see only ONE blue state on there: New Mexico.

Try again, guy.

Well,cut the spending then. Wouldn't bother me one lick. I'd estimate though that if you looked into actual government employment the liberal blue areas of NOVA and Maryland come out pretty nicely.