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

[Glen Contrarian]

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

FAIL

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


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.

If I've "allowed my political and ideological bias to enter into my theory", then doesn't that mean that I would probably be saying that liberal governance is responsible for the higher standard of living in blue states vs. red states? But I didn't, did I?

But if you think I'm wrong, please feel free to show why the standards of living are OBVIOUSLY higher in blue states, why divorce rates and teenage pregnancy rates and birth mortality rates are LOWER in blue states than in red states. And don't try to claim that it's somehow the red states supporting the blue states through federal tax dollars, because I've already posted proof that it's just the opposite - red states are in almost all cases recipients of more federal tax dollars than their people pay out.

So tell me why the numbers show it's better in blue states. But you won't...because you can't without challenging your own political and sociological paradigms.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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.

I grew up in the country - my high school graduating class was a whopping 42 people (and my high school was over in the next county). There are nice things about living in the country - I never said otherwise. But the numbers show that those who live in more urbanized (read: blue) states have a higher standard of living and lower rates of divorce and teenage pregnancy. That's the big picture.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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.

Problem is, when you think of blue states, all you're thinking of is the inner city...but the inner cities in and of themselves make up a MINORITY of blue states - you're ignoring the suburbs and the economic engines that the cities almost always are. You're focusing on the trees and ignoring the forest.

Again, if raising a family in blue states is SO bad, then explain the disparities in education, divorce, teenage pregnancy, etc.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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

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

You should have read my reply to the post you quoted, for I pointed out how he took the wrong set of statistics - he looked at the total number of murders rather than the much more important murder RATE.

And to address your points, I could also have listed certain blue states as red - such as Ohio and Pennsylvania since they both have Republican governors, and Ohio has a Republican-dominated legislature. But I didn't. Instead, I went by which state went for which presidential candidate.

So feel free to explain the significant statistical disparities in standards of living and in family life in blue states vs. red states...if you can.

 

[Carjosse]

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

I grew up in the country - my high school graduating class was a whopping 42 people (and my high school was over in the next county). There are nice things about living in the country - I never said otherwise. But the numbers show that those who live in more urbanized (read: blue) states have a higher standard of living and lower rates of divorce and teenage pregnancy. That's the big picture.

Mine will be around that size aswell my school's population will down to less than 300 next year. I hate living in the country I want to leave and not come back except to visit.

 

[clownboy]

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

There are no red or blue states, they're all purple (ish).

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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

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.

Hey - I just showed you the numbers, so if you've got numbers that show otherwise, please give me a reference.

Thing is, guy, if we look at say, welfare, there are more welfare recipients in the more-urbanized blue states...but the RATE of people on welfare is not so different: looking at the list of states by rate of people on welfare, 13 of the top 25 are red states - so I don't think that's really statistically significant.

Which leaves us with the list of statistics I presented in my OP. But here's something else: if we count D.C. as a state, 12 of the 15 states with the highest poverty rates are RED states...and remember, red states generally receive MORE in federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes (meaning that they're being supported by blue states)

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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

Mine will be around that size aswell my school's population will down to less than 300 next year. I hate living in the country I want to leave and not come back except to visit.

Amen! I'll never live in the country again - especially where I grew up in MS where so many of my fellow whites - including those in my family - are racist. I love the land and the weather there - I really do - but it's the people and their ignorance that I can't stand. Most of them have seen little of the rest of America (much less traveled the world as I have), and so they can't conceive that yes, things are indeed better elsewhere.

 

[ocean515]

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

If I've "allowed my political and ideological bias to enter into my theory", then doesn't that mean that I would probably be saying that liberal governance is responsible for the higher standard of living in blue states vs. red states? But I didn't, did I?

But if you think I'm wrong, please feel free to show why the standards of living are OBVIOUSLY higher in blue states, why divorce rates and teenage pregnancy rates and birth mortality rates are LOWER in blue states than in red states. And don't try to claim that it's somehow the red states supporting the blue states through federal tax dollars, because I've already posted proof that it's just the opposite - red states are in almost all cases recipients of more federal tax dollars than their people pay out.

So tell me why the numbers show it's better in blue states. But you won't...because you can't without challenging your own political and sociological paradigms.

LOL

First, I might suggest you think about the concept of debate, and refrain from rejecting arguments that may or may not be offered.

Second, as the link I provided pointed out, your premise about urban life has been soundly rejected by facts.

Finally, given the implications of the first point, and the reality of the second, a need to play into your poorly disguised partisan meme would be a rather large waste of time.

The blue state/red state fixation of the left is really a rather pathetic exercise in immaturity and selective conclusion.

By all means, keep those selective blinders firmly in place, it has great importance to the issues of the day...

 

[Diving Mullah]

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

You should have read my reply to the post you quoted, for I pointed out how he took the wrong set of statistics - he looked at the total number of murders rather than the much more important murder RATE.

And to address your points, I could also have listed certain blue states as red - such as Ohio and Pennsylvania since they both have Republican governors, and Ohio has a Republican-dominated legislature. But I didn't. Instead, I went by which state went for which presidential candidate.

So feel free to explain the significant statistical disparities in standards of living and in family life in blue states vs. red states...if you can.

Larger population, better economic centers, more high paying jobs.

You are assuming that I was disagreeing with you, I wasn't. All said, what you call blue also means more population, which does in itself attract more wealth, which in turn attracts well and diverse groups of educated people, which tend to be more progressive

Now what I don't know is more educated people go to blue area, or blue become blue because there are more educated people in it.

Even map by Clownboy says the same thing...Even in Very Red States the areas that arehighly populated tend to go blue, or at least less reddish.

Diving Mullah

 

[ChezC3]

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

In all catagories the predominant States in question are The Southern States. This goes to show the crippling effect of Reconstruction Ruining generations. Good Job!

 

[Papa bull]

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

Amen! I'll never live in the country again - especially where I grew up in MS where so many of my fellow whites - including those in my family - are racist. I love the land and the weather there - I really do - but it's the people and their ignorance that I can't stand. Most of them have seen little of the rest of America (much less traveled the world as I have), and so they can't conceive that yes, things are indeed better elsewhere.

I fled from Fairfield County, CT to the Tri-State area of Ohio. I lived in CT for years and hated it. The taxes are absurd. The people are snobbish and standoffish and there's just something about living in the highest per capita income county in the highest per capita income state that seems to churn out asswholes. They don't know their ass from a hole in the ground about real life outside the urban jungle and their ignorance about everything from nature to where food really comes from was so omnipresent it was cloying and sickening. The people here are a good bit simpler, but in most respects, not NEARLY so ignorant as the self-absorbed urbanites from towns that could have been named "Stepford".

 

[Ahlevah]

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

- If we count Washington D.C. as a full-fledged state, nine out of the fifteen states with the worst murder rates are RED states. Indeed, the murder rate in the South as a whole is the highest in the nation, more than 150% the murder rate in the Northeast.

So you think the reason murder rates in "red" states are higher than "blue" states is because there are too many Republicans in the red states? How do you explain, then, that the highest rate, by far, is in the District of Columbia, where you can't get any bluer than a "state" that has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country? Or how about Maryland, another gun-control paradise, that by my reckoning comes in Third Place? When anyone mentions the word "hunting" in Maryland they're usually talking about open season on Republicans. I think your theory has a few holes in it and you need to try looking under another rock.

 

[Thrilla]

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

I raised by kids both in cities and in rural areas.... rural areas were better for us....all of us enjoyed rural living more than city living

I don't have the desire to ever live in a big city again... too many assholes.
my hometown (Las Vegas) is a bastion of assholes, animals, and people who generally just don't give a **** if you live or die,as long as you give them your money....it's a typical big "blue" city..your money is the only thing that really matters

 

[humbolt]

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

Problem is, when you think of blue states, all you're thinking of is the inner city...but the inner cities in and of themselves make up a MINORITY of blue states - you're ignoring the suburbs and the economic engines that the cities almost always are. You're focusing on the trees and ignoring the forest.

Again, if raising a family in blue states is SO bad, then explain the disparities in education, divorce, teenage pregnancy, etc.

You might be interested in reading this: Density and Human Behavior

 

[Zalatix]

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

Funny thing is though that in my state,the wealthiest,healthiest,happiest county,Waukesha(my county)is DEEP red,over 65% in 2012.
I'd also note that states like Maryland have a very heavy footprint of federal largesse(as does liberal northern Virginia)to enrich it.

And yet those same states consume less welfare than the "independent" red states! Go figure.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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

So you think the reason murder rates in "red" states are higher than "blue" states is because there are too many Republicans in the red states? How do you explain, then, that the highest rate, by far, is in the District of Columbia, where you can't get any bluer than a "state" that has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country? Or how about Maryland, another gun-control paradise, that by my reckoning comes in Third Place? When anyone mentions the word "hunting" in Maryland they're usually talking about open season on Republicans. I think your theory has a few holes in it and you need to try looking under another rock.

If you'd have read my OP, you'd have seen that I did NOT say it's because there are too many of any political stripe at all. I said that it has nothing at all to do with politics, but has to do with the level of urbanization of the states.

Perhaps you should READ what I write before you make assumptions about me and my opinions.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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

You might be interested in reading this: Density and Human Behavior

I noticed something wrong with that study right away: "In the United States city crime rates are higher than suburban rates, which in turn are higher than rural rates."

If that were the case, then the crime stats I listed would have shown that violent crime is worse in more urbanized blue states than in more rural red states. Here's a source showing that the suburbs have lower violent crime rates than the national average.

The study began with a false and wholly unsupported premise, and for that reason I'm going to ignore the rest of it.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

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

If I've "allowed my political and ideological bias to enter into my theory", then doesn't that mean that I would probably be saying that liberal governance is responsible for the higher standard of living in blue states vs. red states? But I didn't, did I?

Which is good because if you look at places like Illinois and Michigan (both blue states and both under massive urbanization projects) they will show another story. The theory of urbanization is not a bad one, however, with that said, practice means everything. If urban renewal brought prosperity to an area then that would only make logical sense to do it. However, knocking down blighted areas and replacing them with economic centers has not benefited many a city and/or social group of either state. I see a rise in violent crime for both places in urban areas, especially Chicago. Also, something new going on (not just rise in poverty in the city anymore) a rapid rise in poverty in suburban areas surrounding both Detroit and Chicago. These new trends should be alarming. I'm also not seeing a so called 'cure' to the economic achievement gap in children either with all these voucher programs going on in both states. If you study other places around the world that established these voucher type programs (Chile being the largest) it will show a rapid rising rate of social/educational stratification rather than a decrease. I wonder what residents think they will get in return from taking complete power away from them in a few communities and putting it in the hands of corporate boards (aka CPS board). What I see as a common link is the balance of power being taken away from people in communities and more concentrated into special interest hands.

 

[vash1012]

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.

I agree with this for the most part and even had planned on mentioning it in one of our other discussions. However, this idea goes far beyond political leaning. This is an idea that explains the disparity in progress in European nations vs. African nations over the last few millennium. It really boils down to population density. The more population a place can support, the more likely you are to have people who can work on things other than just sustaining their families lives. You develop more efficient means for farming and have even more people to devote to other things. Out of these people working on non-essential production, you create religion, art, the sciences, philosophy, literature, etc., or today, you have people who start Google, or Facebook, or create 5 hour energy. This is a truth that still have application today.

 

[Ahlevah]

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

If you'd have read my OP, you'd have seen that I did NOT say it's because there are too many of any political stripe at all. I said that it has nothing at all to do with politics, but has to do with the level of urbanization of the states.

Most people associate "Red States" and "Blue States" with the political maps on TV on election night that denote "Republican States" and "Democratic States," respectively. So for you to say your OP has nothing to do with politics seems a bit disingenuous.

 

[humbolt]

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

I noticed something wrong with that study right away: "In the United States city crime rates are higher than suburban rates, which in turn are higher than rural rates."

If that were the case, then the crime stats I listed would have shown that violent crime is worse in more urbanized blue states than in more rural red states. Here's a source showing that the suburbs have lower violent crime rates than the national average.

The study began with a false and wholly unsupported premise, and for that reason I'm going to ignore the rest of it.

I thought you might choose to ignore it. Pardon me if I choose to ignore yours.

 

[Ahlevah]

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

If that were the case, then the crime stats I listed would have shown that violent crime is worse in more urbanized blue states than in more rural red states.

If this is not a political discussion in the General Political Discussion forum, then maybe you should stop using the terms "blue" and "red" and just tell us what criteria you're using to define what qualifies as an an urban state, or, better yet, tell us which states fall into each category.

 

[fmw]

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.

That is correct. I live in the country in a red state. I don't care whether it is red or blue. I do care that I live in the country. Wages are lower, home prices are lower, services are less expensive out here. That is the nature of the country. I can travel to a medium sized city with a short trip of only 25 miles and get all the blue I need which isn't very much. Those of us in the country aren't numerous enough to have all the amenities but we trade that for freedom, privacy, fresh air, quiet and other benefits.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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

I thought you might choose to ignore it. Pardon me if I choose to ignore yours.

Ah. You use my choice to ignore your reference as an excuse to ignore your reference...even when I presented clear proof that the very basis of the study you referenced was wrong.

But I guess it's a must that people take your references as fact even when your references are found to be flat wrong.