Click anywhere on the image below to go the dynamic version of this map.
Try out the tabs along the top for a very illuminating experience.
4 thoughts on “Take from the Blue and Give to the Red”
This is a very interesting way to look at state-by-state statistics, Don, and I thank you for posting it. A bit of poking around indicates that our federal government does indeed take from the blue and give to the red. Otherwise, the blue states have it better than the red in almost every category, especially higher GDPs household incomes.
I initially thought that this article’s headline (“Take from the Blue and Give to the Red”) was a complaint but I now see that liberals’ desire to spread the wealth is actually occurring and that the headline must therefore be a declaration of success.
Good point, Michael, I hadn’t thought of that, and I’m a proud life-long liberal!
Although … hm … the fact that I hadn’t thought of it (and I wrote the title) kind of subverts your conclusion.
On yet another hand, Warren Buffett — bless his heart — said, “There’s class warfare, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
So, yes, among the more noble liberal aspirations is to RE-redistribute the wealth back downward.
It’s just as I thought. Re-distribution of wealth is acceptable, even to proud life-long liberals, only as long as it is the wealth of those wealthier than oneself that is being re-distributed. And this is the problem with re-distribution. Who is to decide where to draw the line between those who must give and those who get to receive? It’s better, I think, to strive for equal opportunity than equal outcome.
I intended for my comment about RE-redistribution (not redistribution) to be lighthearted and not too serious. And I intended it as a comic reply to Buffet’s offensive and entirely truthful class war comment.
I’ve never really thought much about redistribution, except I’ve noticed that it’s often brought up in an effort to pin the label, “socialist,” on the left. The irony with that, of course, is that we live in a system of socialism for the wealthy (bank bailouts, oil company subsidies, auto industry bailouts, etc.) and capitalism for the middle class (foreclosures, high unemployment, etc.).
Since the late 1970s (and for the first time in US history) worker productivity has not been matched by an increase in worker real (adjusted for inflation) wages, to the point that the US is now among the most unequal societies in the industrialized world. In fact, the degree of inequality has reached a level only seen here before on the eve of the Great Depression. That’s no coincidence. There may be a connection between the extreme concentration of wealth in the top 1% in the US and the relative inability of the middle class to create demand for goods and services. As in the 1930s, we need a massive program to put people back to work.
In any case, we are quite far away from the red and blue map. The colors of that map, after all, refer to partisan voting patterns, and how those patterns correlate with existing government handouts, and other factors. It’s not too surprising that the more industrial blue states might be giving more than they are getting from the federal government.
I suppose in an ideal world, give and take would be in perfect parity.
I have an idea, Michael, that we might agree on more than it appears, on first sight.
4 thoughts on “Take from the Blue and Give to the Red”
This is a very interesting way to look at state-by-state statistics, Don, and I thank you for posting it. A bit of poking around indicates that our federal government does indeed take from the blue and give to the red. Otherwise, the blue states have it better than the red in almost every category, especially higher GDPs household incomes.
I initially thought that this article’s headline (“Take from the Blue and Give to the Red”) was a complaint but I now see that liberals’ desire to spread the wealth is actually occurring and that the headline must therefore be a declaration of success.
Good point, Michael, I hadn’t thought of that, and I’m a proud life-long liberal!
Although … hm … the fact that I hadn’t thought of it (and I wrote the title) kind of subverts your conclusion.
On yet another hand, Warren Buffett — bless his heart — said, “There’s class warfare, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
So, yes, among the more noble liberal aspirations is to RE-redistribute the wealth back downward.
🙂
It’s just as I thought. Re-distribution of wealth is acceptable, even to proud life-long liberals, only as long as it is the wealth of those wealthier than oneself that is being re-distributed. And this is the problem with re-distribution. Who is to decide where to draw the line between those who must give and those who get to receive? It’s better, I think, to strive for equal opportunity than equal outcome.
I intended for my comment about RE-redistribution (not redistribution) to be lighthearted and not too serious. And I intended it as a comic reply to Buffet’s offensive and entirely truthful class war comment.
I’ve never really thought much about redistribution, except I’ve noticed that it’s often brought up in an effort to pin the label, “socialist,” on the left. The irony with that, of course, is that we live in a system of socialism for the wealthy (bank bailouts, oil company subsidies, auto industry bailouts, etc.) and capitalism for the middle class (foreclosures, high unemployment, etc.).
Since the late 1970s (and for the first time in US history) worker productivity has not been matched by an increase in worker real (adjusted for inflation) wages, to the point that the US is now among the most unequal societies in the industrialized world. In fact, the degree of inequality has reached a level only seen here before on the eve of the Great Depression. That’s no coincidence. There may be a connection between the extreme concentration of wealth in the top 1% in the US and the relative inability of the middle class to create demand for goods and services. As in the 1930s, we need a massive program to put people back to work.
In any case, we are quite far away from the red and blue map. The colors of that map, after all, refer to partisan voting patterns, and how those patterns correlate with existing government handouts, and other factors. It’s not too surprising that the more industrial blue states might be giving more than they are getting from the federal government.
I suppose in an ideal world, give and take would be in perfect parity.
I have an idea, Michael, that we might agree on more than it appears, on first sight.