Couldn’t this be attributed to the lower population density of conservative areas? You would expect to see lower wealth in areas with lower population, even if the wealth per capita is higher
Objectively no, but it also makes sense to me that more densely populated areas have higher GDP per capita. All I’m saying is, it’s a hasty generalization to say “this place has more money than that place, so that place must be stupider.” Economics is way more complex than a single data point or two make it seem.
It should be noted that there are different ways to measure poverty. Occupy Democrats says its claim is based on per-person income. We looked at that, along with median household income and median family income.
By all three measures, 9 out of the 10 poorest states voted Republican in the last presidential election. (In fact, they voted Red in the last four elections.)
Not stupider. Just making choices that aren’t economically feasible and are dependent on handouts from those who make more economically sound decisions (or happen to be on top of resources that are currently valuable on the market) to maintain a lifestyle more similar to those making those more economically sound decisions. There’s more to life than money though, so just because something isn’t economically the best idea doesn’t mean its a bad idea. And I think we should still have a safety net that makes sure even people who make even bad decisions are still have a decent quality of life.
But given its typically those complaining about “handouts” like food stamps who are the biggest recipients of them, it might be in their best interest to realize they shouldn’t be voting for leopards if they don’t want their faces eaten.
Couldn’t this be attributed to the lower population density of conservative areas? You would expect to see lower wealth in areas with lower population, even if the wealth per capita is higher
Removed by mod
Objectively no, but it also makes sense to me that more densely populated areas have higher GDP per capita. All I’m saying is, it’s a hasty generalization to say “this place has more money than that place, so that place must be stupider.” Economics is way more complex than a single data point or two make it seem.
The claim is per capita: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/28/occupy-democrats/pro-democrat-group-says-9-10-poorest-states-are-re/
Not stupider. Just making choices that aren’t economically feasible and are dependent on handouts from those who make more economically sound decisions (or happen to be on top of resources that are currently valuable on the market) to maintain a lifestyle more similar to those making those more economically sound decisions. There’s more to life than money though, so just because something isn’t economically the best idea doesn’t mean its a bad idea. And I think we should still have a safety net that makes sure even people who make even bad decisions are still have a decent quality of life.
But given its typically those complaining about “handouts” like food stamps who are the biggest recipients of them, it might be in their best interest to realize they shouldn’t be voting for leopards if they don’t want their faces eaten.