Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

magnoliamachinations t1_iu1ewih wrote

DC should not be included. Obviously federal money is funding the majority of the Capitol.

I would also like to see a chart that removes federal monies for military bases and other federal organizations. Virginia for instance has an influx of federal money into NOVA and Hampton Roads, but not Central Virginia or Western VA due to the military and other governmental complexes.

What is the breakdown of federal money? Social programs and welfare, infrastructure / roads, environmental protection? The type of money is important in these types of discussions. All federal money is not the same.

3

685327593 t1_iu1aps8 wrote

Really all just boils down to the progressive nature of the tax code. Lower income states pat less than higher income ones do. However that isn't as useful for drawing political conclusions as people would like to believe because there's no adjustment for cost of living. Blue states generally have higher incomes.. but also higher costs.

2

magnoliamachinations t1_iu1g273 wrote

This is also misleading because many of these states may lean one way federally and another way at a local level.

Louisiana, Virginia, North Carolina, a Colorado, and California all come to mind immediately.

Louisiana has a Democrat as Governor, but all Federal officials are Republicans. It also typically goes Red for President.

Virginia and North Carolina are Swing States. Virginia just voted in a Republican Governor despite going Blue federally in 2020.

California fluctuates at the Governor level, but regularly votes Democrat at the federal level.

Colorado is a split state. The only reason it goes Blue is because of Denver and northern cities. Colorado Springs and nearly all of the Eastern and Western regions are Conservative, with Pueblo being the exception.

1

TaftIsUnderrated t1_iu1ci04 wrote

Where do urbanites think their wealth comes from? It's not art galleries or hip coffee shop; it's banks, insurance, and financial managers. Look at the skyline of any major city, all the skyscrapers have are named after finance companies.

These finance companies take money from the surrounding area, concentrating it in a city, then act charitable when they give a pittance back. This is just modern day mercantilism.

1

685327593 t1_iu1h3gx wrote

Depends on the city. There's a good argument to be made that a city like NYC which gets wealthy off the financial industry is a "taker", but it's a lot harder to make that argument about a city like Houston which produces energy or a city like San Francisco that produces technology.

2

imakenosensetopeople t1_iu1j1o6 wrote

I would argue that San Francisco is the tech equivalent of those finance companies in the original comment - it’s just concentrating the wealth from the surrounding areas (or now, worldwide) into a few square miles of SoCal.

1

EthanBeast t1_iu3etfp wrote

Financial institutions aren’t nothing though. They do provide things. Just because you can’t touch it doesn’t mean it’s not integral to a functioning developed economy.

1