patrick.net

Yup same reason the most taxes are paid by the blue as well IOW only the financially affluent states can afford to be blue states.

Average intelligence is a confounding variable.

Fascinating.

Do a survey of the Professors at Cal Tech, M.I.T., Stanford, Harvard etc and you'll find the same thing.

Any grouping you can think of where the intelligence is way above average, and you'll find this same correlation.

But about the housing stats, if you include the very most expensive small suburbs or exurbs, I'm not so sure they would be "liberal" Take Kenilworth on the north shore, north of Chicago, for example, or Greenwich, Conn.

Lowest social mobility in the old Confederacy - land of low taxes and regulations:

Why is Utah and Wyoming so Enlightened?

It just means that liberals like to throw away their own money just as much as they like to throw away taxpayer's money.

The more productive a people are, the more deadbeats they can support. When enough deadbeats arrive, and vote themselves a right to other people's money, you have a blue state.
So yah, most productive, and most hopelessly blue. At least that's what I see here in California. Everyone with a good job runs around working constantly. People have side jobs and small businesses alongside their regular jobs. Everyone is so caught up in the rat race, trying to get ahead of the increasingly progressive tax code while the rest of them sit back drinking Heineken and Tecate and collecting their free money. Seen both sides. Blue states depend on hard workers who in turn don't get a vote.

I've argued for a long time that wealth precedes liberalism, not vice versa. It takes a lot of wealth to have the disposable income to even consider left wing politics, such as redistribution, welfare, subsidies, etc. The wealthiest with most disposable income support the notion of "helping" via taxing wealth away, since it doesn't impact them in any meaningful way. They trust the government, so they don't see the harm done by these policies, and only think of the feel-good part of "helping", don't consider the harm this does to people at the margin.

myob says

The wealthiest with most disposable income support the notion of "helping" via taxing wealth away, since it doesn't impact them in any meaningful way. They trust the government, so they don't see the harm done by these policies, and only think of the feel-good part of "helping", don't consider the harm this does to people at the margin.

You have this exactly backwards. The liberal wealthy are for tax policies that directly impact them in a severely negative way--more progressive taxation, higher capital gains taxes, inheritance tax, etc. They understand that an economy simply cannot function with wealth disparity at current high levels.

It's the selfish Republican wealthy (Ricketts, Koch Bros., etc) that are for policies that enrich themselves and screw the middle and lower classes. Conservatives are NOT for the middle class. Just look at history....

Liberals just can't justify their existence unless they are paying a premium for something. They give long winded lectures on every thing they dislike and blame Capitalism for it.

But god forbid there should be a unified cheap effective education where "Good School" districts would be a non starter in this country.

CaptainShuddup says

But god forbid there should be a unified cheap effective education where "Good School" districts would be a non starter in this country.

You're definitely unclear on at least two concepts here.

But having said that, I can agree that if there was excellent housing (but also cheap) available everywhere, then we could also have good schools everywhere, because the healthy families and good kids, that have their act together, would be evenly dispersed across all communities and neighborhoods.

In my world all kids would be good kids Karl.

But every school district would have a professional punisher, that all he does, is gives ass beatings to kids who acted up in school. Each would be a legend of lore in their own school district.

Several punishers from multiple districts would pay a visit to the parents of any student who had a bitchy view of their life's work.

indigenous says

Yup same reason the most taxes are paid by the blue as well IOW only the financially affluent states can afford to be blue states.

Hmmm, low taxes, minimal regulation, minimal welfare state.

How come all those San Fran, Boston, and Seattle financial and tech companies ain't running down to Mighty Mississippi?

myob says

I've argued for a long time that wealth precedes liberalism, not vice versa. It takes a lot of wealth to have the disposable income to even consider left wing politics, such as redistribution, welfare, subsidies, etc.

Hmmm. Vietnam, Russia, China? The Roman Annona? Babylonian Jubilee?

I suggest a confusion between societal sophistication (ie Rome vs. Dark Ages Decentralized Feudal Europe), technology, and politics.

thunderlips11 says

How come all those San Fran, Boston, and Seattle financial and tech companies ain't running down to Mighty Mississippi?

They are running to Texas and Utah.

tatupu70 says

isparity at current high levels.

It's the selfish Republican wealthy (Ricketts, Koch Bros., etc) that are for policies that enrich themselves and screw the middle and lower clas

As a stinky Euro, your opinion on this is to be insta discarded.

dodgerfanjohn says

As a stinky Euro

huh?

grumble. let's look at some numbers...

california can be considered the most progressive state and is under almost permanent democratic party rule. for all its obsession with a green utopian future - what have the democrats, tech billionaires, and berkeley liberal intelligentsia been working on?

--> 7 of the 10 worst metropolitan areas in the united states in terms of unemployment are in california.

--> california has the highest poverty rating of any state (23.8%)

--> some of the longest-living californians are latino immigrants at the bottom of the pay and education scales -- whose native-born children die earlier (downward mobility)

--> the middle class is now a minority in california, yet 1 of every 9 of the world's billionaires reside in california

--> california public schools received an overall grade of F, ranking 41st nationally, from StudentsFirst, a Sacramento-based group run by Michelle Rhee, the former schools chancellor in Washington, D.C.

--> education week gives California a "D" with a cumulative score of 72.4 on a 100-point scale, 10th lowest among the states.

--> The Golden State's fourth-graders ranked 47th in the nation in both math and reading. Eighth-graders ranked 45th in math and 42nd in reading. And the scores show that the gap separating white students from their black and Latino peers in English and math is bigger in California than it is nationwide.

Re post 18

It's the republicans fault. Obviously

myob says

I've argued for a long time that wealth precedes liberalism, not vice versa. It takes a lot of wealth to have the disposable income to even consider left wing politics, such as redistribution, welfare, subsidies, etc. The wealthiest with most disposable income support the notion of "helping" via taxing wealth away, since it doesn't impact them in any meaningful way. They trust the government, so they don't see the harm done by these policies, and only think of the feel-good part of "helping", don't consider the harm this does to people at the margin.

That's correct. It is a win-win for the wealthiest to have the Fed and the government float their asset bubbles while the wage-slaves are being taxed to the hilt for their hard work. They support and finance both parties which really is one. People feel better if they support "progressive" democratic politics seemingly aimed at the rich when in reality the wage-slaves bear the full brunt of the cost. Let's face it, without doctors, nurses, programmers, small biz owners etc. the 47% would be totally fucked, so they continue to vote for the politics to ass-rape those immediately above them which are also a much easier target to mooch off of. The result is a diminishing middle and upper middle-class.

landtof says

--> california public schools received an overall grade of F, ranking 41st nationally, from StudentsFirst, a Sacramento-based group run by Michelle Rhee, the former schools chancellor in Washington, D.C.

Yeah, and this is because Californian's are progressive politically ?

Or because the teachers and schools systems suck ?

Could there be another reason ?

THe rest of the country should thank us for having so many immigrants, so the U.S. isn't going to go through the economic havoc that comes from having populations growth suddenly turning negative (as it is in much of Europe).

But you're right. If the teachers were better, we could probably change the beliefs and patterns of first generation immigrant behavior (regarding school) instantly rather than having it take a generations two kick in.

Marcus is correct. Everyone knows you don't send your kids to school with a majority of immigrants. Unless they are Chinese immigrants. A majority of Latino immigrants makes it a gang school. What are teachers going to do when the students won't learn and their parents don't care?

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

Yup same reason the most taxes are paid by the blue as well IOW only the financially affluent states can afford to be blue states.

Hmmm, low taxes, minimal regulation, minimal welfare state.

How come all those San Fran, Boston, and Seattle financial and tech companies ain't running down to Mighty Mississippi?

Those states do not produce as valuable products. Remember the largest share of Washington States GDP was fishing and lumber? Things change and as they do they become Blue states.

indigenous says

Those states do not produce as valuable products. Remember the largest share of Washington States GDP was fishing and lumber? Things change and as they do they become Blue states.

What does reliably red Idaho produce? Potatoes, Lumber.

Alaska? Welfare and Alcoholics, Fish and Crab.

Can you be a liberal and be in the 1%?

Can you be an anarchist and in the 1%?

thunderlips11 says

What does reliably red Idaho produce? Potatoes, Lumber.

Alaska? Welfare and Alcoholics, Fish and Crab.

You are missing my point.

Mish says

Most Expensive Housing Markets in US are Liberal: Correlation or Cause?

Causality.

Liberals actually produce wealth, whereas conservatives are shit poor, uneducated, and unemployed or employed in non-skilled, manual labor. Furthermore, no one wants to live anywhere near conservatives. Let's face it, places occupied by conservatives suck. There's nothing to do except smell the shit from the farms.

In contrast, liberals produce and make a lot of wealth. Job centers are created around liberal cities (Boston, LA, NYC, etc.). As a result, everyone wants to live there and people have money. This drives up the market price for land and houses.

In summary, conservatives are like pedophiles. In addition to the obvious ways, they also both lower home values.

Blurtman says

Can you be a liberal and be in the 1%?

Yes. It all depends on how you got there. Unfortunately, almost everyone in the super rich, more like 0.1%, got there by screwing others.

Blurtman says

Can you be an anarchist and in the 1%?

Yes, but you wouldn't be in the 1% for very long. You basically financially screwed if you don't play along with the banking and finance systems.

Dan8267 says

Liberals actually produce wealth

What a fucking mutt

Barack Obama e.g. could not produce wealth if his life depended on it.

I'd have to disagree, Dan. I live in Orange County, CA, a well known conservative bastion. House prices are very high, location is desirable, schools are generally much better than in liberal/progressive Las Angeles county next door. Basically everything you said is untrue. However OC is far more fiscally conservative than socially so. They just can't handle all the batshit crazy that LA county extrudes.
The residents here produce much of the tax money that gets redistributed to liberal areas. The state may be blue, but the residents tend to segregate sharply between the productive and the takers.

Quigley says

The more productive a people are, the more deadbeats they can support. When enough deadbeats arrive, and vote themselves a right to other people's money, you have a blue state.

So yah, most productive, and most hopelessly blue. At least that's what I see here in California. Everyone with a good job runs around working constantly. People have side jobs and small businesses alongside their regular jobs. Everyone is so caught up in the rat race, trying to get ahead of the increasingly progressive tax code while the rest of them sit back drinking Heineken and Tecate and collecting their free money. Seen both sides. Blue states depend on hard workers who in turn don't get a vote.

Yep, and they sit in their lounge chairs and wave from the side of the highway at all the commuters sitting in their cars...

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Liberals actually produce wealth

What a fucking mutt

Barack Obama e.g. could not produce wealth if his life depended on it.

Obama's not a liberal. He's to the right of Nixon. Yes, that Nixon.

As for liberals producing more wealth, the following map demonstrates this clearly.

Notice how the largest GMPs are in liberal areas like the MidAtlantic, the west coast, Chicago, and Miami. The only conservative place producing is Houston and Dallas Texas and that's just because of the oil revenue. Even still, those two cities pale in contrast to the liberal cities.

Sorry, Mr. Conservative, but the facts just aren't on your side. But has that ever mattered to conservatives? You can pretend that your rich just like you pretend about everything else. Reality is irrelevant in the conservative bubble.

Quigley says

However OC is far more fiscally conservative than socially so.

Most of us liberals are fiscally conservative, myself included. Conservatives, as in Fox News listeners, are NOT fiscally conservative. In fact, we should use a completely different term for them.

Social conservative is a near opposite of liberal. The opposite of fiscally conservative is NOT liberal but rather fiscally aggressive. A fiscal conservative avoids risk and leverage whereas a fiscally aggressive person takes large risks and leverage to amply gains at the risk of great losses.

Anyone who thinks the military's budget shouldn't be slashed by at least 90% is NOT a fiscal conservative. So there goes all your Tea Party and Republican voters.

Unless someone uses the term "fiscally conservative", you can assume conservative means social conservative as in Republican and Tea Party.

Remember, liberalism is a social philosophy, not an economic one. There is no such thing as liberal economics. It's like saying an invisible object is red.

Quigley says

The more productive a people are, the more deadbeats they can support. When enough deadbeats arrive, and vote themselves a right to other people's money, you have a blue state.

No, you're thinking of red states.

The real deadbeats we productive people have to support with our tax dollars are those profiteering from war. We have to support them to a tune of a trillion dollars a year. And guess what, most of that war money goes to red welfare states. 90% of the defense budget is simply welfare in a thin veil.

The next set of deadbeats are the bankers, which we had to bail out to a tune of $14 trillion. Remember that? Oh, and those bankers were gun-ho, no regulations Republicans.

Dan8267 says

Obama's not a liberal. He's to the right of Nixon.

Say what?

Dan8267 says

Sorry, Mr. Conservative, but the facts just aren't on your side. But has that ever mattered to conservatives? You can pretend that your rich just like you pretend about everything else. Reality is irrelevant in the conservative bubble.

The question is what came first the liberal or the money? I say the latter. People like Pelosi or Fu Shumer or Barbara Boxer or Jerry Brown are damn expensive.

They ain't no money these mutts don't come sniffing around. When they is some money the mongers setup on the corner tellin us hows important they is and hows we cain't get along with out them. But onlys the stupid folk listens and theys the one who mucks up the whole works by not realizing the whole thing is a charade.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

Obama's not a liberal. He's to the right of Nixon.

Oh Boy...

He sure as fuck is. If Obama declared Price Controls in the face of double-digit inflation, Faux News - and most of the rest of the press - would be calling him a Socialist.

Yet Nixon did just that.