Skip to main content

View Diary: Minimum Wage Map by State... What A Surprise! (updated) (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And they are net tax contributors (15+ / 0-)

    that is the red states consume more of the federal budget than they contribute in tax payments.

    If this could only be framed properly.  I'm at a loss because the people most effected by this dynamic are either the least likely to understand the interdependancies or the most likely to have their vote suppressed.

    It would be great to see this posted on one of the economics blogs like Angry Bear or Economist's View.

    •  So would the blue states like to cut (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MamasGun

      the military, interstate travel, or old people on Social Security?  Because that's where your money is going.

      •  Well it seems a lot of it (9+ / 0-)
        is going to fund Haliburton. I say we cut that by cutting down on the no bid contracts.
      •  Interest expense (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splashy, MamasGun

        A huge part of the federal budget goes to paying interest on the national debt.  One more reason to demand a balanced budget.

        •  True. Which isn't a red state/blue state issue. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MamasGun, mariva

          Most dollars that the blue states pay to the red are dollars that they (as blue staters) benefit from - benefits like being defended by a military or having the ability to buy goods shipped cross country.  Portraying the transfer of taxes as smililar to a welfare program is rather disingenuous, but a often-used tactic on Kos.

          •  Who's being disingenuous? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy, mariva, Joelarama, BentLiberal

            The blue states are more productive, they pay more taxes and they take less from the federal budget.  The red states are less productive they pay in less but take more.

            The blue states are more willing to allow the conditions where more people are raised by the rising tide created by the efficiency, industry and entrepenurial spirit found in the blue states.

            Tell me.  Why isn't the situation reversed?

            •  Overly simplistic. (0+ / 0-)

              The wealth transfer is stated over and over, but I've never seen WHAT the wealth is transfered for.  If it is transferred for government capital which benefits all US citizens (such as military bases and interstate highways) the blue states may be transferring dollars, but they are not tranferring the benefits from those dollars.

              Also, as you will note from below posts, the rate of poverty in many red areas (especially the midwest) is low to average compared with the rest of the country, so there is a flaw in you're inital premise that being in a blue state guaranties that a person's boat will be raised.

              •  Wealth transfer? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Marc in KS, Joelarama

                I certainly didn't characterize it that way.

                Again, Red Staters are net consumers of government goods and services and Blue Staters are net contributors of goods and services.  

                If every state had a trade balance with the other states (administered by the federal government in its role of collecting and taxes and allocating them out) Blue States would be operating with a surplus and Red States a deficit. I'm a fiscal conservative and also a Blue Stater.  Surpluses are good for my children and deficits are bad.  This is part of my belief system and you won't be able to change my mind.

                I don't know how you can say "the rate of poverty in many red areas...is low to average compared with the rest of the country".  This is false.  The Red States dominate the poverty rate stats.

                According to the 2002-2004 Census estimates of Poverty Rates (from the official web page) of those 15 states with the lowest poverty levels (lowest percentage of poor people)6 are red states and 9 are blue.  Of those 15 states with the highest poverty rates 12 are red states and 3 are blue.

                Now as a Blue Stater I'm happy to help out my fellow American in the Red States if they are poor.  But I don't think my tax dollars are being spent effectively if the economic policies in my neighbors Red State are keeping him poor.  The idea that a low minimum wage will make poor people better off befuddles me.  But that seems to be what they call good economic policy in those states.

                If the red states benefit from a "good economic policy" of low minimum wages.  Why are they so poor?  What are they doing that combined with a low minimum wage will raise people up out of poverty?  

                These posts are about minimum wages, and the proposition that a higher minimum wage is positively correlated with a state successfully managing its economy to the extent that it can have a surplus and be a "net producer" of governmental goods and services.

                So far you haven't answered any of my questions or told me why a low minimum wage in a Red State makes a poor person in a Red State, or me for that matter, better off.

                •  Again, you seem to assume that your tax dollars (0+ / 0-)

                  are somehow going to the poor people in the Red States.  Considering the cuts in federal social programs and the shifting of the burden to individual states, I think this is highly unlikely.  I think it is far more likely that your tax dollars are going to fund military bases and interstate highways.  Are you inferring that the Red States should shoulder the entire burden for a resource that benefits all Americans?

                  As far as poverty, I am arguing that the Federal minimum wage in a Red State probably has the same buying power as the state minimum wages due in many blue states, and there isn't much of a correlation between minimum wages and rates of poverty.  In the midwest, states with the Federal minimum wage (Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri) and the state with the lowest minimum wage (Kansas) have rates of poverty that are lower than California and New York.  

          •  You're right: it's a Repub/Dem President isssue (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy, mariva

            Democratic Presidents balance the budget.

            Republican Presidents, expecially with a permissive Republican congress run up huge deficits and defund the goverment.

            "History will judge the GOP's abdication to the NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

            by BentLiberal on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:57:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  let's start with the $90 billion (8+ / 0-)

        we spent on Star Wars.  I was not amused today listening to the NPR report about how we've changed the Star Wars status to "Operational" due to N. Korea's sabre-rattling, only to learn that the system has been successful only 50% of the time in shooting down incoming missiles -- and that's with a "highly scripted event" -- e.g., the nature, timing, etc. of the missile approach were known in advance and planned for.  Unlikely that N. Korea is going to give us a ring to let us know when to expect incoming.

        Saying "Dems want to cut the military" is a red herring / straw man.  Am I in favor of cutting veterans benefits?  No, I am not.  Am I in favor of severely cutting and drastically improving oversight of the money that is earmarked for Halliburton, Bechtel, Parsons, KBR, etc.?  You bet your ass.

        And I guess I'm dense, but what does "interstate travel" cost the average Blue stater?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site