Guess Which States Are Worst for Income Inequality?

[Brainster]

Maybe this explains why the Blue Staters are constantly moaning about this topic; turns out they're more likely to be living in an unequal society (scoll down to Table 2). Here are the ten states with the highest income inequality as of 2012 (latest year available):

1. New York
2. Connecticut
3. Nevada
4. Florida
5. California
6. Massachusetts
7. Texas
8. Illinois
9. New Jersey
10. Washington

Eight solid blue states, one red state, and one battleground (Florida, which went for Obama in 2008 and 2012).

The states with the lowest income inequality?

1. Hawaii
2. Alaska
3. West Virginia
4. Maine
5. Iowa
6. Vermont
7. Mississippi (finally a ranking where they finish near the top!)
8. New Mexico
9. Kentucky
10. Delaware

(Note: Wyoming not ranked as the income of the bottom 99% could not be estimated, but oddly enough the income of the top 1% there was the highest in the country.)

 

[NoahFence]

Top 10 states are filled with mega-corporations, who are the ones responsible for the inequality.

 

[DavidJames]

Top 10 states are filled with mega-corporations, who are the ones responsible for the inequality.

That's what happens when you're desperate to find facts to support your bias. You end up with silly meaningless lists.

 

[maxpower1227]

I'm convinced. Time to move to Mississippi, where the average income of the bottom 99% is... almost $35k! Wow!

 

[Giordano]

Given that most of these states with income inequality are viewed as liberal and Democratic, you appear to be pointing out that people experiencing this income inequality are the most likely to view it negatively. Is this bad- I would think that it is an argument against calling these states hypocritical

Given that we are in a single country in the USA, does that mean that any attempts to fix income inequality on a national level are invalid if applied across states?

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I believe it is as relevant to politics as a listing of states by number of bridges.

 

[shemp]

Given that most of these states with income inequality are viewed as liberal and Democratic, you appear to be pointing out that people experiencing this income inequality are the most likely to view it negatively. Is this bad- I would think that it is an argument against calling these states hypocritical

Given that we are in a single country in the USA, does that mean that any attempts to fix income inequality on a national level are invalid if applied across states?

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I believe it is as relevant to politics as a listing of states by number of bridges.

You rang?

Transportation Statistics > Bridges > Total number (most recent) by state

 

[TragicMonkey]

Doesn't that list mean that the super-wealthy prefer to live in blue states? Even though we constantly hear that it's the red states that are correct in their attitude toward wealth?

 

[maxpower1227]

Some of the red states should make a PR campaign from these data. "Mississippi: Come for the racism, homophobia, illiteracy and teen pregnancy, stay for the low median income! At least our rich don't make as much, so our income inequality looks better!"

 

[sunmaster14]

Doesn't that list mean that the super-wealthy prefer to live in blue states? Even though we constantly hear that it's the red states that are correct in their attitude toward wealth?

No, it's more likely that the super-wealthy are the ones who help make states blue. With a few notable exceptions, the super-wealthy are leading members of an arrogant elite who think they can organize and run the lives of the common people better than the people can for themselves.

The super-wealthy love big government for that reason, as long as they have influence over that government (which they do). The high taxes don't bother them, since taxes are usually levied on income, and their income is small relative to their wealth (and can be shielded, in any event, by using high priced shelters). High income taxes have the ancillary benefit of preventing the lower class rich from becoming super-wealthy. You don't want riff-raff like businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and athletes joining your exclusive club after all.

 

[Cleon]

No, it's more likely that the super-wealthy are the ones who help make states blue. With a few notable exceptions, the super-wealthy are leading members of an arrogant elite who think they can organize and run the lives of the common people better than the people can for themselves.

It's about time you started talking smack about the Koch brothers.

 

[sunmaster14]

Some of the red states should make a PR campaign from these data. "Mississippi: Come for the racism, homophobia, illiteracy and teen pregnancy, stay for the low median income! At least our rich don't make as much, so our income inequality looks better!"

The socialist utopias in Europe should use that slogan to attract Americans.

 

[maxpower1227]

The socialist utopias in Europe should use that slogan to attract Americans.

They sure should.

 

[sunmaster14]

They sure should.

You're confusing income with net worth. For good or ill, the median American is quite the spendthrift, leading to more debt and lower net worth.

 

[Brainster]

Some of the red states should make a PR campaign from these data. "Mississippi: Come for the racism, homophobia, illiteracy and teen pregnancy, stay for the low median income! At least our rich don't make as much, so our income inequality looks better!"

So you're saying that income inequality doesn't matter as much as how much the 99% earn?

We agree.

 

[Brainster]

Doesn't that list mean that the super-wealthy prefer to live in blue states? Even though we constantly hear that it's the red states that are correct in their attitude toward wealth?

It also indicates that higher taxes won't reduce income inequality. California has the highest marginal tax rate in the country.

 

[shemp]

Doesn't that list mean that the super-wealthy prefer to live in blue states? Even though we constantly hear that it's the red states that are correct in their attitude toward wealth?

I think it more likely that the states with a lot of bridges have a lot of poor people, because some poor people live under bridges.

 

[DavidJames]

No, it's more likely that the super-wealthy are the ones who help make states blue. With a few notable exceptions, the super-wealthy are leading members of an arrogant elite who think they can organize and run the lives of the common people better than the people can for themselves.

The super-wealthy love big government for that reason, as long as they have influence over that government (which they do). The high taxes don't bother them, since taxes are usually levied on income, and their income is small relative to their wealth (and can be shielded, in any event, by using high priced shelters). High income taxes have the ancillary benefit of preventing the lower class rich from becoming super-wealthy. You don't want riff-raff like businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and athletes joining your exclusive club after all.

Once again you spew opinion as though it were facts. Once again you do so w/o a shred of evidence. And once again you fail.

Your welcome.

 

[sunmaster14]

Once again you spew opinion as though it were facts. Once again you do so w/o a shred of evidence. And once again you fail.

I was referring to the super-wealthy, not the lowly 1%. More like the 0.01%.

Your welcome.

Talk about fail.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're confusing income with net worth. For good or ill, the median American is quite the spendthrift, leading to more debt and lower net worth.

You know, I always thought that "spendthrift" implied that they don't spend money, that they're miserly. Turns out I was completely wrong.

It's that "thrift" part of it that threw me off. Thrift: the quality of using money and other resources carefully and not wastefully

What a confusing word... but hey, I learned something today!

 

[Emily's Cat]

More on point... I dislike this line of reasoning for the same reason that I dislike the reasoning about red states mooching off the government. There are some screwy assumptions involved in it.

When you look at income inequality in this way, you end up allowing ultra-rich outliers to skew your conclusions. In WA, we've got Bill Gates living here. The fact that he has an income in the billions will absolutely end up giving WA a higher income inequality, even if everyone else in the state were to make $100K. You're calculating the difference between the top and the bottom of a distribution within a cohort, when your top is a statistical outlier that isn't uniformly distributed across your population.

Then to top it off, you end up assuming that where the ultra-rich decide to live is somehow reflective of the entire state - as if the other residents of the state have anything to say about where they choose to live. What's the alternative? Should WA evict Gates? It's a meaningless comparison, that serves no purpose except to lead the less statistically savvy to draw a false conclusion.

There's a similar bit of shenanigans going on with the red-states-are-moochers argument. All it looks at is total government income by state versus total government outlay by state. It pretends that the states have some degree of control over the federal taxes that the residents and corporations in those states pay - as if the state can influence the income that the government gets in some fashion.

It then goes on to assume the same thing for the outlays - that the state has control over those outlays. Sure, some of them are driven by the state - contributions to needs-based assistance is affected by the quality of living in that state. But the amount of money that goes to military bases? The state has no control over that. Nor does the state have control over how many of its residents are eligible for Social Security or Medicare - it's not as if the state can refuse to let old people live there. Then there are federal grants for research that is occurring in that state. There's a lot of grants for research in Alaska... that doesn't mean that the state of Alaska somehow benefits or even influences those grants. Many of the researchers are from other parts of the country.

It leads to the false conclusion that red states are moochers, when in reality what it says is that old people and the military are moochers.

The underlying assumptions in both of these arguments are terminally flawed.