Census Bureau: Majority of Affluent Counties In Northeast US 285
An anonymous reader writes "I'm not a big fan of heat maps, but the US Census Bureau has just released a set of maps that succinctly capture average income distribution across the US. BusinessInsider points out that well over half of the most affluent counties in the US are concentrated in the Northeast (counting Virginia, presumably for the suburbs of Washington, D.C. located in that southern state). Of course, the cost of living is higher in those counties as well. Meanwhile, poor counties tend to be clustered in the southeast and in southwestern states on the Mexican border. There is good news for the northern prarie states, though, particularly North and South Dakota, as they lead in the number of counties with gains in household income over the past five years."
red v blue (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as a non-American (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Take for example the relatively new in vogue maneuver of 'redistricting' and 'gerrymandering',...
Considering that the term "gerrymander" was coined in 1812, I am not sure how you conclude that it is relatively new. I remember reading in the 1980s about a Congressional District that snaked its way across a state. The district was 1 or 2 miles wide and about 100 miles long. This practice has been going on for basically as long as the United States has been around.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's as if it was named after someone [wikipedia.org]....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:red v blue (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really believe what you just wrote (that the "right" actually proposes reducing government and that less government opens greater opportunities for the poor), then your comment explains the situation perfectly, but not in the way you intended.
Re:red v blue (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit the "right" wants to reduce power.
The "right" only say they want to reduce prower, but in reality want to expand it as much as the "Left"
Take the TSA, Dept of Homeland Security, etc. Or if you want something more recent the "right" republican author of the patriot is pissed the law is being used the way it is. He thinks it is gross over step and proposed a law to change it. His solution? Spend tens of millions of dollars annually on high priced lawyers with top secret clearances to act as a legal advocate for the people so it wouldn't just be the NSA and the judge in FISA court room.
If you actually believe in the bullshit about power reduction then you are a fucking idiot. Because not one of their laws actually will reduce government power. They just want to push that power to the corporations. The "spending" cuts basically only take away services that the poor use. while taxing them for the privilege of being able to use the remaining. If the "Right" really wanted smaller government the the DHS, TSA, and DOD each need to be cut in half. Cut those down and i will agree to cut equal cuts elsewhere.
But no one on the "right" will ever actually make the government smaller just shuffle it around so their Rich friends gets all the benefits.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are not making the right distinctions, in some sense the gp wasn't either. The Tea Party is not the old right wing of the Republican Party in the sense of Reagan. The Tea Party is essentially composed of libertarians who really do want less government including the TSA, the military, no EPA, no OSHA, no federal money for schools, etc. The older right wing of the Republican Party believes in a strong TSA, a strong military, no EPA, no OSHA, no federal money for schools, etc. The Republicans in general in
Re: (Score:2)
You are not making the right distinctions, in some sense the gp wasn't either. The Tea Party is not the old right wing of the Republican Party in the sense of Reagan. The Tea Party is essentially composed of libertarians who really do want less government including the TSA, the military, no EPA, no OSHA, no federal money for schools, etc
There is a "liberal/Rockefeller Republican" vs. "conservative/Tea Party Republican split," but you're putting Ronald Reagan on the wrong side of it. Reagan was against the EPA (by the way, founded under a liberal Republican) and the Department of Education, and Tea Party types are not as pro-military spending cuts as you seem to think.
The Bushes are among those in the more liberal wing of the party; George H.W. Bush opposed Reagan all three times he ran for the nomination. The Tea Party was formed in part
Re: (Score:2)
It strikes me that at least initially that at least initially the Tea Party (when it at least appeared to be an organic movement, and not something co-opted by any Republican politicians) acknowledged the corruption of government by Big Business, hence the criticism of government bailouts.
But the Tea Party DID get co-opted by elements of the Republican party. It's not clear to me if there is a cohesive grouping of these elements. Most of them seemed to be the kind of noisy, Christian anti-tax types like Mi
Re: (Score:2)
Which is too bad, because I think those issues are really important and I don't think you can get any traction on them by traditional liberal Democrats because their stands on on a lot of issues make them otherwise unpopular. A Republican willing to take them on while maintaining more traditional Republican stances might gain more support.
You what the media would call a Republican willing to do that? A "racist". He would never get traction.
Re: (Score:2)
The racist tag is added to pretty much everything Republicans do, I'm not sure how they would get much mileage out of a Republican challenging the influence of business in government as racism, but I consistently underestimate the ability of the left to twist issues into accusations of racism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: red v blue (Score:2, Informative)
You would rather vote for some one who would lie to you about their Intention's?
The first thing republicans do in office isn't to make a smaller government. It is to force Christian values on everyone. Usually in government run and paid for systems.
Re: (Score:3)
This dilemma was made most apparent during the years the Republicans controlled the House and Senate during the Bush the Younger years and spent like Democrats. They were punished at the polls in the mid-term elections by many conservatives staying away or voting third-party.
Fortun
Re: red v blue (Score:5, Insightful)
> As opposed to Democrats who proceed to make Christian values illegal?
Democrats do nothing of the kind.
What you are talking about are the mindless hysterics of the theocrat fringe that define oppression as the inability to impose their views on the rest of us. These are people with benign sounding names like "Famiy Research Council".
The GOP needs to stop pandering to and aligning themselves with these American Talibans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: red v blue (Score:2)
I...are you serious? I honestly thought this view really had finally passed into the stone age. Guess there's still work to do for girls like me. Unless you're being facetious, you in the parent post here practically are the textbook definition of thosenwe stand against in my not-so-secret secret society.
Re: red v blue (Score:4, Insightful)
They aren't forced to pay for birth control - they are forced to pay for insurance, which, among other things, provides for birth control.
Indirectly paying for something that you don't like is not at all new, and all of us have been in that situation. For example, I don't like the US foreign policy in the Middle East, but my income taxes still fund it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if you're damned either way. (And if you take the position that the left is more honest, please examine Mr. Obama's various broken promises).
Re: (Score:2)
I forget what the logical fallacy you just committed is called, but you remind me of this old joke:
There's this man driving along, when all of a sudden a car cuts him up. "^&&*@%^$ women drivers!", he yells. His wife is sitting next to him and says, "Honey, it was a man!".
"Well," he replies,
Re: (Score:3)
Re:red v blue (Score:5, Insightful)
Common sense and hard data both point to strong social safety nets improving opportunity, and increasing entrepreneurship and the number of small businesses [reuters.com]. There are two main reasons for this:
1. The safety net makes it much more possible to take the chance of starting your own business. Failure means you may lose your investment capital, but your family won't starve, won't lose their healthcare, won't lose their retirement, and won't lose access to a thorough education.
2. The safety net levels the "benefits" playing field between small business and large corporations. Not only does the US's system of employer-based healthcare make it more difficult and risky for those who try to start a small business, but it gives large, established companies an advantage because they have the size and weight to push for better deals.
The ONLY people whose economic opportunities are strengthened by the lack of a social safety net are the people who are already on top, who already own large companies and already make loads of money. They don't want competition from employees who can easily quit and start their own company. But even the rich would probably benefit in the long run, because pushing your customer base into abject poverty is not a way to increase sales (IMO right now they're coasting along on their ability to make goods dirty cheap by using third-world labor).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:red v blue (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are looking for empirical evidence, maybe instead of looking at the wish lists of Presidents, you might want to look at what was actually implemented by the congress at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, considering that a significant factor in the increased income inequality under our current President is a result of laws passed during his first two years
Well, if you accept as axioms things which have no support in fact or evidence, then sure, you can prove whatever you want. But why even bother with the pretense of proof if you take that route?
Or, for a starting point, try here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-mystery-of-income-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/ [forbes.com]
Re:red v blue (Score:4, Interesting)
We just started a training business last year.
It cost us about $10,000 to start that business. $4,000 was spent on the material we needed, web site, logos, etc.
$6,000 was spent, mostly on legal fees, on licenses and making sure we adhered to government regulations at multiple levels.
Those things we needed to build the business that came from private parties (bank accounts, uniforms, office supplies, etc.) could be satisfied in a matter of days. The longest and most difficult was getting an extended validation SSL for our web site - that took two weeks because we needed a letter from our attorney.
Anything we needed from a government agency took months with multiple calls.
All items that came from the private sector came from companies that wanted our business and we had choices of providers. This created an incentive for good service and responsiveness.
All items that came from regulatory agencies generally came from organizations that said this is how it is, live with it and you better not fail any of the steps or you, literally, won't be in business.
I can say that there was one agency that approached the problem like the private sector and that was a state agency responsible for issuing state-level trade and service marks. This particular state had a web-site and 24 hour response to our applications.
We used a particular service to walk us through the various government regulations at a total cost of about $1,500. Without that service it would have taken months and months just to figure out what regulations we needed to follow and, frankly, we probably wouldn't have even attempted the exercise.
Re: (Score:3)
A company that provides a service for money I consider a business. I've built more than one and fully understand the IRS issues.
But then again, isn't the IRS is just the face of more regulations making it difficult to start a business?
Re: (Score:3)
Multiple jurisdictions doing things differently. One state demands one set of documents and another state demands another. Same thing happens at the county/parish levels and at the town levels.
The $1,500 wasn't spent to "figure out the gov't stuff", it was to expedite it. Any particular regulatory requirement is easy to understand and, with time, compliance isn't difficult. Getting ALL regulatory components managed in an efficient manner and, in particular, making sure none are missed is another story e
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, if your post is true then nobody would be a conservative. Many people, including intelligent ones (and most doctorate level people outside of academia) are conservative. QED you didn't answer the question but instead substituted your own rationale for being liberal, which is somewhat irrelevant.
Southerners traditionally favor autonomy and distrust the government for various historic reasons. Those who rise out of poverty often overly value initiative and hard work, and would rather keep more of their
Re: (Score:2)
Strong social safety nets (or any other social program, really) are not practical or cost effective unless you're dealing with a largely urban environment. So that's where they have the most success, and where they're most often tried.
Of no significant coincidence, I'm sure, urban environments have more people, which tends to result in a higher amount of diversity of need and thus, a stronger likelihood that a random enterprise may succeed.
In smaller locales (outside the general interest realm of massive an
Not true (Score:2)
The rate of social mobility in the US is the second lowest in the industrialized world (after the UK). Many poorer, developing countries actually have higher rates of upward mobility:
"Social immobility erodes the American dream", Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]
"The Myth of the American Dream", CNN [cnn.com]
This, combined with the highest income inequality in the industrialized world, is the legacy of 40 years of anti-government policies, breaking trade unions, and reducing taxes on the wealthy.
The roll-back of the New Deal has pr
Re: (Score:2)
I always love the Orwellian references.
Re: (Score:3)
In the U.S. the "right" actually proposes reducing government power
Like when they impose laws requiring [completely irrelevant] vaginal ultrasounds prior to aborts, or outlawing sodomy? Or when they act in order to increase military spending?
Although I disagree with the parent, I think he/she was modded down unfairly, as some valid points are raised. The problem is, in America, there are two right wings: the libertarian wing and the social conservative wing. They agree on some issues and disagree a great deal on others. It is the libertarian wing that favors smaller, less powerful federal government, and the social conservative wing that favors restrictions on abortions, restrictions on gay rights, etc. Their positions on those types of iss
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:red v blue (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about hypocracy, you got flaming liberals that are all for killing unborn humans but are aghast that we would kill someone for something like , i dont know shooting up a school.
Liberals are not "for" killing unborn humans. They are for someone other than politicians making the decision. I see no hypocrisy in being both pro-choice and anti-death-penalty: In both cases, I am opposed to government officials having life and death power over the citizenry.
Re: (Score:3)
Just out of curiosity, what's morally wrong with smoking pot?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” --Steinbeck
Re: (Score:2)
A true statement today as well as then; but AFAIK this quote has yet to be verified. Undoubtedly matches Steinbeck's views, but nobody's been able to track the wording down.
Re: (Score:2)
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” --Steinbeck
Of course he wrote that a long time ago. Socialism has since taken root.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the USA as a vast melting pot of people escaping the poverty and evil of a faith/class/wealth/royal systems of their old countries.
When entering the USA they saw that they had many new 'freedoms' but still had a wealth/power structure to consider if they every wanted to move up in society.
In different parts of the US the party machines where unique to each region and over generations set patterns of votes.
Local issues of farm taxes, hunting rights, corruption
Re: (Score:3)
Or look at it the other way around. Overlay the blue state/red state voting patterns. Now tell me which party's economic policies lead to more favorable outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
I can live much better in a Red State than I can in the "wealthy notheast".
This kind of survey conveniently ignores the big picture in favor of the kinds out of context superficial information you typically find in news soundbites.
It's a perfect example of abusing statistics.
The "more favorable outcome" is counterintuitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, why didn't I see it. I'd be much better off living in a place with a high rate of poverty than a place with a low rate of poverty.
This assumes, of course, that I'm not one of the people actually living in poverty. Which, if I'm living in a place with a higher rate of poverty, I'm more likely to be.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why some poor people vote conservative is because they are still independent-minded. They believe that to be beholden to another is to be in their debt, which puts one in a lower social position. To be self-sufficient is to be proud and free.
However, there aren't actually that many poor people who vote conservative. Large cities attract poor people precisely because of more liberal government programs, and large cities are overwhelmingly liberal. Look at http://www.politico.com/2013-election/resu [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why some poor people vote conservative is because they are still independent-minded.
Far from it. They believe whatever Fox News or Talk Radio tells them to think.
Re:red v blue (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not from the US, so I never understood why poor people vote conservative?
They don't. In each state, the poorer people are more likely to vote Democrat, the richer people are more likely to vote Republican.
However, richer states are more likely to vote Democrat, and poorer states are more likely to vote Republican.
So perhaps the question should be posed the other way: if your state votes Republican, why is it poorer?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is another dynamic at work as well.
One should also consider the split personality of what we call "conservative". Many Americans consider themselv
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of stupid liberals out there, plenty. They'd be stupid conservatives if it wasn't for their drug abuse, welfare recipience, and extra-marital children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I give you this map of the US and its average IQ by state. Compare and contrast. http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5047299_f520.jpg [hubimg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something you should probably consider is youth exodus, for both maps.
The best and brightest tend to leave home at a young age and never come back. They go to where the opportunity is, which, if you have an advanced degree or a specialist degree, is not anywhere near your home state (more often than not, if it's got a low population density).
Also, other data/studies I've read contradict this map. For instance, CA has one of the lowest IQs in the country. Observe:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2010/05/state-i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It pretty much comes down to "you can't fix 'stupid' ."
Re: (Score:2)
Normally, people embrace beliefs that favour their own self-interest. People who are rich believe in capitalism, people who are poor believe in socialism, and people with nothing believe in communism.
For all their talk, the US, especially the less educated, subconsciously believe in the Great Chain of Being, the mediaeval notion that people have a divinely ordained place in a social hierarchy. Since God choose the rich to be rich, and the poor to be poor, it is God's will that the rich steal from the poor
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly not in the UK: http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif
Duverger's law in action...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the red states seem to be poorer yet these are the people that would benefit most from a "socialist" left govt.
YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG.
Disclaimer, I'm a reforming socialist.
Educate yourself before making such ridiculous claims.
Starting with the basics, watch the Free to Choose series by Milton Friedman.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=free+to+chose+1980&sm=3 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:red v blue (Score:4, Interesting)
It's simple, really.
They believe more in personal responsibility than shared responsibility. I live in the South, and the overwhelming majority of people I know would rather work hard for what they earn than take it from someone else without working for it. They believe that you must earn what you have, rather than simply be given it. And, they are okay with the fact that they don't have as much as others. They are happy with what they have.
I've lived in ultra-liberal and ultra-conservative parts of the country, and everywhere in between. The liberals I know are miserable. They can never be happy with what they have - they always see the grass being always greener elsewhere. They are also overwhelmingly underachievers with expectations that their slack will be taken up by "someone else."
Also, you have to take the data with a grain of salt. I live in a "poor" area by national standards - the median individual income in my city is approximately $30,000. However, the median home price is only about 2.5x. You can buy a "nice" home for $120-140k. My wife and I recently purchased a 2000 square foot home on 2 acres for $140k.
So, it's important not to confuse "poor" with "behind in the inflation race."
As far as my personal beliefs, I would rather shovel shit for minimum wage that reach into your wallet and steal your money. That is wrong, and I won't do it. So, it's not about voting in my own self interest, it is about voting for what is right.
Re: (Score:2)
Its due to people voting their social beliefs. The social conservative movement has been quite successful in maintaining a faithful voting block which maintains a wealthy minority in power at the expense of their political base by exploiting their religious beliefs.
Re:red v blue (Score:4, Interesting)
Having done business with local governments around the country, I can tell you that the stereotypes about southerners or northeasterners are inaccurate. It's not like everyone from Georgia is a conservative and everyone from Massachusetts is a liberal. You find the same *kinds* of people everywhere, but in slightly different mixes.
Control of most states happens at the margins. If you have slightly more conservatives in a state, you get consistent conservative victories and if you have slightly more liberals you get consistent liberal victories. Incumbents tend to get re-elected too; that gives the ascendant fringe leverage over the low-information middle voters, and puts the weaker side in an up-hill battle for success. Lack of success for a minority party powerfully weakens that party, and it may have difficulty fielding strong candidates. Things tend to *look* hopeless after several decades of dominance by one party, but I think that's an illusion. A strong centrist candidate can win anywhere against a weak majority party candidate, as with Scott Brown who won the Ted Kennedy Senate seat in Massachusetts 2010.
Red states tend to have a history of hard luck and social upheaval, and this produces marginally more skepticism about government. By contrast Massachusetts, indisputably the bluest state in the nation, has enjoyed remarkable good fortune since the founding of the nation, and that produces *marginally* less skepticism about government here. But it's still there. In Massachusetts you still hear *exactly* the same range of opinions as you would in a red state. It's just that minority parties are structurally disadvantaged in states where one party has had a long record of success.
We just had a special election here to fill Ed Markey's congressional seat. The Democratic winner walked away with 65.9% to the Republican's 31.7%. That may seem like a landslide, but consider this. Almost a third of the voters came out for a totally unknown Republican, a political neophyte who nobody thought had a chance of winning against a well-known and popular politician. That strikes me as a remarkable showing, and I think it shows that even the bluest state is more purple than we imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Well this affects a lot of people. You'll often hear American Democrats say the 'poor' vote against their self interest.
That's actually a remarkably arrogant statement. As if they 'know' Democratic policies benefit the poor.
In reality, it is much more complex.
1. I'm in Canada and a lot of poor people anecdotally have changed to either vote NDP (very left) or conservative. Their reasons are that the Liberals (more similar to Democrats in the US) aren't working for their interests. They work for the public se
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the US and I don't see the division you're speaking of. It's more like:
* entitlement and statist culture votes left: yuppies, inner-city citizens, welfare recipients, Marxist idealists, etc.
* self-reliant and culturally conservative culture votes 'right': business owners, contractors, people who depend on strong economic growth for livelihood
IE, it's not a racial thing. (Of course, there's a looooot of back and forth. Eg. a small family farmer voting for a Democrat (eg. left) because of farm subsi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: red v blue (Score:2)
There Are a lot of public schools in the northeast better than most private schools. Too bad most them cost a lot of property taxes to get into
Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue] (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not from the US, so I never understood why poor people vote conservative?
Liberals don't understand this either, so your lack of understanding doesn't stem from not being from the US.
Liberalism is, overall, the urban and suburban political philosophy; conservatism is typically the rural political philosophy. Rural counties are poorer than urban ones, resulting in the political split you see.
Liberalism is not really marketed to people outside of the urban centers. Most liberals don't seem to have much interest in what people in those areas think, other than making quips like that one: "We have a very very very stupid population". (The people in rural areas think exactly the same thing.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Urban versus rural [Re:red v blue] (Score:4, Funny)
If there were no New York City, we would to import half of our snottiness from Europe.
I have faith in the ability of LA to pick up the slack.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Amusing to know that most people in the Urban centers would starve to death of not for the Rual areas.
No, they wouldn't. If the Rural areas didn't exist, the people in those Urban Centers would then need to be producing their own food. Since the rural areas do exist, though, there is food importation. Paid for with money from the economic activities Urban areas do have.
Which is what they export.
Of course, if New York was wiped off the face of the planet, people would have to do without....um...what?
Well, New York is the 16th largest economy in the world, behind South Korea, so the state probably produces
Re: (Score:2)
Public schools get a lot of federal funding. That is part of the problem as federal funding comes with federal regulations. Public schools have to put up with a lot of silly rules that have little to do with education. Unfortunately a lot of the private schools were set up not with excellence in mind but simply so that rich white kids don't have to associate with poor whites and blacks. At least they don't, for the most part, have to deal with the disruptions and lack of discipline which is the standard
Re: red v blue (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, though, I graduated from a public high school in Morris County. (This is Slashdot, so I'm guessing at what TFA says rather than reading it, but I bet Morris County, NJ is on this list.) The public schools were set up to defend the New Jersey Education Association. You give 90% of the teachers I had in high school half a chance, and they'd shoehorn pro-teachers' union propaganda into whatever they were supposed to be teaching us.
On issues of politics (civics and history classes, but also tangentially related classes like English, which was taught by the head of the union), expressing any opinion other than the approved doctrinal opinion of the teacher would get you shouted down.
A few years ago, I was going to donate money to a candidate who wanted to take a harder line in the upcoming negotiations with the NJEA
I live and work in Morris County today, but my wife and I are going to move before we have kids, because there's no way I would send my kids through that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I graduated from a public high school in Essex county. From my experience to date, I received one of the finest public high school experiences in the country. Quality of schools is very localized, and can change radically from one town to the other.
Re: red v blue (Score:2)
I just love hearing liberals complain: you ignorant fucks should vote for us because you're stupid.
I'm sure that'll convince them. Perhaps they don't support you libs because you hate and ridicule them. It's your prerogative, you can do that if you want. But if you think ridiculing people will make them want to vote your way, then who is the stupid one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a positive correlation between religiosity, lack of intelligence and formal education, and conservatism. Why is that so I can only speculate.
Because if you live by the traditional values promoted by most religions, you'll tend to be conservative AND you'll be able to survive even if you lack intelligence. Traditional values are traditional in part because they work. If you live by them, you'll get by. If you don't, you might get by if you're smart enough, born into wealth, or otherwise gifted. But if you don't live by traditional values and aren't gifted, you'll either kill yourself or live off someone else's hard work.
Actually I've heard it's a curve (Score:2)
Wyoming (Score:2)
Looks quite green. What do they get up to there? Big agro / natural resources?
Something must be done (Score:2)
Hey, this is an easy one. Just move 9/10ths of those people out of the cities and force them to live in rural counties. Problem solved! No more "inequality"
Something must be done
This is something,
Therefore it must be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Just move 9/10ths of those people out of the cities and force them to live in rural counties.
. . . or the other way around.
There is plenty of room on the sprawling Kennedy Mansion estate in Hyannis Port for a trailer park. The Kennedy's are always talking about helping out the poor folks like me. I'm sure they wouldn't mind if I set up camp in my trailer on their front lawn.
The heat maps are misleading (Score:2)
Those maps are reasonably accurate from a geographic point of view, but they hugely distort the actual distribution of wealth in the population, because the population isn't distributed evenly. They would be less misleading if they had used cartograms, e.g. this one of 2012 election results [dailykos.com]. Those would show that there is a big concentration of wealth on the west coast and near Chigago as well as the one on the east coast.
Re: (Score:2)
Wealth and affluence aren't the same thing. Even income and affluence aren't the same thing.
If I made double what I do now but lived in the "wealthy northeast", I would have LESS wealth than I do now rather than more. I probably wouldn't have any more spending power either. My "affluence" improvement would simply be a mirage.
Possible link? (Score:2)
Of course, the cost of living is higher in those counties as well.
If there weren't so many highly paid people living and working there, chasing housing, food and services with their dollars, perhaps the cost of living wouldn't be as high.
Or you could say ...
Of course, the cost of living is lower in the poor counties as well.
The Bakken Oil Patch Is the Plains Income Source (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, the oil will be extracted, the land will be poisoned, and the workers will leave for another boom and/or gold rush elsewhere, so the counties will be no better off unless they tax the oil extraction effort now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"so the counties will be no better off unless they tax the oil extraction effort now."
And they don't really. The area of Dickinson already went through an oil boom in the late 70s early 80s.
They didn't learn from their mistakes. Most of the area around Villard and to the west was a testament to what happens when you think the money will never stop flowing.
Re: (Score:2)
eh (Score:2)
Alternative visualization of census data (Score:2)
If you don't want the heatmap approach, this is a good way of exploring the data: http://workshops.boundlessgeo.com/tutorial-censusmap/_static/code/censusmap.html [boundlessgeo.com]
northern nevada (Score:2)
Anyone have the clue on why that huge area is so high?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a heatmap (Score:2)
That's not a heatmap guys. It's a Choropleth map.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising. (Score:2)
Here's why the Northeast has so much affluence: the extreme earning wealth from the financial sector around New York City. You have a LOT of money managers in the New York City area earning yearly incomes that would make even Yankees' 3B Alex Rodriguez (before he got into his recent troubles with illegal drug doping) seen like a poor man in comparison in terms of earnings per year.
Re: (Score:2)