The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
The Red State Living Wage
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

is a lot lower than the blue state rate.

From The Council for Community and Economic Research:

The higher the cost of living in a state, the harder it is for people of similar means with those in other states to make ends meet. The Council for Community and Economic Research measures cost of living based on a composite of price information from participating cities and metropolitan areas in each state. The most recent analysis is from 2018.

The following table ranks states, colored in accordance with their 2016 US presidential vote, in ascending order by their cost of living indices:

COL index
1) Mississippi
2) Oklahoma
3) Arkansas
4) Missouri
5) Michigan
6) Alabama
7) Tennessee
8) Kansas
9) Indiana
10) Wyoming
11) Georgia
12) Texas
13) Iowa
14) Kentucky
15) New Mexico
16) Ohio
17) Louisiana
18) Idaho
19) North Carolina
20) West Virginia
21) Nebraska
22) Wisconsin
23) Illinois
24) Utah
25) South Carolina
26) Arizona
27) North Dakota
28) Florida
29) South Dakota
30) Pennsylvania
31) Minnesota
32) Virginia
33) Montana
34) Colorado
35) Delaware
36) New Hampshire
37) Washington
38) Nevada
39) Maine
40) Vermont
41) New Jersey
42) Rhode Island
43) Massachusetts
44) Alaska
45) Oregon
46) Maryland
47) Connecticut
48) New York
49) California
50) Hawaii

Fun presidential debate question no corporate media puppet will be permitted to ask: Why are Republican states so much more affordable than blue states are, especially for the poor?

 
• Category: Economics • Tags: Economics, Election 2016, Election 2020, Politics 
Hide 77 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. With some exceptions, the affordable states are known mainly as producers of agricultural, industrial, forestry, petroleum, or mining products. The expensive states are contain the urban hubs for the academic, tech, and medical fields. Urban living makes the price go up; vast artificial conurbations make the price go up a lot; and two different cultures prevail in the different locales. It’s basically the Duck Dynasty states vs. the Richard Florida states.

    I stayed for several months in Oklahoma once, at Tinker AFB, as a guest of a friend of mine who was in the service. It truly is an undiscovered gem. The cost of living is absurdly low, there are gun stores on every corner, and everywhere you look there are beautiful women. But the wages are correspondingly as low as the prices and the area is frequently beset by tornadoes, ice storms, hail, floods, and sweltering heat. Perhaps that helps to keep it from becoming gentrified by progressive swipples. If so, not a bad price to pay.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Are the working class treated better in Blue States than right to work Red States, I could extend this question to countries like the Netherlands and Germany compared to red States like Tennessee, Texas and Kentucky. Are you better off working in a factory in the Ruhr or North Rhine Westphalia than in Greenville, Bowling Green, or Chattanooga?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @Intelligent Dasein

    That's why Pennsylvania is 30th on that list.

    PA is a mixture of Yinzer deer hunters and suburbanite liberal fools.

    As far as the former, you won't find a more delightful bunch of rural folks than rural Pennsylvanians:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi-R9Ycjjsc

    There are a few places in Pennsylvania less threatened by sprawl: mostly the mountains, in a northwesterly tracking arc from Huntingdon County to Tioga County. But it isn't easy finding a job in those areas. And you have to be a loner and an outdoorsman to appreciate it. Good luck getting a city woman to live with you there.

    Pennsylvania has definitely been hit very hard by various Jewish conspiracies over the years. For one thing, the best farmland, down in the valleys of the south and southeast, is being wasted despicably by sprawl, etc. I am concerned that the Jews and liberals will manage what they did in Virginia - a demographic transformation leading to disastrous policies - but we'll see.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Indeed.

    The metapoint here is that a federal "living wage" would let red state flyover folks live well enough. It wouldn't do much for the poor denizens of blue states--other than push them out. In a lot of cases, I think that's the point.

    , @Mikey D.
    @Intelligent Dasein

    A hail storm will wreck your roof, a leftist infestation will destroy your nation. The former is a lot easier to fix.

  2. @Intelligent Dasein
    With some exceptions, the affordable states are known mainly as producers of agricultural, industrial, forestry, petroleum, or mining products. The expensive states are contain the urban hubs for the academic, tech, and medical fields. Urban living makes the price go up; vast artificial conurbations make the price go up a lot; and two different cultures prevail in the different locales. It's basically the Duck Dynasty states vs. the Richard Florida states.

    I stayed for several months in Oklahoma once, at Tinker AFB, as a guest of a friend of mine who was in the service. It truly is an undiscovered gem. The cost of living is absurdly low, there are gun stores on every corner, and everywhere you look there are beautiful women. But the wages are correspondingly as low as the prices and the area is frequently beset by tornadoes, ice storms, hail, floods, and sweltering heat. Perhaps that helps to keep it from becoming gentrified by progressive swipples. If so, not a bad price to pay.

    Replies: @Znzn, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Audacious Epigone, @Mikey D.

    Are the working class treated better in Blue States than right to work Red States, I could extend this question to countries like the Netherlands and Germany compared to red States like Tennessee, Texas and Kentucky. Are you better off working in a factory in the Ruhr or North Rhine Westphalia than in Greenville, Bowling Green, or Chattanooga?

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Znzn

    I have a friend that works in a Toyota plant near Lexington, Kentucky and is very happy with the conditions and the wages. I've heard similar reports from the Honda plant near Marysville, Ohio.

    The former guy owns a house that would cost several million dollars in the California bay area. Huge place, and lovely. I'd guess he got it for under $200k.

    My son has a home in the Ozarks in Missouri that made my jaw drop when I first saw it and he is by no means a high earner yet.

    Replies: @baythoven

  3. The trick, if you can telecommute or work remotely, is to live in a low-cost red state and get a job from a company that pays blue state wages.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  4. @Znzn
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Are the working class treated better in Blue States than right to work Red States, I could extend this question to countries like the Netherlands and Germany compared to red States like Tennessee, Texas and Kentucky. Are you better off working in a factory in the Ruhr or North Rhine Westphalia than in Greenville, Bowling Green, or Chattanooga?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    I have a friend that works in a Toyota plant near Lexington, Kentucky and is very happy with the conditions and the wages. I’ve heard similar reports from the Honda plant near Marysville, Ohio.

    The former guy owns a house that would cost several million dollars in the California bay area. Huge place, and lovely. I’d guess he got it for under $200k.

    My son has a home in the Ozarks in Missouri that made my jaw drop when I first saw it and he is by no means a high earner yet.

    • Replies: @baythoven
    @Cloudbuster


    My son has a home in the Ozarks in Missouri that made my jaw drop when I first saw it and he is by no means a high earner yet.
     
    I have a family member living in northwest Arkansas. Similar to where your son is, a great spot for affordability and quality of life.
  5. Why do Globalist Dems back the $15/hr minimum wage?

    — Are they simply out of touch? Elitists from the highest cost, over developed locales.
    — Is it a deliberate attack on ‘Red State’ employment?
    — Or, could it be intended to keep low information voters on the government dole? Those who depend on handouts are reliable DNC voters.

    _______

    The consequences of $15/hr minimum wage are clear. Robots become more capable every year: (1)

    Former McDonald’s CEO … Ed Rensi claimed that a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour would result in “job loss like you can’t believe” before ceding ground to our new robotic overlords. “I was at the National Restaurant Show yesterday, and if you look at the robotic devices that are coming into the restaurant industry—it’s cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who’s inefficient making $15 an hour bagging French fries.”

    How many shops offer “pre-order apps”? Accepting orders electronically, with pick-up time & prepay, allows the store to eliminate interaction with a human at a cash register.

    PEACE 😇

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @iffen
    @A123

    Accepting orders electronically, with pick-up time & prepay, allows the store to eliminate interaction with a human at a cash register.

    The cost of labor drives innovation and labor saving technology which drives productivity which is the basis for rising living standards.

    Arguing for the maintenance of wages at less than a living wage is like arguing to keep serfs and tenant farmers because the labor is so damn cheap.

    Blow it up!

    $25 minimum wage and tariffs on all trade goods coming from countries that don't have the equivalent with the tariff bonus going to increase the EITC.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    , @RadicalCenter
    @A123

    Tax the value created by non-human equipment and means, including robots, computers, touchscreens, software, artificial intelligence. Distribute the revenue to every US Citizen as a universal basic income,

    Own all oil, gas, mineral resources in common and distribute that revenue as a UBI as well.

    The current trajectory will make almost all of us serfs with no bargaining power. No economic independence from huge concentrations of capital. That is particularly frightening when the capital is largely owned by hostile or indifferent amoral people who do not share our race, religion, values, history, or culture — and are often hateful or resentful towards us because of OUR race or history.

  6. @A123
    Why do Globalist Dems back the $15/hr minimum wage?

    -- Are they simply out of touch? Elitists from the highest cost, over developed locales.
    -- Is it a deliberate attack on 'Red State' employment?
    -- Or, could it be intended to keep low information voters on the government dole? Those who depend on handouts are reliable DNC voters.

    _______

    The consequences of $15/hr minimum wage are clear. Robots become more capable every year: (1)

    Former McDonald's CEO ... Ed Rensi claimed that a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour would result in "job loss like you can't believe" before ceding ground to our new robotic overlords. "I was at the National Restaurant Show yesterday, and if you look at the robotic devices that are coming into the restaurant industry—it’s cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who’s inefficient making $15 an hour bagging French fries."
     
    How many shops offer "pre-order apps"? Accepting orders electronically, with pick-up time & prepay, allows the store to eliminate interaction with a human at a cash register.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @iffen, @RadicalCenter

    Accepting orders electronically, with pick-up time & prepay, allows the store to eliminate interaction with a human at a cash register.

    The cost of labor drives innovation and labor saving technology which drives productivity which is the basis for rising living standards.

    Arguing for the maintenance of wages at less than a living wage is like arguing to keep serfs and tenant farmers because the labor is so damn cheap.

    Blow it up!

    $25 minimum wage and tariffs on all trade goods coming from countries that don’t have the equivalent with the tariff bonus going to increase the EITC.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @iffen

    Every job doesn't have to pay a "living wage." That's idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it. Teens, students, spouses who just want to earn a little money on the side, people just getting some initial work experience and living cheaply with roommates.

    This whole push to make every job one you can support yourself independently on is mind-bogglingly stupid.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?

    It's as if people who suggest this have no idea that the economy is a vastly complicated, interconnected system. Thinking you can just tweak one knob and have everything work great without throwing the whole system out of whack is simple-mindedness on a level I have trouble grasping.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Servant of Gla'aki, @iffen, @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit, @Thomm, @Nodwink

  7. Because they’re poor.

  8. Massive rent seeking in Illinois by the government is why COA is out of sight in Illinois. Sales tax alone in Chicago is 10.25% with virtually NO gun shops to exercise your Second Amendment rights. Special Cook County ammo tax and $25 tax per gun transfer courtesy of Communist Preckwinkle.

    Property taxes out of sight to give $$$ to ALL the school teachers; Blacks and white Lefties vote for this all the time, so we have an assault weapon and standard capacity mag ban in Cook and Chicago.

    https://wirepoints.org/

    Yes, the rich are fleeing Illinois and they’re taking billions with them – Wirepoints Original

    https://wirepoints.org/yes-the-rich-are-fleeing-illinois-and-theyre-taking-billions-with-them/

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Joe Stalin

    Did you even look at the list? Illinois is in the cheaper half of states. If Chicago is inordinately expensive, that implies the rest of the state is a pit.

    Is every other city in the state a Rockford?

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  9. I recall that Steve Sailer has hypothesized that the causal arrow is the other way around: Being able to expand in 360° lowers housing prices than only 180°. Lower cost of living means more babies, and becoming a parent makes people more conservative.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @lhtness


    I recall that Steve Sailer has hypothesized that the causal arrow is the other way around: Being able to expand in 360° lowers housing prices than only 180°. Lower cost of living means more babies, and becoming a parent makes people more conservative.
     
    There is something about living on your own large-ish piece of property, separated from your neighbors and driving your own car wherever you want to go, that makes you feel self-sufficient and hence more likely to be conservative. OTOH, living on top of other people in a crowded city makes people feel dependent on the government to keep them safe, get them to work on the subway, maintain all the common spaces, and generally manage everything.

    Here's an interesting article from 2015 that pairs each state's cost of living (including taxes) with its median income to get a per capita "purchasing power" for each state. The red states look pretty attractive under this analysis. New York and California on the other hand look rich on paper. But adjusted for cost, they are poorer than Tennessee and Alabama, respectively.

    https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/adjusting-state-incomes-for-taxes-and-price-levels-may-change-our-perceptions-of-which-us-states-are-poor-or-rich/

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @lhtness

    Yes, I think he is correct. I was trying to do my best Sailer impression of obvious ass backwards logic being assumed by the great and the good to be self-evidently true.

  10. @iffen
    @A123

    Accepting orders electronically, with pick-up time & prepay, allows the store to eliminate interaction with a human at a cash register.

    The cost of labor drives innovation and labor saving technology which drives productivity which is the basis for rising living standards.

    Arguing for the maintenance of wages at less than a living wage is like arguing to keep serfs and tenant farmers because the labor is so damn cheap.

    Blow it up!

    $25 minimum wage and tariffs on all trade goods coming from countries that don't have the equivalent with the tariff bonus going to increase the EITC.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    Every job doesn’t have to pay a “living wage.” That’s idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it. Teens, students, spouses who just want to earn a little money on the side, people just getting some initial work experience and living cheaply with roommates.

    This whole push to make every job one you can support yourself independently on is mind-bogglingly stupid.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?

    It’s as if people who suggest this have no idea that the economy is a vastly complicated, interconnected system. Thinking you can just tweak one knob and have everything work great without throwing the whole system out of whack is simple-mindedness on a level I have trouble grasping.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Cloudbuster

    You are correct of course; there ought not to be any such thing as the minimum wage. But in the nonce I would add one nuance.

    There ought not to be any such thing as a minimum wage that the employer has to pay. I have argued before that the government should attempt to inflate away the debt by adding a multiplier to paid wages, sort of like a reverse income tax, but not require the employer to maintain any minimum. This would help to impose labor market discipline while retaining the more attractive features of UBI. It should also be only temporary and should be sunsetted once the debt is reduced to manageable levels.

    I must also profoundly disagree with iffen's statement that higher labor costs will drive more innovation (i.e. automation) which will increase productivity and living standards. That was true of certain limited historical circumstances in the past, but it is not universally true and it is not true now. There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to automation and we are at it. Automating more processes now would just mean building more factories in the third world employing more Chinese worker ants and Indian code monkeys. This is not a reduction of labor, it's a transference of labor from one place to another and a translation of labor from one type to another, but with no net increase in either productivity or living standards; plus, it's all predicated on the exigencies of fragile global supply chains and global capital markets which are even now showing their insufficiencies.

    No matter what form the political slogans of the future take---whether the economic realities force their way through in the name of "UBI" or "socialism" or "nationalism"---the future is constrained by physical necessity to be a time of high wages, high relative prices, lower standards of living, and very high interest rates. We need to prepare for this rather than embark on misguided attempts to eluct the ineluctable.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    , @Servant of Gla'aki
    @Cloudbuster


    This whole push to make every job one you can support yourself independently on is mind-bogglingly stupid.
     
    Wages are undoubtedly too low in this society, but this is also correct.
    , @iffen
    @Cloudbuster

    I would entertain some limited exceptions, for example, for people such as you.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    , @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit
    @Cloudbuster

    This is why you've got to have capitalism, but then you've got to tie it down with laws and regulations until it can barely move.

    This is what the Western European countries have traditionally done.

    If I were younger, I've leave the shithole US and light out for France, because while officially it's a capitalist country, capitalism is nice and strapped down tight, and thus there's a much, much better life for the 99% there. I hear they've even still got social mobility.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Cloudbuster

    , @Thomm
    @Cloudbuster


    Every job doesn’t have to pay a “living wage.” That’s idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it.
     
    Leftists are never persuaded by logic. But you will soon find that most WN W**g**s have extremely socialist economic views. So despite being called 'far right', they are nothing of the sort in the American sense. They are just socialists.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?
     
    Of course he does. Remember, they are leftists that want to mooch off of others. The only difference between WN W**g**s and SJW socialists is that the former think socialism can work if it is limited to intra-white socialism, since the proportion of white people that are productive is high enough.

    That didn't help East Germany, but facts are anathema to these socialists.

    Replies: @Peter Frost

    , @Nodwink
    @Cloudbuster

    Asking for a decent wage within the capitalist system is a compromise position from the wage earner. The alternative is revolutionary violence.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

  11. One thing missing is Red states have a better citizenry.
    It is not noticable while living there, but back in Michigan when the demographics changed, in stores, when people changed their mind they would just leave the item wherever they were instead of putting it back (including frozen food). I don’t want to go into the same stores along the I5 corridor between Portland and Salem because the homeless steal the carts, and the customers leave the store shelves in shambles. It doesn’t happen from the east side of the Cascades at least through I-29.
    All this extra security, or just having to throw away merchandise, and having dishonest returns and worse takes a toll.
    Oh, they are very good at enforcing the laws – when it generates revenue. Like in San Francisco where you have to prove your door is locked for it to be considered theft. So while you are pulled over for not signalling soon enough, you can see an addict shooting up, a homeless person pooping, a flash mob pillaging a store, and a porch pirate collecting booty, and the Cops will do nothing about THAT. But someone has to pay.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @tz1

    "Anarcho-Tyranny" is the term for what you well describe, TZ1. I think the term comes from the late Sam Francis, and Peak Stupidity has a topic key on it here.

  12. @Cloudbuster
    @iffen

    Every job doesn't have to pay a "living wage." That's idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it. Teens, students, spouses who just want to earn a little money on the side, people just getting some initial work experience and living cheaply with roommates.

    This whole push to make every job one you can support yourself independently on is mind-bogglingly stupid.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?

    It's as if people who suggest this have no idea that the economy is a vastly complicated, interconnected system. Thinking you can just tweak one knob and have everything work great without throwing the whole system out of whack is simple-mindedness on a level I have trouble grasping.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Servant of Gla'aki, @iffen, @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit, @Thomm, @Nodwink

    You are correct of course; there ought not to be any such thing as the minimum wage. But in the nonce I would add one nuance.

    There ought not to be any such thing as a minimum wage that the employer has to pay. I have argued before that the government should attempt to inflate away the debt by adding a multiplier to paid wages, sort of like a reverse income tax, but not require the employer to maintain any minimum. This would help to impose labor market discipline while retaining the more attractive features of UBI. It should also be only temporary and should be sunsetted once the debt is reduced to manageable levels.

    I must also profoundly disagree with iffen’s statement that higher labor costs will drive more innovation (i.e. automation) which will increase productivity and living standards. That was true of certain limited historical circumstances in the past, but it is not universally true and it is not true now. There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to automation and we are at it. Automating more processes now would just mean building more factories in the third world employing more Chinese worker ants and Indian code monkeys. This is not a reduction of labor, it’s a transference of labor from one place to another and a translation of labor from one type to another, but with no net increase in either productivity or living standards; plus, it’s all predicated on the exigencies of fragile global supply chains and global capital markets which are even now showing their insufficiencies.

    No matter what form the political slogans of the future take—whether the economic realities force their way through in the name of “UBI” or “socialism” or “nationalism”—the future is constrained by physical necessity to be a time of high wages, high relative prices, lower standards of living, and very high interest rates. We need to prepare for this rather than embark on misguided attempts to eluct the ineluctable.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Intelligent Dasein

    That was true of certain limited historical circumstances in the past

    I guess that's true if we limit it to history, but I've got to believe that spear points were more productive than throwing rocks. Almost anyone can throw a rock, but only a subset of rock throwers can chip points and throw a spear.

    , @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    I must also profoundly disagree with iffen’s statement that higher labor costs will drive more innovation (i.e. automation) which will increase productivity and living standards.
     
    Automation is going to be a game-changer. In the past innovation ended up producing more jobs than it eliminated. That's unlikely to be the case with automation. And there won't even be jobs building the robots - increasingly the job-eliminating robots will be built by other robots.

    The question of wage levels will be irrelevant. If you don't have a job you don't have a wage.

    At the moment the elites wants lots of non-elite people to provide cheap labour and to consume. Increasingly the only function of the masses will be to consume. The ideal solution from the corporate sector's point of view would be for the government to pay people to just sit at home and buy stuff. There's no need to worry about where the government is going to get the money - they will create it.

    Something like the UBI will be needed but it will have to be a hell of a lot more than $1000 a month. It will have to be high enough to allow the recipients to fulfil their last remaining social function - shopping.

    Of course the elites will still want immigration. They will still want those cheap maids, gardeners and nannies. Those jobs won't be automated - you don't feel truly rich unless you have human servants waiting on you.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

  13. Interestingly, in the medical field, places with the lowest cost of living also tend to be the places with the most exorbitant salaries. You can make ridiculous money working in an ER in rural Kentucky. Of course, the flip side of this is that rural areas have fewer amenities, which is why they pay so much to attract talent. My father works in public health in Alabama and has often complained of the difficulty in attracting primary care providers to rural areas. Unless they like to hunt and fish, it’s hard to get educated professionals to do it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Clive Beaconsfield

    Well, duh.

    If you were an IQ 130 SWPL who went to Tufts medical school, would YOU want to live in rural Kentucky where the women are fat stupid single mothers, and there are no high IQ men to be friends with? Where there isn't a Whole Foods, or any world class museums or art galleries? Where the only weekend social activities revolve around some disgustingly prole fundamentalist Christian church where half the attendees have meth mouth? Where the schools, despite being 90-100% White, are full of dumb prole kids who watch their mothers shoot up heroin every day?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Audacious Epigone

  14. @Cloudbuster
    @iffen

    Every job doesn't have to pay a "living wage." That's idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it. Teens, students, spouses who just want to earn a little money on the side, people just getting some initial work experience and living cheaply with roommates.

    This whole push to make every job one you can support yourself independently on is mind-bogglingly stupid.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?

    It's as if people who suggest this have no idea that the economy is a vastly complicated, interconnected system. Thinking you can just tweak one knob and have everything work great without throwing the whole system out of whack is simple-mindedness on a level I have trouble grasping.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Servant of Gla'aki, @iffen, @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit, @Thomm, @Nodwink

    This whole push to make every job one you can support yourself independently on is mind-bogglingly stupid.

    Wages are undoubtedly too low in this society, but this is also correct.

  15. that table is not wildly wrong, but it must be made with government statistics, because it produces some nonsense.

    Colorado is a very expensive state now, probably in the top 10. Maine is more expensive? Maine is a rural backwater.

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    @prime noticer

    States aren't less expensive because they're "rural" or "Republican."

    They are less expensive because they are directly located near oilfields, natural gas supplies, and farms/ranches, and lots of illegal aliens.

    If it weren't for all that, the midwest would return to what it was 140 years ago: a giant cattle ranch inhabited primarily by outlaws and Indians living in tents in little driftwood shacks. The cost of living there would be whatever your life is worth as you're writhing in pain on the grassy earth, suffering from multiple gunshot or stab wounds. Whether that's an increase or decrease is subject to personal opinion.


    Maine has little in the way of petroleum resources, acidic soils that are useless for farming anytbing except blueberries, few cattle ranches or pig farms, and no real industry besides logging and paper. They also have no immigrants and no fertility, which means everyone out there is old as fuck and nobody out there is paying taxes or debts. That's disastrous and will raise the price of everything really far.

    The biggest contributor to the increase in the cost of living in Colorado has been wildfires, which have decimated housing and property values throughout the state.

  16. @Cloudbuster
    @iffen

    Every job doesn't have to pay a "living wage." That's idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it. Teens, students, spouses who just want to earn a little money on the side, people just getting some initial work experience and living cheaply with roommates.

    This whole push to make every job one you can support yourself independently on is mind-bogglingly stupid.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?

    It's as if people who suggest this have no idea that the economy is a vastly complicated, interconnected system. Thinking you can just tweak one knob and have everything work great without throwing the whole system out of whack is simple-mindedness on a level I have trouble grasping.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Servant of Gla'aki, @iffen, @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit, @Thomm, @Nodwink

    I would entertain some limited exceptions, for example, for people such as you.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @iffen

    Bless your heart.

  17. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Cloudbuster

    You are correct of course; there ought not to be any such thing as the minimum wage. But in the nonce I would add one nuance.

    There ought not to be any such thing as a minimum wage that the employer has to pay. I have argued before that the government should attempt to inflate away the debt by adding a multiplier to paid wages, sort of like a reverse income tax, but not require the employer to maintain any minimum. This would help to impose labor market discipline while retaining the more attractive features of UBI. It should also be only temporary and should be sunsetted once the debt is reduced to manageable levels.

    I must also profoundly disagree with iffen's statement that higher labor costs will drive more innovation (i.e. automation) which will increase productivity and living standards. That was true of certain limited historical circumstances in the past, but it is not universally true and it is not true now. There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to automation and we are at it. Automating more processes now would just mean building more factories in the third world employing more Chinese worker ants and Indian code monkeys. This is not a reduction of labor, it's a transference of labor from one place to another and a translation of labor from one type to another, but with no net increase in either productivity or living standards; plus, it's all predicated on the exigencies of fragile global supply chains and global capital markets which are even now showing their insufficiencies.

    No matter what form the political slogans of the future take---whether the economic realities force their way through in the name of "UBI" or "socialism" or "nationalism"---the future is constrained by physical necessity to be a time of high wages, high relative prices, lower standards of living, and very high interest rates. We need to prepare for this rather than embark on misguided attempts to eluct the ineluctable.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    That was true of certain limited historical circumstances in the past

    I guess that’s true if we limit it to history, but I’ve got to believe that spear points were more productive than throwing rocks. Almost anyone can throw a rock, but only a subset of rock throwers can chip points and throw a spear.

  18. @prime noticer
    that table is not wildly wrong, but it must be made with government statistics, because it produces some nonsense.

    Colorado is a very expensive state now, probably in the top 10. Maine is more expensive? Maine is a rural backwater.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood

    States aren’t less expensive because they’re “rural” or “Republican.”

    They are less expensive because they are directly located near oilfields, natural gas supplies, and farms/ranches, and lots of illegal aliens.

    If it weren’t for all that, the midwest would return to what it was 140 years ago: a giant cattle ranch inhabited primarily by outlaws and Indians living in tents in little driftwood shacks. The cost of living there would be whatever your life is worth as you’re writhing in pain on the grassy earth, suffering from multiple gunshot or stab wounds. Whether that’s an increase or decrease is subject to personal opinion.

    Maine has little in the way of petroleum resources, acidic soils that are useless for farming anytbing except blueberries, few cattle ranches or pig farms, and no real industry besides logging and paper. They also have no immigrants and no fertility, which means everyone out there is old as fuck and nobody out there is paying taxes or debts. That’s disastrous and will raise the price of everything really far.

    The biggest contributor to the increase in the cost of living in Colorado has been wildfires, which have decimated housing and property values throughout the state.

  19. @Cloudbuster
    @Znzn

    I have a friend that works in a Toyota plant near Lexington, Kentucky and is very happy with the conditions and the wages. I've heard similar reports from the Honda plant near Marysville, Ohio.

    The former guy owns a house that would cost several million dollars in the California bay area. Huge place, and lovely. I'd guess he got it for under $200k.

    My son has a home in the Ozarks in Missouri that made my jaw drop when I first saw it and he is by no means a high earner yet.

    Replies: @baythoven

    My son has a home in the Ozarks in Missouri that made my jaw drop when I first saw it and he is by no means a high earner yet.

    I have a family member living in northwest Arkansas. Similar to where your son is, a great spot for affordability and quality of life.

  20. A problem with living in the Bay Area is that adult children cannot afford to live near home. In my family there has been a reverse migration where the next generation is moving east instead of west like my parents. There are a lot of nice places to relocate to but who wants to go somewhere you have no roots when you are 60 or 70?

  21. Another factoid about living in the Bay Area is that health insurance costs are surprisingly less expensive than many ‘rural’ areas or smaller metropolitan areas. It is a magnet for highly educated people and as a consequence there is a goodly number of physicians so the supply and demand is not out of wack. For many doctors who are educated and can choose, living in the boonies is like getting sent to hell. Often, they go to where they were sent to do a residency and then get out asap. If you ever look at medical journals, the full page adds in the prime spots are all reserved for some specialist position that a rural country hospital is begging for. They will pay a king’s ransom because it is the only way to get the talent. Worse, they often the the bottom of the barrel in terms of who they get to work for them.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Prof. Woland

    This is very likely because the med schools don't like to admit "hicks", though they'll take all kinds of lower-performing "diversity".  If they trained people with roots in the area they could probably get them to go back.

    Replies: @res

    , @Paleo Liberal
    @Prof. Woland

    My mother lives in a retirement home with a medical center in flyover country. She says few residents went to American med schools. The residents are generally Americans who went to Caribbean med schools.

    My wife has a cousin who went to med school in her third world home country (for free) after getting her green card. When she got her residency assignment in her home country she hopped on the next flight out of the country before they revoked her passport. She did a residency in an inner city hospital.

    With one of my kids about to apply for med school, I looked at the difference between the jobs an MD and the jobs a DO can get. It is slightly easier to get into med school with a DO, but the DOs get the less desirable jobs. They claim a lot of DOs wind up with lower paying jobs in rural clinics. OTOH, I have always either lived in big cites or college towns and have never even run across a DO.

    Replies: @anon

    , @Anon
    @Prof. Woland

    There are always great specialists from the Caribbean, India, Pakistan, Bengladesh and Nigeria.

  22. I don’t think this ranking is very useful, because it confounds urban vs. rural differences. Sure, Texas is different from CA in the ranking, but Austin is more like San Francisco than the “redder” parts of Texas in terms of median income and COL. I think county-by-country comparison would make more sense.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Twinkie

    Agree.

    For example, I live in a college town. The cost of living is relatively high, and the wages relatively low because of that. (I telecommute to a higher paying place.)

    My son lives in a more economically depressed area a few counties away in a different state. He is also a few counties away in the other direction from a very large metro area. However, the housing costs where he lives are about half of what they are in my college town, and less than half of the large metro area close to where my son lives from which I telecommute.

    So my son, fresh out of college, has a job that pays about 10% less than what he could get in my college town, and perhaps 20% less than what he could get in the large metro area. However, he earns enough to pay rent on a large 2 br apartment with a big living room and dining room all to himself, pay the car loan for a new car he got with a 3 year loan, pay his student loans, go out with his girlfriend, pay food and gas and gym membership, buy furniture from time to time at Walmart and still save a little bit each month.

    , @res
    @Twinkie

    Good point. It should be possible to do a similar analysis (COL vs. voting) at a census tract (or similar) level . I don't know how available the data is though. This page and graphic might be helpful for thinking about this.
    http://www.publicmapping.org/resources/data

    http://www.publicmapping.org/_/rsrc/1297184034379/resources/data/census%20geography.jpg

    Some ideas for data: https://opendata.stackexchange.com/questions/6645/where-can-i-find-a-cost-of-living-index-by-zip-code

    Regarding the state data, this site has 2020 COL numerical data (including DC) downloadable as CSV. One nice feature is it breaks COL down by category. As an example, you can see that Colorado is expensive for housing, cheap for utilities, and average for grocery/transportation/misc. So if you have just moved there it might seem expensive, while simultaneously seeming affordable to longer term residents.
    http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/cost-of-living-index-by-state/

    AE, are you game to add DC to your data and show a scatterplot? I think that would be more informative than the list. I could do it myself, but it would be more fun to discuss here. And the COL breakdown would allow more informed discussion about that aspect of the data.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  23. It would be a strange coincidence, if there were coincidences in politics, if Trump has been elected by the poor states which he is now proceeding to further impoverish by his monetary and trade policies.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @donald j tingle

    President Trump is doing what he can with the tariffs to help Americans in those states, though we're not going to get manufacturing back to even its state in the 1980s. He really can't do anything with monetary policy to help anyone, as the FED must keep the rates down, or Donald Trump will be known (unfairly) as Herbert Hoover II.

    What he has done with the income tax policy, besides getting the rates lowered a slight, but not-insignificant bit, is take out the deduction for property taxes, screwing over those NE blue state non-Trump voters royally. Hahahaaa. I shouldn't say that, because even the worst of those states still must have 35-40% Trump voters. Sorry, Peter Brimelow, for example.

  24. @Twinkie
    I don’t think this ranking is very useful, because it confounds urban vs. rural differences. Sure, Texas is different from CA in the ranking, but Austin is more like San Francisco than the “redder” parts of Texas in terms of median income and COL. I think county-by-country comparison would make more sense.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @res

    Agree.

    For example, I live in a college town. The cost of living is relatively high, and the wages relatively low because of that. (I telecommute to a higher paying place.)

    My son lives in a more economically depressed area a few counties away in a different state. He is also a few counties away in the other direction from a very large metro area. However, the housing costs where he lives are about half of what they are in my college town, and less than half of the large metro area close to where my son lives from which I telecommute.

    So my son, fresh out of college, has a job that pays about 10% less than what he could get in my college town, and perhaps 20% less than what he could get in the large metro area. However, he earns enough to pay rent on a large 2 br apartment with a big living room and dining room all to himself, pay the car loan for a new car he got with a 3 year loan, pay his student loans, go out with his girlfriend, pay food and gas and gym membership, buy furniture from time to time at Walmart and still save a little bit each month.

  25. @Intelligent Dasein
    With some exceptions, the affordable states are known mainly as producers of agricultural, industrial, forestry, petroleum, or mining products. The expensive states are contain the urban hubs for the academic, tech, and medical fields. Urban living makes the price go up; vast artificial conurbations make the price go up a lot; and two different cultures prevail in the different locales. It's basically the Duck Dynasty states vs. the Richard Florida states.

    I stayed for several months in Oklahoma once, at Tinker AFB, as a guest of a friend of mine who was in the service. It truly is an undiscovered gem. The cost of living is absurdly low, there are gun stores on every corner, and everywhere you look there are beautiful women. But the wages are correspondingly as low as the prices and the area is frequently beset by tornadoes, ice storms, hail, floods, and sweltering heat. Perhaps that helps to keep it from becoming gentrified by progressive swipples. If so, not a bad price to pay.

    Replies: @Znzn, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Audacious Epigone, @Mikey D.

    That’s why Pennsylvania is 30th on that list.

    PA is a mixture of Yinzer deer hunters and suburbanite liberal fools.

    As far as the former, you won’t find a more delightful bunch of rural folks than rural Pennsylvanians:

    There are a few places in Pennsylvania less threatened by sprawl: mostly the mountains, in a northwesterly tracking arc from Huntingdon County to Tioga County. But it isn’t easy finding a job in those areas. And you have to be a loner and an outdoorsman to appreciate it. Good luck getting a city woman to live with you there.

    Pennsylvania has definitely been hit very hard by various Jewish conspiracies over the years. For one thing, the best farmland, down in the valleys of the south and southeast, is being wasted despicably by sprawl, etc. I am concerned that the Jews and liberals will manage what they did in Virginia – a demographic transformation leading to disastrous policies – but we’ll see.

  26. @Cloudbuster
    @iffen

    Every job doesn't have to pay a "living wage." That's idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it. Teens, students, spouses who just want to earn a little money on the side, people just getting some initial work experience and living cheaply with roommates.

    This whole push to make every job one you can support yourself independently on is mind-bogglingly stupid.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?

    It's as if people who suggest this have no idea that the economy is a vastly complicated, interconnected system. Thinking you can just tweak one knob and have everything work great without throwing the whole system out of whack is simple-mindedness on a level I have trouble grasping.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Servant of Gla'aki, @iffen, @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit, @Thomm, @Nodwink

    This is why you’ve got to have capitalism, but then you’ve got to tie it down with laws and regulations until it can barely move.

    This is what the Western European countries have traditionally done.

    If I were younger, I’ve leave the shithole US and light out for France, because while officially it’s a capitalist country, capitalism is nice and strapped down tight, and thus there’s a much, much better life for the 99% there. I hear they’ve even still got social mobility.

    • LOL: Cloudbuster
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    Western Europe, at least in my lifetime and until recently, has always been much more constrained by government, causing a real lack of good opportunities not just for entrepreneurial types but for everyone. Your last paragraph is something I've never seen written by anyone else ever, for a damn good reason.

    , @Cloudbuster
    @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    Yes, the Yellow Vests are thrilled with the life dictated to them by the French government. Sadly, they're so heavily indoctrinated, they're just protesting for more of the same. A hidebound, over-regulated, sclerotic system drowning in its entitlements is the last place we should be emulating.

  27. It seems like you would want to be looking at average incomes and cost of living both at the same time. The Trulia organization once made up a list of the 25 cities with the highest incomes and another list of the 25 cities with the lowest housing costs. The only city on both lists was my hometown of Indianapolis. That’s why I stay here. You can get a decent apartment here for a quarter of the average salary here. The exact same apartment might take half instead of a quarter of your income in a city like San Francisco. That would seriously affect your overall standard of living since you wouldn’t have much left over for everything else.

    Thirty years ago there was a migration of people I knew from Indiana to California. Recently there has been a reverse migration back from California to here. They complain about the traffic jams, the high housing costs, the homeless and so on back in California. Most of the people I knew who moved out to California thirty years ago were liberals who didn’t like how conservative Indiana was. Once they got there they then voted for the liberal politicians who helped bring California to the state it is in today. Rather than face the consequences of what they had done they all jumped ship and headed back here.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Mark G.

    Once they got there they then voted for the liberal politicians who helped bring California to the state it is in today. Rather than face the consequences of what they had done they all jumped ship and headed back here.

    ... where they'll no doubt vote for liberal politicians. Some people are immune to learning.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Mark G.

    You could make a funny stand up bit out of that.

    "These racists say 'we can't let Mexicans come over here. They'll just vote for what they had in Mexico, and we don't want that.' The good people--all you out there--you know that's not true. It's xenophobic. It's something that oaf Trump would spew. And you say so. And you say so! But then--and this is the thing, this is the thing--you move from California--because it's broke and there are bums on the street and a shack costs a million bucks--you move from California out to Idaho. To Idaho! And you know what you do as soon as you get to rustic, rural, Republican Idaho? You vote a straight ticket for the same people who made California the nightmare you just ran away from! You turn that best kept secret, Idaho, into California. And you wonder why your new neighbors hate you!"

  28. @Prof. Woland
    Another factoid about living in the Bay Area is that health insurance costs are surprisingly less expensive than many 'rural' areas or smaller metropolitan areas. It is a magnet for highly educated people and as a consequence there is a goodly number of physicians so the supply and demand is not out of wack. For many doctors who are educated and can choose, living in the boonies is like getting sent to hell. Often, they go to where they were sent to do a residency and then get out asap. If you ever look at medical journals, the full page adds in the prime spots are all reserved for some specialist position that a rural country hospital is begging for. They will pay a king's ransom because it is the only way to get the talent. Worse, they often the the bottom of the barrel in terms of who they get to work for them.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Paleo Liberal, @Anon

    This is very likely because the med schools don’t like to admit “hicks”, though they’ll take all kinds of lower-performing “diversity”.  If they trained people with roots in the area they could probably get them to go back.

    • Replies: @res
    @Mr. Rational

    Interesting point. Has anyone ever done a study of that? It seems likely to be true, but I suspect the few "hicks" med schools (and elite colleges) admit are types more likely to leave their local area anyway.

    Here is one approach to the problem.
    https://www.voanews.com/archive/small-towns-sponsor-their-own-doctors

  29. @Prof. Woland
    Another factoid about living in the Bay Area is that health insurance costs are surprisingly less expensive than many 'rural' areas or smaller metropolitan areas. It is a magnet for highly educated people and as a consequence there is a goodly number of physicians so the supply and demand is not out of wack. For many doctors who are educated and can choose, living in the boonies is like getting sent to hell. Often, they go to where they were sent to do a residency and then get out asap. If you ever look at medical journals, the full page adds in the prime spots are all reserved for some specialist position that a rural country hospital is begging for. They will pay a king's ransom because it is the only way to get the talent. Worse, they often the the bottom of the barrel in terms of who they get to work for them.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Paleo Liberal, @Anon

    My mother lives in a retirement home with a medical center in flyover country. She says few residents went to American med schools. The residents are generally Americans who went to Caribbean med schools.

    My wife has a cousin who went to med school in her third world home country (for free) after getting her green card. When she got her residency assignment in her home country she hopped on the next flight out of the country before they revoked her passport. She did a residency in an inner city hospital.

    With one of my kids about to apply for med school, I looked at the difference between the jobs an MD and the jobs a DO can get. It is slightly easier to get into med school with a DO, but the DOs get the less desirable jobs. They claim a lot of DOs wind up with lower paying jobs in rural clinics. OTOH, I have always either lived in big cites or college towns and have never even run across a DO.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Paleo Liberal

    It is slightly easier to get into med school with a DO, but the DOs get the less desirable jobs.

    You are confused. Schools of Osteopathy are medical schools. DO graduates go into residency just like MD graduates, in the same hospitals working with preceptors. DO's go on to various careers. Because osteopathy still has some alternate treatment modalities, Osteopaths may be more prone to go certain public service routes for personal reasons.

  30. @tz1
    One thing missing is Red states have a better citizenry.
    It is not noticable while living there, but back in Michigan when the demographics changed, in stores, when people changed their mind they would just leave the item wherever they were instead of putting it back (including frozen food). I don't want to go into the same stores along the I5 corridor between Portland and Salem because the homeless steal the carts, and the customers leave the store shelves in shambles. It doesn't happen from the east side of the Cascades at least through I-29.
    All this extra security, or just having to throw away merchandise, and having dishonest returns and worse takes a toll.
    Oh, they are very good at enforcing the laws - when it generates revenue. Like in San Francisco where you have to prove your door is locked for it to be considered theft. So while you are pulled over for not signalling soon enough, you can see an addict shooting up, a homeless person pooping, a flash mob pillaging a store, and a porch pirate collecting booty, and the Cops will do nothing about THAT. But someone has to pay.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    “Anarcho-Tyranny” is the term for what you well describe, TZ1. I think the term comes from the late Sam Francis, and Peak Stupidity has a topic key on it here.

  31. @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit
    @Cloudbuster

    This is why you've got to have capitalism, but then you've got to tie it down with laws and regulations until it can barely move.

    This is what the Western European countries have traditionally done.

    If I were younger, I've leave the shithole US and light out for France, because while officially it's a capitalist country, capitalism is nice and strapped down tight, and thus there's a much, much better life for the 99% there. I hear they've even still got social mobility.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Cloudbuster

    Western Europe, at least in my lifetime and until recently, has always been much more constrained by government, causing a real lack of good opportunities not just for entrepreneurial types but for everyone. Your last paragraph is something I’ve never seen written by anyone else ever, for a damn good reason.

  32. @donald j tingle
    It would be a strange coincidence, if there were coincidences in politics, if Trump has been elected by the poor states which he is now proceeding to further impoverish by his monetary and trade policies.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    President Trump is doing what he can with the tariffs to help Americans in those states, though we’re not going to get manufacturing back to even its state in the 1980s. He really can’t do anything with monetary policy to help anyone, as the FED must keep the rates down, or Donald Trump will be known (unfairly) as Herbert Hoover II.

    What he has done with the income tax policy, besides getting the rates lowered a slight, but not-insignificant bit, is take out the deduction for property taxes, screwing over those NE blue state non-Trump voters royally. Hahahaaa. I shouldn’t say that, because even the worst of those states still must have 35-40% Trump voters. Sorry, Peter Brimelow, for example.

  33. @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit
    @Cloudbuster

    This is why you've got to have capitalism, but then you've got to tie it down with laws and regulations until it can barely move.

    This is what the Western European countries have traditionally done.

    If I were younger, I've leave the shithole US and light out for France, because while officially it's a capitalist country, capitalism is nice and strapped down tight, and thus there's a much, much better life for the 99% there. I hear they've even still got social mobility.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Cloudbuster

    Yes, the Yellow Vests are thrilled with the life dictated to them by the French government. Sadly, they’re so heavily indoctrinated, they’re just protesting for more of the same. A hidebound, over-regulated, sclerotic system drowning in its entitlements is the last place we should be emulating.

    • Agree: Thomm
  34. @iffen
    @Cloudbuster

    I would entertain some limited exceptions, for example, for people such as you.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    Bless your heart.

    • LOL: iffen
  35. @Mark G.
    It seems like you would want to be looking at average incomes and cost of living both at the same time. The Trulia organization once made up a list of the 25 cities with the highest incomes and another list of the 25 cities with the lowest housing costs. The only city on both lists was my hometown of Indianapolis. That's why I stay here. You can get a decent apartment here for a quarter of the average salary here. The exact same apartment might take half instead of a quarter of your income in a city like San Francisco. That would seriously affect your overall standard of living since you wouldn't have much left over for everything else.

    Thirty years ago there was a migration of people I knew from Indiana to California. Recently there has been a reverse migration back from California to here. They complain about the traffic jams, the high housing costs, the homeless and so on back in California. Most of the people I knew who moved out to California thirty years ago were liberals who didn't like how conservative Indiana was. Once they got there they then voted for the liberal politicians who helped bring California to the state it is in today. Rather than face the consequences of what they had done they all jumped ship and headed back here.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Audacious Epigone

    Once they got there they then voted for the liberal politicians who helped bring California to the state it is in today. Rather than face the consequences of what they had done they all jumped ship and headed back here.

    … where they’ll no doubt vote for liberal politicians. Some people are immune to learning.

  36. anon[244] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paleo Liberal
    @Prof. Woland

    My mother lives in a retirement home with a medical center in flyover country. She says few residents went to American med schools. The residents are generally Americans who went to Caribbean med schools.

    My wife has a cousin who went to med school in her third world home country (for free) after getting her green card. When she got her residency assignment in her home country she hopped on the next flight out of the country before they revoked her passport. She did a residency in an inner city hospital.

    With one of my kids about to apply for med school, I looked at the difference between the jobs an MD and the jobs a DO can get. It is slightly easier to get into med school with a DO, but the DOs get the less desirable jobs. They claim a lot of DOs wind up with lower paying jobs in rural clinics. OTOH, I have always either lived in big cites or college towns and have never even run across a DO.

    Replies: @anon

    It is slightly easier to get into med school with a DO, but the DOs get the less desirable jobs.

    You are confused. Schools of Osteopathy are medical schools. DO graduates go into residency just like MD graduates, in the same hospitals working with preceptors. DO’s go on to various careers. Because osteopathy still has some alternate treatment modalities, Osteopaths may be more prone to go certain public service routes for personal reasons.

  37. Why are Republican states so much more affordable than blue states are, especially for the poor?

    Correlation is not causation.

    US Presidential votes in favor of Democrats, at the county level, are almost exactly correlated to an equal weight of i) Population density, and ii) The percentage black population.

    Given i) above, of course the more rural-favoring party will be the one with a lower average cost of living.

  38. @Cloudbuster
    @iffen

    Every job doesn't have to pay a "living wage." That's idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it. Teens, students, spouses who just want to earn a little money on the side, people just getting some initial work experience and living cheaply with roommates.

    This whole push to make every job one you can support yourself independently on is mind-bogglingly stupid.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?

    It's as if people who suggest this have no idea that the economy is a vastly complicated, interconnected system. Thinking you can just tweak one knob and have everything work great without throwing the whole system out of whack is simple-mindedness on a level I have trouble grasping.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Servant of Gla'aki, @iffen, @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit, @Thomm, @Nodwink

    Every job doesn’t have to pay a “living wage.” That’s idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it.

    Leftists are never persuaded by logic. But you will soon find that most WN W**g**s have extremely socialist economic views. So despite being called ‘far right’, they are nothing of the sort in the American sense. They are just socialists.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?

    Of course he does. Remember, they are leftists that want to mooch off of others. The only difference between WN W**g**s and SJW socialists is that the former think socialism can work if it is limited to intra-white socialism, since the proportion of white people that are productive is high enough.

    That didn’t help East Germany, but facts are anathema to these socialists.

    • Replies: @Peter Frost
    @Thomm

    Thomm,

    One doesn't have to be a socialist to believe that the minimum wage is necessary. Employers are much less numerous than employees, so the opportunities for collusion are much greater among them. That's why we have downward price rigidity and upward wage rigidity. Collective bargaining was an attempt to redress the balance, but only 10% of American workers are unionized.

    Most American workers are paid less than the market value of their work. This is shown by the apparent contradiction of labor shortages in industries where wage growth is nonetheless sluggish. In theory, the price of labor should rise until a new equilibrium is established between supply and demand. But that's not happening.

    Conversely, most CEOs are paid more than the market value of their work. For the past fifty years, the difference between average CEO pay and average worker pay has been widening. How come? Is it because CEOs have become better at their jobs? Or is it because globalization has tilted the playing field in their favor?

    Replies: @Mark G., @Anonymous

  39. Which source dataset did the CoL ranking come from? I’m hard-put to believe that West Virginia has a higher CoL than the top 19 states as given. Thanks.

  40. @Joe Stalin
    Massive rent seeking in Illinois by the government is why COA is out of sight in Illinois. Sales tax alone in Chicago is 10.25% with virtually NO gun shops to exercise your Second Amendment rights. Special Cook County ammo tax and $25 tax per gun transfer courtesy of Communist Preckwinkle.

    Property taxes out of sight to give $$$ to ALL the school teachers; Blacks and white Lefties vote for this all the time, so we have an assault weapon and standard capacity mag ban in Cook and Chicago.

    https://wirepoints.org/

    Yes, the rich are fleeing Illinois and they're taking billions with them – Wirepoints Original

    https://wirepoints.org/yes-the-rich-are-fleeing-illinois-and-theyre-taking-billions-with-them/
     

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Did you even look at the list? Illinois is in the cheaper half of states. If Chicago is inordinately expensive, that implies the rest of the state is a pit.

    Is every other city in the state a Rockford?

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Reg Cæsar

    The property taxes alone for any place near Chicago, even adjacent counties, should give pause to anyone thinking of moving to Illinois. Gov. "Jelly Belly" Pritzker is going for a progressive income tax popular referendum soon. I wouldn't put it past the tax eater voters of Chicago and the Hispanics in DuPage County to vote in such a thing for Whitey tax payers.

    A relative went traveling to another state, and upon hearing they were from Illinois, were told: "You better get out of there NOW!"

  41. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Cloudbuster

    You are correct of course; there ought not to be any such thing as the minimum wage. But in the nonce I would add one nuance.

    There ought not to be any such thing as a minimum wage that the employer has to pay. I have argued before that the government should attempt to inflate away the debt by adding a multiplier to paid wages, sort of like a reverse income tax, but not require the employer to maintain any minimum. This would help to impose labor market discipline while retaining the more attractive features of UBI. It should also be only temporary and should be sunsetted once the debt is reduced to manageable levels.

    I must also profoundly disagree with iffen's statement that higher labor costs will drive more innovation (i.e. automation) which will increase productivity and living standards. That was true of certain limited historical circumstances in the past, but it is not universally true and it is not true now. There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to automation and we are at it. Automating more processes now would just mean building more factories in the third world employing more Chinese worker ants and Indian code monkeys. This is not a reduction of labor, it's a transference of labor from one place to another and a translation of labor from one type to another, but with no net increase in either productivity or living standards; plus, it's all predicated on the exigencies of fragile global supply chains and global capital markets which are even now showing their insufficiencies.

    No matter what form the political slogans of the future take---whether the economic realities force their way through in the name of "UBI" or "socialism" or "nationalism"---the future is constrained by physical necessity to be a time of high wages, high relative prices, lower standards of living, and very high interest rates. We need to prepare for this rather than embark on misguided attempts to eluct the ineluctable.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    I must also profoundly disagree with iffen’s statement that higher labor costs will drive more innovation (i.e. automation) which will increase productivity and living standards.

    Automation is going to be a game-changer. In the past innovation ended up producing more jobs than it eliminated. That’s unlikely to be the case with automation. And there won’t even be jobs building the robots – increasingly the job-eliminating robots will be built by other robots.

    The question of wage levels will be irrelevant. If you don’t have a job you don’t have a wage.

    At the moment the elites wants lots of non-elite people to provide cheap labour and to consume. Increasingly the only function of the masses will be to consume. The ideal solution from the corporate sector’s point of view would be for the government to pay people to just sit at home and buy stuff. There’s no need to worry about where the government is going to get the money – they will create it.

    Something like the UBI will be needed but it will have to be a hell of a lot more than $1000 a month. It will have to be high enough to allow the recipients to fulfil their last remaining social function – shopping.

    Of course the elites will still want immigration. They will still want those cheap maids, gardeners and nannies. Those jobs won’t be automated – you don’t feel truly rich unless you have human servants waiting on you.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom


    Automation is going to be a game-changer.
     
    While I often agree with your contrarian take, I cannot do so this time. If you're looking for a kitschy, trisyllabic piece of corporate cant to describe the contemporary buzz surrounding automation, it's going to be more "non-starter" than "game-changer."

    Reliable robots are not cheap to design or build. If you're mass-producing automobiles, then the investment is worth it. But it takes more energy and resources to automate the proverbial burger-slinging jobs than it does to just hire an $8.00/hr burger-slinger. As wage pressures goes down with increasing unemployment, this calculus becomes even less favorable to the robots when more people lose their jobs. When the $8.00 burger-slinger becomes the $3.00 burger-slinger, the threat of competition from robots will be over.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  42. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Clive Beaconsfield
    Interestingly, in the medical field, places with the lowest cost of living also tend to be the places with the most exorbitant salaries. You can make ridiculous money working in an ER in rural Kentucky. Of course, the flip side of this is that rural areas have fewer amenities, which is why they pay so much to attract talent. My father works in public health in Alabama and has often complained of the difficulty in attracting primary care providers to rural areas. Unless they like to hunt and fish, it’s hard to get educated professionals to do it.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Well, duh.

    If you were an IQ 130 SWPL who went to Tufts medical school, would YOU want to live in rural Kentucky where the women are fat stupid single mothers, and there are no high IQ men to be friends with? Where there isn’t a Whole Foods, or any world class museums or art galleries? Where the only weekend social activities revolve around some disgustingly prole fundamentalist Christian church where half the attendees have meth mouth? Where the schools, despite being 90-100% White, are full of dumb prole kids who watch their mothers shoot up heroin every day?

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Anonymous

    It's clear you get your impressions of rural Kentucky from the media. Maybe one too many seasons of Justified?

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Anonymous

    Kevin Williamson found the Unz Review.

  43. @Cloudbuster
    @iffen

    Every job doesn't have to pay a "living wage." That's idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it. Teens, students, spouses who just want to earn a little money on the side, people just getting some initial work experience and living cheaply with roommates.

    This whole push to make every job one you can support yourself independently on is mind-bogglingly stupid.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?

    It's as if people who suggest this have no idea that the economy is a vastly complicated, interconnected system. Thinking you can just tweak one knob and have everything work great without throwing the whole system out of whack is simple-mindedness on a level I have trouble grasping.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Servant of Gla'aki, @iffen, @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit, @Thomm, @Nodwink

    Asking for a decent wage within the capitalist system is a compromise position from the wage earner. The alternative is revolutionary violence.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Nodwink

    Wage earners don't historically do very well during violent revolutions. Whether they do well afterward varies inversely with how socialist the winners are.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  44. @Nodwink
    @Cloudbuster

    Asking for a decent wage within the capitalist system is a compromise position from the wage earner. The alternative is revolutionary violence.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    Wage earners don’t historically do very well during violent revolutions. Whether they do well afterward varies inversely with how socialist the winners are.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Cloudbuster


    Wage earners don’t historically do very well during violent revolutions.
     
    It's noticeable that people attracted to the idea of violent revolution generally don't seem to be familiar with the histories of violent revolutions in the past.

    People attracted to the idea of violent revolution are usually people so frustrated with the failures of their own lives that they love to fantasise about smashing everything. They're essentially revenge fantasies. Some people fantasise about taking revenge on the individuals they blame for their failures. Some fantasise about revenge against some group of people that they blame (blacks and Jews seem to be popular targets of such fantasists). And some want revenge on the whole of society.

    Replies: @Nodwink

  45. @Reg Cæsar
    @Joe Stalin

    Did you even look at the list? Illinois is in the cheaper half of states. If Chicago is inordinately expensive, that implies the rest of the state is a pit.

    Is every other city in the state a Rockford?

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    The property taxes alone for any place near Chicago, even adjacent counties, should give pause to anyone thinking of moving to Illinois. Gov. “Jelly Belly” Pritzker is going for a progressive income tax popular referendum soon. I wouldn’t put it past the tax eater voters of Chicago and the Hispanics in DuPage County to vote in such a thing for Whitey tax payers.

    A relative went traveling to another state, and upon hearing they were from Illinois, were told: “You better get out of there NOW!”

  46. @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    I must also profoundly disagree with iffen’s statement that higher labor costs will drive more innovation (i.e. automation) which will increase productivity and living standards.
     
    Automation is going to be a game-changer. In the past innovation ended up producing more jobs than it eliminated. That's unlikely to be the case with automation. And there won't even be jobs building the robots - increasingly the job-eliminating robots will be built by other robots.

    The question of wage levels will be irrelevant. If you don't have a job you don't have a wage.

    At the moment the elites wants lots of non-elite people to provide cheap labour and to consume. Increasingly the only function of the masses will be to consume. The ideal solution from the corporate sector's point of view would be for the government to pay people to just sit at home and buy stuff. There's no need to worry about where the government is going to get the money - they will create it.

    Something like the UBI will be needed but it will have to be a hell of a lot more than $1000 a month. It will have to be high enough to allow the recipients to fulfil their last remaining social function - shopping.

    Of course the elites will still want immigration. They will still want those cheap maids, gardeners and nannies. Those jobs won't be automated - you don't feel truly rich unless you have human servants waiting on you.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Automation is going to be a game-changer.

    While I often agree with your contrarian take, I cannot do so this time. If you’re looking for a kitschy, trisyllabic piece of corporate cant to describe the contemporary buzz surrounding automation, it’s going to be more “non-starter” than “game-changer.”

    Reliable robots are not cheap to design or build. If you’re mass-producing automobiles, then the investment is worth it. But it takes more energy and resources to automate the proverbial burger-slinging jobs than it does to just hire an $8.00/hr burger-slinger. As wage pressures goes down with increasing unemployment, this calculus becomes even less favorable to the robots when more people lose their jobs. When the $8.00 burger-slinger becomes the $3.00 burger-slinger, the threat of competition from robots will be over.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Reliable robots are not cheap to design or build.
     
    At the moment. Cars were very expensive at one time. They were rich men's toys. TV sets were very expensive at one time. As demand increases unit costs go down. Robots are more complex certainly but don't you think it's likely that production costs will plummet, especially when it becomes possible to use robots to build more robots?

    Of course these things are very difficult to predict. Lower wages would certainly slow the process. But from the corporate point of view robots offer very tempting advantages aside from lower costs. A completely docile labour force, more docile than any human labour force could ever be. And robots will allow corporations to avoid annoying problems like anti-discrimination laws and sexual harassment nightmares.

    They will even be able to avoid the bad publicity associated with paying starvation wages. They will be able to claim, quite truthfully, that they pay decent wages. It's just that they'll be paying those decent wages to a workforce a tiny fraction of the size of their current workforces.

    I don't see lower wages stopping this process.

    When the $8.00 burger-slinger becomes the $3.00 burger-slinger, the threat of competition from robots will be over.
     
    Except if eventually a robot will be able to do the job even cheaper than the $3.00 burger-slinger.
  47. @Anonymous
    @Clive Beaconsfield

    Well, duh.

    If you were an IQ 130 SWPL who went to Tufts medical school, would YOU want to live in rural Kentucky where the women are fat stupid single mothers, and there are no high IQ men to be friends with? Where there isn't a Whole Foods, or any world class museums or art galleries? Where the only weekend social activities revolve around some disgustingly prole fundamentalist Christian church where half the attendees have meth mouth? Where the schools, despite being 90-100% White, are full of dumb prole kids who watch their mothers shoot up heroin every day?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Audacious Epigone

    It’s clear you get your impressions of rural Kentucky from the media. Maybe one too many seasons of Justified?

  48. @Cloudbuster
    @Nodwink

    Wage earners don't historically do very well during violent revolutions. Whether they do well afterward varies inversely with how socialist the winners are.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Wage earners don’t historically do very well during violent revolutions.

    It’s noticeable that people attracted to the idea of violent revolution generally don’t seem to be familiar with the histories of violent revolutions in the past.

    People attracted to the idea of violent revolution are usually people so frustrated with the failures of their own lives that they love to fantasise about smashing everything. They’re essentially revenge fantasies. Some people fantasise about taking revenge on the individuals they blame for their failures. Some fantasise about revenge against some group of people that they blame (blacks and Jews seem to be popular targets of such fantasists). And some want revenge on the whole of society.

    • Replies: @Nodwink
    @dfordoom

    I don't think political violence is the first preference for most people. Things need to get pretty dire before someone picks up a weapon.

    One suspects that there would have been far less bloodshed in human history if elites had worked out that being a bit nicer to their subjects made their own positions more secure. Sadly our primate brains seem to encourage us to brutalize at first opportunity.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

  49. @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom


    Automation is going to be a game-changer.
     
    While I often agree with your contrarian take, I cannot do so this time. If you're looking for a kitschy, trisyllabic piece of corporate cant to describe the contemporary buzz surrounding automation, it's going to be more "non-starter" than "game-changer."

    Reliable robots are not cheap to design or build. If you're mass-producing automobiles, then the investment is worth it. But it takes more energy and resources to automate the proverbial burger-slinging jobs than it does to just hire an $8.00/hr burger-slinger. As wage pressures goes down with increasing unemployment, this calculus becomes even less favorable to the robots when more people lose their jobs. When the $8.00 burger-slinger becomes the $3.00 burger-slinger, the threat of competition from robots will be over.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Reliable robots are not cheap to design or build.

    At the moment. Cars were very expensive at one time. They were rich men’s toys. TV sets were very expensive at one time. As demand increases unit costs go down. Robots are more complex certainly but don’t you think it’s likely that production costs will plummet, especially when it becomes possible to use robots to build more robots?

    Of course these things are very difficult to predict. Lower wages would certainly slow the process. But from the corporate point of view robots offer very tempting advantages aside from lower costs. A completely docile labour force, more docile than any human labour force could ever be. And robots will allow corporations to avoid annoying problems like anti-discrimination laws and sexual harassment nightmares.

    They will even be able to avoid the bad publicity associated with paying starvation wages. They will be able to claim, quite truthfully, that they pay decent wages. It’s just that they’ll be paying those decent wages to a workforce a tiny fraction of the size of their current workforces.

    I don’t see lower wages stopping this process.

    When the $8.00 burger-slinger becomes the $3.00 burger-slinger, the threat of competition from robots will be over.

    Except if eventually a robot will be able to do the job even cheaper than the $3.00 burger-slinger.

  50. @dfordoom
    @Cloudbuster


    Wage earners don’t historically do very well during violent revolutions.
     
    It's noticeable that people attracted to the idea of violent revolution generally don't seem to be familiar with the histories of violent revolutions in the past.

    People attracted to the idea of violent revolution are usually people so frustrated with the failures of their own lives that they love to fantasise about smashing everything. They're essentially revenge fantasies. Some people fantasise about taking revenge on the individuals they blame for their failures. Some fantasise about revenge against some group of people that they blame (blacks and Jews seem to be popular targets of such fantasists). And some want revenge on the whole of society.

    Replies: @Nodwink

    I don’t think political violence is the first preference for most people. Things need to get pretty dire before someone picks up a weapon.

    One suspects that there would have been far less bloodshed in human history if elites had worked out that being a bit nicer to their subjects made their own positions more secure. Sadly our primate brains seem to encourage us to brutalize at first opportunity.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Nodwink

    ... he says, in the midst of the most egalitarian, humane just society in human history.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  51. @Thomm
    @Cloudbuster


    Every job doesn’t have to pay a “living wage.” That’s idiotic. It sets the first rung on the employment ladder so high lots of people never reach it.
     
    Leftists are never persuaded by logic. But you will soon find that most WN W**g**s have extremely socialist economic views. So despite being called 'far right', they are nothing of the sort in the American sense. They are just socialists.

    And do you honestly think that if you arbitrarily set the wage at $25, that $25 will remain a living wage for more than a few months?
     
    Of course he does. Remember, they are leftists that want to mooch off of others. The only difference between WN W**g**s and SJW socialists is that the former think socialism can work if it is limited to intra-white socialism, since the proportion of white people that are productive is high enough.

    That didn't help East Germany, but facts are anathema to these socialists.

    Replies: @Peter Frost

    Thomm,

    One doesn’t have to be a socialist to believe that the minimum wage is necessary. Employers are much less numerous than employees, so the opportunities for collusion are much greater among them. That’s why we have downward price rigidity and upward wage rigidity. Collective bargaining was an attempt to redress the balance, but only 10% of American workers are unionized.

    Most American workers are paid less than the market value of their work. This is shown by the apparent contradiction of labor shortages in industries where wage growth is nonetheless sluggish. In theory, the price of labor should rise until a new equilibrium is established between supply and demand. But that’s not happening.

    Conversely, most CEOs are paid more than the market value of their work. For the past fifty years, the difference between average CEO pay and average worker pay has been widening. How come? Is it because CEOs have become better at their jobs? Or is it because globalization has tilted the playing field in their favor?

    • Agree: iffen, Mr. Rational, dfordoom
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Peter Frost


    Conversely, most CEOs are paid more than the market value of their work. For the past fifty years, the difference between average CEO pay and average worker pay has been widening. How come?
     
    The companies comprising the S&P 500 have been getting larger. Bigger companies pay their top executives more than smaller companies. Since the nineteen eighties the six-fold increase in the market capitalization of these companies has been matched by a six fold increase in CEO pay.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w12365

    Worker compensation as a percentage of corporate income has been steady since the nineteen forties so increases in CEO pay have not come at the expense of worker pay.

    Replies: @Peter Frost

    , @Anonymous
    @Peter Frost


    Most American workers are paid less than the market value of their work. This is shown by the apparent contradiction of labor shortages in industries where wage growth is nonetheless sluggish. In theory, the price of labor should rise until a new equilibrium is established between supply and demand. But that’s not happening.
     
    As the price of labor rose, some businesses and industries would go out of business as they would no longer be able to afford the cost of labor.

    The new equilibrium could be one in which unemployment is high because the cost of labor is high.

    This is sort of the case in Europe which has had relatively high unemployment for decades. Generous welfare benefits and high minimum wage in Europe have meant that employers have to offer a high wage to employ labor.
  52. A better way to look at living wage is to divide average earnings by average cost of living index, by doing that it’s not a surprise that a place like Minnesota is at the top of the list.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @indocon

    Agree. Steve Sailer did this several years ago.

    In this particular context, though, I was thinking about how a (nationwide nominal) living wage would go over across the country.

  53. @Nodwink
    @dfordoom

    I don't think political violence is the first preference for most people. Things need to get pretty dire before someone picks up a weapon.

    One suspects that there would have been far less bloodshed in human history if elites had worked out that being a bit nicer to their subjects made their own positions more secure. Sadly our primate brains seem to encourage us to brutalize at first opportunity.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    … he says, in the midst of the most egalitarian, humane just society in human history.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Cloudbuster

    Media renders it difficult for most people to appreciate that, though. Spend time scrolling through Instagram, and it's easy to think everyone is smarter than you, wealthier than you, happier than you, better looking than you, etc--because in the course of a minute, you came across a genius, a rich uncle pennybags, a bodhisattva, and an adonis. Never mind that they are only four people out of over seven billion. Your Dunbar brain isn't optimized for understanding that.

  54. @Peter Frost
    @Thomm

    Thomm,

    One doesn't have to be a socialist to believe that the minimum wage is necessary. Employers are much less numerous than employees, so the opportunities for collusion are much greater among them. That's why we have downward price rigidity and upward wage rigidity. Collective bargaining was an attempt to redress the balance, but only 10% of American workers are unionized.

    Most American workers are paid less than the market value of their work. This is shown by the apparent contradiction of labor shortages in industries where wage growth is nonetheless sluggish. In theory, the price of labor should rise until a new equilibrium is established between supply and demand. But that's not happening.

    Conversely, most CEOs are paid more than the market value of their work. For the past fifty years, the difference between average CEO pay and average worker pay has been widening. How come? Is it because CEOs have become better at their jobs? Or is it because globalization has tilted the playing field in their favor?

    Replies: @Mark G., @Anonymous

    Conversely, most CEOs are paid more than the market value of their work. For the past fifty years, the difference between average CEO pay and average worker pay has been widening. How come?

    The companies comprising the S&P 500 have been getting larger. Bigger companies pay their top executives more than smaller companies. Since the nineteen eighties the six-fold increase in the market capitalization of these companies has been matched by a six fold increase in CEO pay.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w12365

    Worker compensation as a percentage of corporate income has been steady since the nineteen forties so increases in CEO pay have not come at the expense of worker pay.

    • Replies: @Peter Frost
    @Mark G.

    "Worker compensation as a percentage of corporate income has been steady since the nineteen forties"

    False


    We noted that worker compensation as a share of GDP topped out in 1970 and has been declining ever since, meanwhile corporate profit share has been increasing. Furthermore, we opined that the reason this has occurred is because there has been a massive supply glut of labor in the United States.
     
    https://seekingalpha.com/article/3821196-corporate-profits-vs-worker-compensation-who-will-win-out-part-ii

    I could cite many more studies on this point. Worker incomes have stagnated since the 1970s despite economic growth. The top 1% have been taking an increasingly larger share of the pie.

    As for CEO salaries, opinion among economists is divided:

    The three decades starting with the 1980s saw a dramatic rise in executive pay relative to that of an average worker's wage in the United States,[2] and to a lesser extent in a number of other countries. Observers differ as to whether this rise is a natural and beneficial result of competition for scarce business talent that can add greatly to stockholder value in large companies, or a socially harmful phenomenon brought about by social and political changes that have given executives greater control over their own pay.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation

    Keep in mind that a lot of money has been invested to justify CEO pay:

    A study of more than 1,000 US companies over six years finds “strong empirical evidence” that executive compensation consultants have been hired as a “justification device” for higher CEO pay.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation

    I am wary of studies by American economists because so many of them work as consultants and are in an obvious conflict of interest. A German study concluded that the increase in CEO pay is not explained by an increase in the market value of their work:

    Based on unique panel data evidence of the 500 largest firms in Germany in the period 1977-2009 we test two prominent hypothesis in the literature on executive pay: the manager power hypothesis and the efficient pay hypothesis. We find support for the manager power hypothesis for Germany as executives tend to be rewarded when the sector is doing well rather than the firm they work for. We reject, however, the efficient pay hypothesis as CEO pay and the demand for managers increases in Germany in difficult times when the typical firm size shrinks.
     
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2020250

    Replies: @Mark G.

  55. @Mark G.
    @Peter Frost


    Conversely, most CEOs are paid more than the market value of their work. For the past fifty years, the difference between average CEO pay and average worker pay has been widening. How come?
     
    The companies comprising the S&P 500 have been getting larger. Bigger companies pay their top executives more than smaller companies. Since the nineteen eighties the six-fold increase in the market capitalization of these companies has been matched by a six fold increase in CEO pay.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w12365

    Worker compensation as a percentage of corporate income has been steady since the nineteen forties so increases in CEO pay have not come at the expense of worker pay.

    Replies: @Peter Frost

    “Worker compensation as a percentage of corporate income has been steady since the nineteen forties”

    False

    We noted that worker compensation as a share of GDP topped out in 1970 and has been declining ever since, meanwhile corporate profit share has been increasing. Furthermore, we opined that the reason this has occurred is because there has been a massive supply glut of labor in the United States.

    https://seekingalpha.com/article/3821196-corporate-profits-vs-worker-compensation-who-will-win-out-part-ii

    I could cite many more studies on this point. Worker incomes have stagnated since the 1970s despite economic growth. The top 1% have been taking an increasingly larger share of the pie.

    As for CEO salaries, opinion among economists is divided:

    The three decades starting with the 1980s saw a dramatic rise in executive pay relative to that of an average worker’s wage in the United States,[2] and to a lesser extent in a number of other countries. Observers differ as to whether this rise is a natural and beneficial result of competition for scarce business talent that can add greatly to stockholder value in large companies, or a socially harmful phenomenon brought about by social and political changes that have given executives greater control over their own pay.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation

    Keep in mind that a lot of money has been invested to justify CEO pay:

    A study of more than 1,000 US companies over six years finds “strong empirical evidence” that executive compensation consultants have been hired as a “justification device” for higher CEO pay.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation

    I am wary of studies by American economists because so many of them work as consultants and are in an obvious conflict of interest. A German study concluded that the increase in CEO pay is not explained by an increase in the market value of their work:

    Based on unique panel data evidence of the 500 largest firms in Germany in the period 1977-2009 we test two prominent hypothesis in the literature on executive pay: the manager power hypothesis and the efficient pay hypothesis. We find support for the manager power hypothesis for Germany as executives tend to be rewarded when the sector is doing well rather than the firm they work for. We reject, however, the efficient pay hypothesis as CEO pay and the demand for managers increases in Germany in difficult times when the typical firm size shrinks.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2020250

    • Thanks: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Peter Frost


    “Worker compensation as a percentage of corporate income has been steady since the nineteen forties”

    False
     

    Worker compensation has averaged around 63 % of corporate income since the nineteen forties.
    See the chart "employee compensation & corporate profits" in the article below.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/09/myth-corporate-profits-matt-palumbo/

  56. @Peter Frost
    @Mark G.

    "Worker compensation as a percentage of corporate income has been steady since the nineteen forties"

    False


    We noted that worker compensation as a share of GDP topped out in 1970 and has been declining ever since, meanwhile corporate profit share has been increasing. Furthermore, we opined that the reason this has occurred is because there has been a massive supply glut of labor in the United States.
     
    https://seekingalpha.com/article/3821196-corporate-profits-vs-worker-compensation-who-will-win-out-part-ii

    I could cite many more studies on this point. Worker incomes have stagnated since the 1970s despite economic growth. The top 1% have been taking an increasingly larger share of the pie.

    As for CEO salaries, opinion among economists is divided:

    The three decades starting with the 1980s saw a dramatic rise in executive pay relative to that of an average worker's wage in the United States,[2] and to a lesser extent in a number of other countries. Observers differ as to whether this rise is a natural and beneficial result of competition for scarce business talent that can add greatly to stockholder value in large companies, or a socially harmful phenomenon brought about by social and political changes that have given executives greater control over their own pay.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation

    Keep in mind that a lot of money has been invested to justify CEO pay:

    A study of more than 1,000 US companies over six years finds “strong empirical evidence” that executive compensation consultants have been hired as a “justification device” for higher CEO pay.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation

    I am wary of studies by American economists because so many of them work as consultants and are in an obvious conflict of interest. A German study concluded that the increase in CEO pay is not explained by an increase in the market value of their work:

    Based on unique panel data evidence of the 500 largest firms in Germany in the period 1977-2009 we test two prominent hypothesis in the literature on executive pay: the manager power hypothesis and the efficient pay hypothesis. We find support for the manager power hypothesis for Germany as executives tend to be rewarded when the sector is doing well rather than the firm they work for. We reject, however, the efficient pay hypothesis as CEO pay and the demand for managers increases in Germany in difficult times when the typical firm size shrinks.
     
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2020250

    Replies: @Mark G.

    “Worker compensation as a percentage of corporate income has been steady since the nineteen forties”

    False

    Worker compensation has averaged around 63 % of corporate income since the nineteen forties.
    See the chart “employee compensation & corporate profits” in the article below.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/09/myth-corporate-profits-matt-palumbo/

  57. Here’s the graph. It speaks for itself.

    Yes, if we go back to the 1940s we see a similar situation. That was a time when wages were controlled because of the war effort. Using the 1940s as a baseline is an exercise in comparing apples and oranges

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Peter Frost

    That chart seems a tad misleading (at least on a visual/gestalt basis), because it uses such different scales for the left and right axes.

    Eyeballing the chart, profits have gone from around 4% to 9% of GDP. While wages have gone from 53% to 45%.

    So compared to 50 years ago, corporate earnings are getting an extra 5% of GDP, while wages lost 8% of the GDP. That's significant no doubt. But it doesn't seem like a total sea change in economic distribution.

    And where's the other 45% or so of the GDP that isn't returns to capital or labor? I suppose it must be "government." Government transfers and entitlements have obviously exploded since 1970, so those probably more than make up for the 8% percentage points of GDP not going to individuals as wages.

    Replies: @Peter Frost

  58. @Prof. Woland
    Another factoid about living in the Bay Area is that health insurance costs are surprisingly less expensive than many 'rural' areas or smaller metropolitan areas. It is a magnet for highly educated people and as a consequence there is a goodly number of physicians so the supply and demand is not out of wack. For many doctors who are educated and can choose, living in the boonies is like getting sent to hell. Often, they go to where they were sent to do a residency and then get out asap. If you ever look at medical journals, the full page adds in the prime spots are all reserved for some specialist position that a rural country hospital is begging for. They will pay a king's ransom because it is the only way to get the talent. Worse, they often the the bottom of the barrel in terms of who they get to work for them.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Paleo Liberal, @Anon

    There are always great specialists from the Caribbean, India, Pakistan, Bengladesh and Nigeria.

  59. @lhtness
    I recall that Steve Sailer has hypothesized that the causal arrow is the other way around: Being able to expand in 360° lowers housing prices than only 180°. Lower cost of living means more babies, and becoming a parent makes people more conservative.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @Audacious Epigone

    I recall that Steve Sailer has hypothesized that the causal arrow is the other way around: Being able to expand in 360° lowers housing prices than only 180°. Lower cost of living means more babies, and becoming a parent makes people more conservative.

    There is something about living on your own large-ish piece of property, separated from your neighbors and driving your own car wherever you want to go, that makes you feel self-sufficient and hence more likely to be conservative. OTOH, living on top of other people in a crowded city makes people feel dependent on the government to keep them safe, get them to work on the subway, maintain all the common spaces, and generally manage everything.

    Here’s an interesting article from 2015 that pairs each state’s cost of living (including taxes) with its median income to get a per capita “purchasing power” for each state. The red states look pretty attractive under this analysis. New York and California on the other hand look rich on paper. But adjusted for cost, they are poorer than Tennessee and Alabama, respectively.

    https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/adjusting-state-incomes-for-taxes-and-price-levels-may-change-our-perceptions-of-which-us-states-are-poor-or-rich/

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  60. @Peter Frost
    Here's the graph. It speaks for itself.

    https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2016/02/05021952/20121204-graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline-5.png?w=1280&h=1280&fit=max

    Yes, if we go back to the 1940s we see a similar situation. That was a time when wages were controlled because of the war effort. Using the 1940s as a baseline is an exercise in comparing apples and oranges

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    That chart seems a tad misleading (at least on a visual/gestalt basis), because it uses such different scales for the left and right axes.

    Eyeballing the chart, profits have gone from around 4% to 9% of GDP. While wages have gone from 53% to 45%.

    So compared to 50 years ago, corporate earnings are getting an extra 5% of GDP, while wages lost 8% of the GDP. That’s significant no doubt. But it doesn’t seem like a total sea change in economic distribution.

    And where’s the other 45% or so of the GDP that isn’t returns to capital or labor? I suppose it must be “government.” Government transfers and entitlements have obviously exploded since 1970, so those probably more than make up for the 8% percentage points of GDP not going to individuals as wages.

    • Replies: @Peter Frost
    @Hypnotoad666

    "wages lost 8% of the GDP. That’s significant no doubt. But it doesn’t seem like a total sea change in economic distribution."

    Actually, it has been a big change.

    https://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/real-gdp-per-capita-median-weekly-earnings-1980-2013.png

    "And where’s the other 45% or so of the GDP that isn’t returns to capital or labor?I suppose it must be “government.” "

    You're forgetting things like rental income, net interest and business current transfer payments. Total government spending (federal, state, municipal) is about 38%.

  61. It’s because labor costs are lower in red states, which is not a good thing. The other factor is a lower population density.

  62. Would be interesting to find the proportion of public-sector tax-thieves in each state’s labour market (the average public-sector salary is always ~1.2× the private equivalent).

    In multi-regional CGE models that we worked with in the 1990s, it was a ‘stylised fact’ that relative prices were higher in places that had high proportions of bureaucrats – slightly confounded by the fact that most senior bureaucrats live in highly-urbanised, high-density areas.

    My prior would be that there ain’t a lot of high-end welfare-queens (senior bureaucrats and their camp-followers) in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama or Tennessee.

    Michigan at #5 is a slight surprise.

  63. @A123
    Why do Globalist Dems back the $15/hr minimum wage?

    -- Are they simply out of touch? Elitists from the highest cost, over developed locales.
    -- Is it a deliberate attack on 'Red State' employment?
    -- Or, could it be intended to keep low information voters on the government dole? Those who depend on handouts are reliable DNC voters.

    _______

    The consequences of $15/hr minimum wage are clear. Robots become more capable every year: (1)

    Former McDonald's CEO ... Ed Rensi claimed that a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour would result in "job loss like you can't believe" before ceding ground to our new robotic overlords. "I was at the National Restaurant Show yesterday, and if you look at the robotic devices that are coming into the restaurant industry—it’s cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who’s inefficient making $15 an hour bagging French fries."
     
    How many shops offer "pre-order apps"? Accepting orders electronically, with pick-up time & prepay, allows the store to eliminate interaction with a human at a cash register.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @iffen, @RadicalCenter

    Tax the value created by non-human equipment and means, including robots, computers, touchscreens, software, artificial intelligence. Distribute the revenue to every US Citizen as a universal basic income,

    Own all oil, gas, mineral resources in common and distribute that revenue as a UBI as well.

    The current trajectory will make almost all of us serfs with no bargaining power. No economic independence from huge concentrations of capital. That is particularly frightening when the capital is largely owned by hostile or indifferent amoral people who do not share our race, religion, values, history, or culture — and are often hateful or resentful towards us because of OUR race or history.

  64. @Hypnotoad666
    @Peter Frost

    That chart seems a tad misleading (at least on a visual/gestalt basis), because it uses such different scales for the left and right axes.

    Eyeballing the chart, profits have gone from around 4% to 9% of GDP. While wages have gone from 53% to 45%.

    So compared to 50 years ago, corporate earnings are getting an extra 5% of GDP, while wages lost 8% of the GDP. That's significant no doubt. But it doesn't seem like a total sea change in economic distribution.

    And where's the other 45% or so of the GDP that isn't returns to capital or labor? I suppose it must be "government." Government transfers and entitlements have obviously exploded since 1970, so those probably more than make up for the 8% percentage points of GDP not going to individuals as wages.

    Replies: @Peter Frost

    “wages lost 8% of the GDP. That’s significant no doubt. But it doesn’t seem like a total sea change in economic distribution.”

    Actually, it has been a big change.

    “And where’s the other 45% or so of the GDP that isn’t returns to capital or labor?I suppose it must be “government.” ”

    You’re forgetting things like rental income, net interest and business current transfer payments. Total government spending (federal, state, municipal) is about 38%.

  65. @Intelligent Dasein
    With some exceptions, the affordable states are known mainly as producers of agricultural, industrial, forestry, petroleum, or mining products. The expensive states are contain the urban hubs for the academic, tech, and medical fields. Urban living makes the price go up; vast artificial conurbations make the price go up a lot; and two different cultures prevail in the different locales. It's basically the Duck Dynasty states vs. the Richard Florida states.

    I stayed for several months in Oklahoma once, at Tinker AFB, as a guest of a friend of mine who was in the service. It truly is an undiscovered gem. The cost of living is absurdly low, there are gun stores on every corner, and everywhere you look there are beautiful women. But the wages are correspondingly as low as the prices and the area is frequently beset by tornadoes, ice storms, hail, floods, and sweltering heat. Perhaps that helps to keep it from becoming gentrified by progressive swipples. If so, not a bad price to pay.

    Replies: @Znzn, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Audacious Epigone, @Mikey D.

    Indeed.

    The metapoint here is that a federal “living wage” would let red state flyover folks live well enough. It wouldn’t do much for the poor denizens of blue states–other than push them out. In a lot of cases, I think that’s the point.

  66. @lhtness
    I recall that Steve Sailer has hypothesized that the causal arrow is the other way around: Being able to expand in 360° lowers housing prices than only 180°. Lower cost of living means more babies, and becoming a parent makes people more conservative.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @Audacious Epigone

    Yes, I think he is correct. I was trying to do my best Sailer impression of obvious ass backwards logic being assumed by the great and the good to be self-evidently true.

  67. @Twinkie
    I don’t think this ranking is very useful, because it confounds urban vs. rural differences. Sure, Texas is different from CA in the ranking, but Austin is more like San Francisco than the “redder” parts of Texas in terms of median income and COL. I think county-by-country comparison would make more sense.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @res

    Good point. It should be possible to do a similar analysis (COL vs. voting) at a census tract (or similar) level . I don’t know how available the data is though. This page and graphic might be helpful for thinking about this.
    http://www.publicmapping.org/resources/data

    Some ideas for data: https://opendata.stackexchange.com/questions/6645/where-can-i-find-a-cost-of-living-index-by-zip-code

    Regarding the state data, this site has 2020 COL numerical data (including DC) downloadable as CSV. One nice feature is it breaks COL down by category. As an example, you can see that Colorado is expensive for housing, cheap for utilities, and average for grocery/transportation/misc. So if you have just moved there it might seem expensive, while simultaneously seeming affordable to longer term residents.
    http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/cost-of-living-index-by-state/

    AE, are you game to add DC to your data and show a scatterplot? I think that would be more informative than the list. I could do it myself, but it would be more fun to discuss here. And the COL breakdown would allow more informed discussion about that aspect of the data.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @res

    I'd have to look at the source data directly. I pulled this from a write up that just cardinally ranked the states. So maybe!

  68. @Mr. Rational
    @Prof. Woland

    This is very likely because the med schools don't like to admit "hicks", though they'll take all kinds of lower-performing "diversity".  If they trained people with roots in the area they could probably get them to go back.

    Replies: @res

    Interesting point. Has anyone ever done a study of that? It seems likely to be true, but I suspect the few “hicks” med schools (and elite colleges) admit are types more likely to leave their local area anyway.

    Here is one approach to the problem.
    https://www.voanews.com/archive/small-towns-sponsor-their-own-doctors

    • Thanks: Mr. Rational
  69. Anonymous[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    @Thomm

    Thomm,

    One doesn't have to be a socialist to believe that the minimum wage is necessary. Employers are much less numerous than employees, so the opportunities for collusion are much greater among them. That's why we have downward price rigidity and upward wage rigidity. Collective bargaining was an attempt to redress the balance, but only 10% of American workers are unionized.

    Most American workers are paid less than the market value of their work. This is shown by the apparent contradiction of labor shortages in industries where wage growth is nonetheless sluggish. In theory, the price of labor should rise until a new equilibrium is established between supply and demand. But that's not happening.

    Conversely, most CEOs are paid more than the market value of their work. For the past fifty years, the difference between average CEO pay and average worker pay has been widening. How come? Is it because CEOs have become better at their jobs? Or is it because globalization has tilted the playing field in their favor?

    Replies: @Mark G., @Anonymous

    Most American workers are paid less than the market value of their work. This is shown by the apparent contradiction of labor shortages in industries where wage growth is nonetheless sluggish. In theory, the price of labor should rise until a new equilibrium is established between supply and demand. But that’s not happening.

    As the price of labor rose, some businesses and industries would go out of business as they would no longer be able to afford the cost of labor.

    The new equilibrium could be one in which unemployment is high because the cost of labor is high.

    This is sort of the case in Europe which has had relatively high unemployment for decades. Generous welfare benefits and high minimum wage in Europe have meant that employers have to offer a high wage to employ labor.

  70. @Mark G.
    It seems like you would want to be looking at average incomes and cost of living both at the same time. The Trulia organization once made up a list of the 25 cities with the highest incomes and another list of the 25 cities with the lowest housing costs. The only city on both lists was my hometown of Indianapolis. That's why I stay here. You can get a decent apartment here for a quarter of the average salary here. The exact same apartment might take half instead of a quarter of your income in a city like San Francisco. That would seriously affect your overall standard of living since you wouldn't have much left over for everything else.

    Thirty years ago there was a migration of people I knew from Indiana to California. Recently there has been a reverse migration back from California to here. They complain about the traffic jams, the high housing costs, the homeless and so on back in California. Most of the people I knew who moved out to California thirty years ago were liberals who didn't like how conservative Indiana was. Once they got there they then voted for the liberal politicians who helped bring California to the state it is in today. Rather than face the consequences of what they had done they all jumped ship and headed back here.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Audacious Epigone

    You could make a funny stand up bit out of that.

    “These racists say ‘we can’t let Mexicans come over here. They’ll just vote for what they had in Mexico, and we don’t want that.’ The good people–all you out there–you know that’s not true. It’s xenophobic. It’s something that oaf Trump would spew. And you say so. And you say so! But then–and this is the thing, this is the thing–you move from California–because it’s broke and there are bums on the street and a shack costs a million bucks–you move from California out to Idaho. To Idaho! And you know what you do as soon as you get to rustic, rural, Republican Idaho? You vote a straight ticket for the same people who made California the nightmare you just ran away from! You turn that best kept secret, Idaho, into California. And you wonder why your new neighbors hate you!”

  71. @ananonymouscoward
    Which source dataset did the CoL ranking come from? I'm hard-put to believe that West Virginia has a higher CoL than the top 19 states as given. Thanks.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  72. @Anonymous
    @Clive Beaconsfield

    Well, duh.

    If you were an IQ 130 SWPL who went to Tufts medical school, would YOU want to live in rural Kentucky where the women are fat stupid single mothers, and there are no high IQ men to be friends with? Where there isn't a Whole Foods, or any world class museums or art galleries? Where the only weekend social activities revolve around some disgustingly prole fundamentalist Christian church where half the attendees have meth mouth? Where the schools, despite being 90-100% White, are full of dumb prole kids who watch their mothers shoot up heroin every day?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Audacious Epigone

    Kevin Williamson found the Unz Review.

  73. @indocon
    A better way to look at living wage is to divide average earnings by average cost of living index, by doing that it's not a surprise that a place like Minnesota is at the top of the list.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Agree. Steve Sailer did this several years ago.

    In this particular context, though, I was thinking about how a (nationwide nominal) living wage would go over across the country.

  74. @Cloudbuster
    @Nodwink

    ... he says, in the midst of the most egalitarian, humane just society in human history.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Media renders it difficult for most people to appreciate that, though. Spend time scrolling through Instagram, and it’s easy to think everyone is smarter than you, wealthier than you, happier than you, better looking than you, etc–because in the course of a minute, you came across a genius, a rich uncle pennybags, a bodhisattva, and an adonis. Never mind that they are only four people out of over seven billion. Your Dunbar brain isn’t optimized for understanding that.

  75. @res
    @Twinkie

    Good point. It should be possible to do a similar analysis (COL vs. voting) at a census tract (or similar) level . I don't know how available the data is though. This page and graphic might be helpful for thinking about this.
    http://www.publicmapping.org/resources/data

    http://www.publicmapping.org/_/rsrc/1297184034379/resources/data/census%20geography.jpg

    Some ideas for data: https://opendata.stackexchange.com/questions/6645/where-can-i-find-a-cost-of-living-index-by-zip-code

    Regarding the state data, this site has 2020 COL numerical data (including DC) downloadable as CSV. One nice feature is it breaks COL down by category. As an example, you can see that Colorado is expensive for housing, cheap for utilities, and average for grocery/transportation/misc. So if you have just moved there it might seem expensive, while simultaneously seeming affordable to longer term residents.
    http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/cost-of-living-index-by-state/

    AE, are you game to add DC to your data and show a scatterplot? I think that would be more informative than the list. I could do it myself, but it would be more fun to discuss here. And the COL breakdown would allow more informed discussion about that aspect of the data.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    I’d have to look at the source data directly. I pulled this from a write up that just cardinally ranked the states. So maybe!

  76. @Intelligent Dasein
    With some exceptions, the affordable states are known mainly as producers of agricultural, industrial, forestry, petroleum, or mining products. The expensive states are contain the urban hubs for the academic, tech, and medical fields. Urban living makes the price go up; vast artificial conurbations make the price go up a lot; and two different cultures prevail in the different locales. It's basically the Duck Dynasty states vs. the Richard Florida states.

    I stayed for several months in Oklahoma once, at Tinker AFB, as a guest of a friend of mine who was in the service. It truly is an undiscovered gem. The cost of living is absurdly low, there are gun stores on every corner, and everywhere you look there are beautiful women. But the wages are correspondingly as low as the prices and the area is frequently beset by tornadoes, ice storms, hail, floods, and sweltering heat. Perhaps that helps to keep it from becoming gentrified by progressive swipples. If so, not a bad price to pay.

    Replies: @Znzn, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Audacious Epigone, @Mikey D.

    A hail storm will wreck your roof, a leftist infestation will destroy your nation. The former is a lot easier to fix.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS