Some economic facts that can help America avoid failure

How California Became France
Unable to afford a welfare state and unable to reform
By MATTHEW KAMINSKI
Sacramento, Calif.

As California goes, says an old cliché, so goes the nation. Oh my.

These days, the Golden State leads the nation on economic and fiscal dysfunction, from the empty homes spread across the Central Valley to the highest state budget shortfall in the nation's history. Meanwhile, its political class pioneers denial in the face of catastrophe.

The spark for the immediate political crisis was a familiar Californian discovery, a fiscal hole of $41 billion. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared an "emergency" in November and took legislative leaders behind closed doors to hammer out a compromise. The budget adopted in a marathon session this week splits the baby, closing the deficit with spending cuts (hated by the left) and tax hikes (ditto the right), all the while largely failing to tackle the state's built-in structural defects.

Some parts of the deal, such as borrowing from future lottery receipts, may yet collapse at the ballot in May, and California could soon be back in line to mark another first -- state bankruptcy. In anticipation, Standard & Poor's this month downgraded its bond rating a notch below Louisiana's.

Even discounting for the impact of global recession, the most populous state's ills are unique and self-inflicted -- and avoidable. In the last three decades, California expanded the public sector and regulation to Europe-like dimensions. Schools, state employees, health care, even dog kennels, benefited from largesse in flush times. Government workers got 16 official holidays, everyone else six. The state dabbled with universal health care and adopted strict environmental standards. In short, California went where our new president and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco want America to go.

Full Story

Now lets take a look at some facts I got from CNBC and Retirementliving.com.

The states with the highest cost of living:
1. Hawaii
2. Calif
3. N.J.
4. Alaska
5. N.Y.
6. Md.
7. Conn
8. R.I.
9. Mass
10. Vt.

The states with the highest residential tax burden:
1. N.J.
2. N.Y.
3. Conn
4. Md.
5. Hawaii
6. Calif
7. Ohio
8. Vt.
9. Wis.
10. R.I.

Notice that with the exception of Ohio and Wisconsin, the states that impose the most taxes on their residents, also have the highest cost of living? It doesn't stop their though. For a state to run successfully and avoid ending up like California, they must provide a business friendly environment that entices large corporations to set up shop there. That's what creates jobs for the people, and generates the necessary income for the state to function properly. That means less corporate taxes, less regulation and an affordable work force. Not surprisingly, California ranks as one of the most expensive states to conduct business in, as well as one of the most regulated.

The states that are most costly to conduct business in:
1. N.Y.
2. Hawaii
3. Calif
4. Conn
5. R.I.
6. N.J.
7. Ill
8. Maine
9. Fla.
10. Mass

The states that are least friendly to business based on regulations and litigation:
1. W.V.
2. Hawaii
3. Calif
4. R.I.
5. N.M.
6. Montana
7. Miss
8. Ohio
9. N.Y.
10. Louisiana

Notice that many of the same states seem to pop up on these lists? California, NY, Hawaii, and R.I. are on every one, with N.J., Mass, Md, and Vt. on at least half of them. Why is that?

The reason these states have a higher cost of living, higher taxes, and are the least business friendly states in the union, all boils down to one common factor... The political ideology of their elected officials.


Here is a list of the most liberal states in the union, based on the political makeup of their lawmakers:
1. Mass.
2. N.J.
3. R.I.
4. Hawaii
5. Calif.
6. Md.
7. Vt.
8. Wis.
9. N.Y.
10. N.M.

So, if you didn't figure it out after reading the article about the demise of California, I'm sure you now have a clear picture of why embracing liberal economic policies is a recipe for disaster. Keep that in mind every time president Obama proposes a new economic plan for America.

Don't allow the country follow in California's footsteps and adopt the same failed liberal policies they did.

Doesn't anyone have anything to say here?

Or should I just assume that everyone is in agreement with what I posted?

Do you have a list of the states that generate the most wealth?

It's one thing to say that it's costly to conduct business in California, and that they are unfriendly towards businesses, but how does that actually translate into whether or not businesses tend to flourish or fail there?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, do you have stats on which states are doing the most for the economy?

Kazza wrote:Do you have a list of the states that generate the most wealth?

What do you mean by "generate the most wealth"? Wealth for who?

California is $41 billion in the hole, so you can't mean for the state.

It's one thing to say that it's costly to conduct business in California, and that they are unfriendly toward businesses, but how does that actually translate into whether or not businesses tend to flourish or fail there?

What do you mean how does that translate? Why would a company choose to set up shop in a state like California, when it has more costly regulations, more restrictions on how the conduct business, requires higher wages for it's workforce, has higher corporate tax rates, and has a legal system that is litigation friendly, when they can save money by choosing nearly any other state in the union?

I'm sure that any well managed corporation can turn a profit in California, or any other state for that matter. But any well managed corporation is also smart enough to know, they can make more money if they set up shop elsewhere.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, do you have stats on which states are doing the most for the economy?

Are you talking about state surpluses and deficits? If so, here's what I found:

Of the ten most liberal states I listed, all but two (Hawaii and New Mexico) have failing economies that are operating with budget deficits. California is at the bottom of the list, with the worse economy of any state in the union, and R.I., N.J., and New York also rank in the bottom 10.

Of the ten most costly states to conduct business in, only Hawaii has a good economy. I would venture a guess, that the reason Hawaii's economy is so sound, is because of the huge amounts of money generated by tourism.

I hope that was the answers you were looking for.

LOL...

The taxes imposed on certain states in the union pale in comparison to the taxes imposed on Canadians. A friend of mine spent a couple of years in Canada and was begging to return to Cali. He did just that at his earliest convenience. Even after paying for dental, medical and prescription eye care, he still took home more money compared to his Canadian job which paid more per hour.

Americanadian wrote:LOL...

The taxes imposed on certain states in the union pale in comparison to the taxes imposed on Canadians. A friend of mine spent a couple of years in Canada and was begging to return to Cali. He did just that at his earliest convenience. Even after paying for dental, medical and prescription eye care, he still took home more money compared to his Canadian job which paid more per hour.

I know that AC. I mentioned recently somewhere on this forum, how the average Canadian family shells out 45% of it's income to the government. That is a hell of a lot of money, and they don't get a hell of a lot to show for it.

Grim wrote:Notice that with the exception of Ohio and Wisconsin, the states that impose the most taxes on their residents, also have the highest cost of living? It doesn't stop their though. For a state to run successfully and avoid ending up like California, they must provide a business friendly environment that entices large corporations to set up shop there. That's what creates jobs for the people, and generates the necessary income for the state to function properly. That means less corporate taxes, less regulation and an affordable work force. Not surprisingly, California ranks as one of the most expensive states to conduct business in, as well as one of the most regulated.



Notice that many of the same states seem to pop up on these lists? California, NY, Hawaii, and R.I. are on every one, with N.J., Mass, Md, and Vt. on at least half of them. Why is that?

The reason these states have a higher cost of living, higher taxes, and are the least business friendly states in the union, all boils down to one common factor... The political ideology of their elected officials.


Here is a list of the most liberal states in the union, based on the political makeup of their lawmakers:
1. Mass.
2. N.J.
3. R.I.
4. Hawaii
5. Calif.
6. Md.
7. Vt.
8. Wis.
9. N.Y.
10. N.M.

So, if you didn't figure it out after reading the article about the demise of California, I'm sure you now have a clear picture of why embracing liberal economic policies is a recipe for disaster. Keep that in mind every time president Obama proposes a new economic plan for America.

Don't allow the country follow in California's footsteps and adopt the same failed liberal policies they did.

Things look a little different if you take a less selective range of statistics

Top 10 wealthiest states

Here's where the median household income is highest

State Income
Maryland $65,144
New Jersey $64,470
Connecticut $63,422
Hawaii $61,160
Massachusetts $59,963
New Hampshire $59,683
Alaska $59,393
California $56,645
Virginia $56,277
Minnesota $54,023

The states with the lowest median household income

State Income
Montana $40,627
Tennessee $40,315
Kentucky $39,372
Louisiana $39,337
Alabama $38,783
Oklahoma $38,770
Arkansas $36,599
West Virginia $35,059
Mississippi $34,473


Source: U.S. Census Bureau
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/103432/The-Richest-(and-Poorest)-Places-in-the-U.S.?mod=oneclick


And let's take a look at state by state GDP- 1st number is gdp in billions, 2nd is ranking. Taking into account size and other factors, it seems those damned anti-business liberal states aren't doing too bad. New Jersey isn't much bigger than some counties in Texas, and we're a frikkin economic powerhouse !

Alabama 166 25
Alaska 45 45
Arizona 247 17
Arkansas 95 34
California 1,813 1
Colorado 236 20
Connecticut 216 23
Delaware 60 39
District of Columbia 94 (X)
Florida 735 4
Georgia 397 10
Hawaii 62 38
Idaho 51 42
Illinois 610 5
Indiana 246 18
Iowa 129 30
Kansas 117 32
Kentucky 154 27
Louisiana 216 24
Maine 48 43
Maryland 269 15
Massachusetts 352 13
Michigan 382 12
Minnesota 255 16
Mississippi 89 35
Missouri 229 22
Montana 34 46
Nebraska 80 36
Nevada 127 31
New Hampshire 57 41
New Jersey 465 8
New Mexico 76 37
New York 1,103 3
North Carolina 399 9
North Dakota 28 49
Ohio 466 7
Oklahoma 139 29
Oregon 158 26
Pennsylvania 531 6
Rhode Island 47 44
South Carolina 153 28
South Dakota 34 47
Tennessee 244 19
Texas 1,142 2
Utah 106 33
Vermont 25 50
Virginia 383 11
Washington 311 14
West Virginia 58 40
Wisconsin 232 21
Wyoming 32 48
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank28.html


This is curious- The most conservative states based on elected representatives who rail against federal taxation and spending are the ones sucking at the federal teat, taking more out in spending than they pay in. Welfare queens!

number is federal dollars recieved back in aid per dollar paid in with taxes

New Jersey_____ 0.57
New Hampshire_____0.64
Connecticut_____0.65
Minnesota_____0.7
Nevada_____0.7
Illinois_____0.73
California_____0.78
Massachusetts_____0.78
Colorado_____0.8
New York_____0.8
Delaware_____0.82
Wisconsin_____0.84
Michigan_____0.86
Washington_____0.9
Georgia_____0.95
Indiana_____0.96
Texas_____0.98
Florida_____1
Oregon_____1
Ohio_____1.02
Iowa_____1.06
Nebraska_____1.06
Rhode Island_____1.06
Pennsylvania_____1.08
North Carolina_____1.09
Kansas_____1.13
Wyoming_____1.13
Vermont_____1.14
Utah_____1.19
Arizona_____1.23
Tennessee_____1.29
Missouri_____1.31
Idaho_____1.32
Maryland_____1.34
Maine_____1.36
South Carolina_____1.36
Arkansas_____1.47
Louisiana_____1.47
Oklahoma_____1.48
South Dakota_____1.49
Kentucky_____1.52
Hawaii_____1.58
Virginia_____1.58
Montana_____1.6
Alabama_____1.69
North Dakota_____1.75
West Virginia_____1.82
Mississippi_____1.83
Alaska_____1.89
New Mexico_____1.99

http://thelowestdeep.blogspot.com/2004/11/federal-spending-per-tax-dollar-by.html

That's from a blog, but the same info can be found in more reliable sources, I just couldn't copy from them.

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

I've lived in New Jersey more than half my life, so I think I'm well positioned to comment on this particular evil liberal state.The only thing that makes the cost of living so high is real estate and local property taxes. Real Estate prices because of the number of hugely wealthy people who live here, and property taxes because thats how the schools are funded. The high cost of real estate is offset because wages are much higher here than most other states- I've lived in other states and cost of living vs earnings tends to balance out. And the property taxes are well worth it if you live outside one of the older cities and have school age children. There are school districts here that will rival any private school. That's why so many people make their money and raise their children here and then retire to states with cheap real estate and low property taxes. I may well do the same after my daughter graduates.The budget is always a mess in New Jersey, makes no difference whether it's Republicans Tom Keane and Christie Whitman or democrat Jon Corzine. It's a state tradition, just like mob corruption.

You present household income figures, but fail to account for the cost of living, tax rates and availability of jobs. What good is making more money, if you end up giving it to the government and have to pay more money for goods and services? Of the 10 states you listed, all but two of them have failing economies.

Next you present the GDP of each state, which is the amount of revenue a state generates. What you of course fail to do, is mention how much money each state is spending, which is what I did in my post. A state is just like a business. It has to make more money than it spends, or it will go bankrupt.

So nothing you posted changes the fact that the most liberal states in the union, have economies that are on the verge of bankruptcy because of the failed economic policies put in place by liberal democrats.

Just for fun, I'll add another factor I didn't even mention before, which was where people are choosing to live. Wouldn't you agree, that people tend to move to states that offer good jobs and a decent living, and leave states where their aren't a lot of job opportunities and the cost of living is too high?

Well, here are the top 10 states for population growth from 2000-2008 from the census bureau:

1. Nevada
2. Arizona
3. Utah
4. Georgia
5. Idaho
6. Texas
7. Colorado
8. Florida
9. North Carolina
10. South Carolina

Every single one of these are red states, that are legislated by republican majorities using conservative economic policies.

Explain that?

Now here are the states with the lowest unemployment rates:

1 WYOMING
2 NORTH DAKOTA
3 SOUTH DAKOTA
4 UTAH
5 NEBRASKA
6 NEW MEXICO
7 NEW HAMPSHIRE
8 IOWA
9 WEST VIRGINIA
10 OKLAHOMA

Of those 10, all but two are red states. Even the two that aren't (New Mexico and New Hampshire) have flip flopped back and forth over the years.

I admire your effort to try and white wash the facts using half ass statistics, but just like the economies of most liberal states, you've failed.

You are both failing to take into account population. For instance it's easy for Wyoming to keep a low unemployment rate as it is the least populated state in the country. We're still losing jobs here, the natural gas companies are laying off people left and right. And to be entirely honest, just about any job outside of the energy industry in Wyoming isn't enough to support a family here. The pay is so low here for normal jobs, if I were to drive 45 minutes away into Utah, I would get paid $4+ more an hour to do the job I've gone to school for. (Which is why we're considering moving back to Utah, despite state income tax.) The cost of living here has been driven higher by the natural gas industry, but for those who live here and don't work in the industry they struggle to survive, often having to use government assistance to make it. (There is a TON of income restricted housing in the area, which made it very difficult to rent since my husband is in the natural gas industry.)

Sure, we may have low unemployment, and fiscally we may be OK, but we have our own share of problems. As does Utah - which IMO mixes state and religion more than it should.

Grim wrote:You present household income figures, but fail to account for the cost of living, tax rates and availability of jobs. What good is making more money, if you end up giving it to the government and have to pay more money for goods and services?

I most certainly did address it. Go back and reread my post.

Grim wrote:Next you present the GDP of each state, which is the amount of revenue a state generates. What you of course fail to do, is mention how much money each state is spending, which is what I did in my post. A state is just like a business. It has to make more money than it spends, or it will go bankrupt.

30 of the 50 states are running deficits, it's not a red-blue/conservative-liberal issue.
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1016947
Interestingly your conservative, Republican majority state of Arizonas deficit is a higher % of general funds than little old NJ. So not only are you a bunch of hypocritical welfare queens who suck out more from the Feds than you pay in, you're fiscally irresponsible on top of it.

Well, here are the top 10 states for population growth from 2000-2008 from the census bureau:

1. Nevada
2. Arizona
3. Utah
4. Georgia
5. Idaho
6. Texas
7. Colorado
8. Florida
9. North Carolina
10. South Carolina

Well, since these are the retirement meccas that people from the wealthy northeast and west coast states retire to for cheap real estate and low property taxes as I mentioned previously, thank you for reinforcing my point.

Grim wrote:Now here are the states with the lowest unemployment rates:

1 WYOMING
2 NORTH DAKOTA
3 SOUTH DAKOTA
4 UTAH
5 NEBRASKA
6 NEW MEXICO
7 NEW HAMPSHIRE
8 IOWA
9 WEST VIRGINIA
10 OKLAHOMA

Of those 10, all but two are red states. Even the two that aren't (New Mexico and New Hampshire) have flip flopped back and forth over the years.

Those are all low population states with significant percentages of the populations involved in agriculture. They're not counted in unemployment statistics, hence the low rates.It has nothing to do with state fiscal policy

Grim wrote:I admire your effort to try and white wash the facts using half ass statistics, but just like the economies of most liberal states, you've failed.

Well thank you. And I admire your attempts to make reality conform to your radical ideology, but you have failed. Miserably.

Excuses... That's all you liberals do is make excuses.

Liberal economic policies are a monumental failure. All you have to do is look at the economies of liberal states vs. conservative states to understand this.

The most liberal, tree hugging state in the union is California. They model themselves after socialist European countries like France, and have adopted similar economic policies. Because of those liberal economic policies they have imposed over the years, they find themselves in complete financial destruction.

The reason is simple... The socialist/liberal approach to running an economy doesn't work!

Grim17 wrote:Excuses... That's all you liberals do is make excuses.

Liberal economic policies are a monumental failure. All you have to do is look at the economies of liberal states vs. conservative states to understand this.

The most liberal, tree hugging state in the union is California. They model themselves after socialist European countries like France, and have adopted similar economic policies. Because of those liberal economic policies they have imposed over the years, they find themselves in complete financial destruction.

The reason is simple... The socialist/liberal approach to running an economy doesn't work!

I think you're a pretty intelligent person. You can do alot better than this post. Unless you don't have anymore valid arguments to put forward, and this is just your way of bitterly conceding defeat.

thomasjay wrote:

Grim17 wrote:Excuses... That's all you liberals do is make excuses.

Liberal economic policies are a monumental failure. All you have to do is look at the economies of liberal states vs. conservative states to understand this.

The most liberal, tree hugging state in the union is California. They model themselves after socialist European countries like France, and have adopted similar economic policies. Because of those liberal economic policies they have imposed over the years, they find themselves in complete financial destruction.

The reason is simple... The socialist/liberal approach to running an economy doesn't work!

I think you're a pretty intelligent person. You can do alot better than this post. Unless you don't have anymore valid arguments to put forward, and this is just your way of bitterly conceding defeat.

There is nothing more to add... I made my case with the facts.

The only thing left to point out, was how some people here refuse to accept that liberal economic policies are a failure, and use half ass statistics to try and prop them up.

It's sad.

You lost, you''re feeling bitter. Get over it

Grim17 wrote:You present household income figures, but fail to account for the cost of living, tax rates and availability of jobs. What good is making more money, if you end up giving it to the government and have to pay more money for goods and services? Of the 10 states you listed, all but two of them have failing economies.

Next you present the GDP of each state, which is the amount of revenue a state generates. What you of course fail to do, is mention how much money each state is spending, which is what I did in my post. A state is just like a business. It has to make more money than it spends, or it will go bankrupt.

So nothing you posted changes the fact that the most liberal states in the union, have economies that are on the verge of bankruptcy because of the failed economic policies put in place by liberal democrats.

Just for fun, I'll add another factor I didn't even mention before, which was where people are choosing to live. Wouldn't you agree, that people tend to move to states that offer good jobs and a decent living, and leave states where their aren't a lot of job opportunities and the cost of living is too high?

Well, here are the top 10 states for population growth from 2000-2008 from the census bureau:

1. Nevada
2. Arizona
3. Utah
4. Georgia
5. Idaho
6. Texas
7. Colorado
8. Florida
9. North Carolina
10. South Carolina

Every single one of these are red states, that are legislated by republican majorities using conservative economic policies.

Explain that?

Now here are the states with the lowest unemployment rates:

1 WYOMING
2 NORTH DAKOTA
3 SOUTH DAKOTA
4 UTAH
5 NEBRASKA
6 NEW MEXICO
7 NEW HAMPSHIRE
8 IOWA
9 WEST VIRGINIA
10 OKLAHOMA

Of those 10, all but two are red states. Even the two that aren't (New Mexico and New Hampshire) have flip flopped back and forth over the years.

I admire your effort to try and white wash the facts using half ass statistics, but just like the economies of most liberal states, you've failed.

They are also the states with the most available land for development...

Grim17 wrote:Excuses... That's all you liberals do is make excuses.

Liberal economic policies are a monumental failure. All you have to do is look at the economies of liberal states vs. conservative states to understand this.

The most liberal, tree hugging state in the union is California. They model themselves after socialist European countries like France, and have adopted similar economic policies. Because of those liberal economic policies they have imposed over the years, they find themselves in complete financial destruction.

The reason is simple... The socialist/liberal approach to running an economy doesn't work!

So why is it that the wealthiest people come from the states you just mentioned?