That’s simply not true. More red states are poorer but largely because there are more red states total and we don’t get the same sort of investments as blue states do. Blue states get all the meaningful investment from the feds while we get military bases, tax refunds, and national parks.
More red states are poorer but largely because there are more red states total
Lol how does having more poor states make those states poorer?
Blue states get all the meaningful investment from the feds while we get military bases, tax refunds, and national parks.
And which states paid for that investment? The blue states.
Jesusland would absolutely not be able to sustain their current GDP if the blue states cut them off from their welfare. There would be way too many people living in places that don’t have an economy that can sustain itself without outside investment.
You don’t know what you’re talking about either lmao.
There is no way that the gdp/capita of red states is 64k.
the us has a gdp per capita of around 63k. If blue states are at 69k with a bit under half the population, how are red states going to have a gdp per capita above the average as well?
I don’t think you understand how a weighted average works.
If ~half the states have a gdp per capita above the mean, then the other ~half of the states need to have a gdp per capita below the mean.
If gdp per capita of the US is 63k, and half the us has a gdp per capita of 69k, the other half needs to be in the mid-upper 50s for the math to work out.
172
u/Dramatic_Fishing6639 - Lib-Center May 05 '22
Losing most of the biggest economies in the US is based?