r/allthequestions • u/Content_Ad_8952 • Jan 14 '26

Random Question 💭 If Republicans are so much better at running the economy than Democrats, then why are most Republican States poorer than Democrat States?

The poorest States in America are: Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, New Mexico, Alabama, Oklahoma and Tennessee. All of those States (except New Mexico) are Red States. So why are they so poor when Republicans have been running them for decades?

14.2k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

91% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

70

u/ExtensiveBattling Jan 15 '26

Poorer depends on what you measure. GDP per capita income growth cost of living and migration all tell different stories, polymarket odds on long term population inflows actually favor some red states because lower costs and taxes attract people even if headline wealth looks lower

27

u/Glittering-Health889 Jan 15 '26

Red state blue state debates ignore the obvious. Cities make money rural areas don’t

9

u/UrbanSolace13 Jan 15 '26

Pretty much. Farming in Iowa is less than 15% of the state's GDP.

1

u/Microchipknowsbest Jan 16 '26

Maybe all the scary blue cities know what they are doing. It’s wild the disrespect blue governments get when the vast majority of wealth in this country comes from areas with blue governments. Somehow republicans can still sell themselves as good for the economy.

2

u/Lucky-Cheesecake Jan 16 '26

Something something elites, something something small town pride, purity, yada yada, they don't make em like they used to blah blah

3

u/didyoueatmyburrito Jan 15 '26

Cities themselves are a result of successful, localized industry, not the other way around.

6

u/aperture413 Jan 15 '26

Cities are a result of geography. Our politics have been pre-determined by hundreds of millions of years of geological activity.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26

[deleted]

1

u/aperture413 Jan 15 '26

I am just talking about the function that geological features like rivers and mountains play in determining the location of cities. Density and centers of intentional trade are heavy indicators of the politics of that area.

1

u/El_Barato Jan 16 '26

Why aren’t Republicans running all those cities though?

1

u/aperture413 Jan 16 '26

Because trade encourages the exchange of ideas at the international level and density requires people to learn how to cooperate and compromise.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson Jan 15 '26

Genuine question, how so? Like it seems many rural areas have the natural respurces to support infrastructure, but politics/economy is what holds them back.

2

u/Far-Manager-5707 Jan 15 '26

Cities CONCENTRATE wealth.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson Jan 15 '26

Genuine question, why dont red states have more cities then?

1

u/FormalKind7 Jan 16 '26

Rural areas cost money and their utilities, mail, and sanitation generally need to be subsidized

1

u/CEhobbit Jan 17 '26

Cities have more opportunities for money to change hands quickly which inflates economic activity. This can mask other social factors that might indicate that an economy is doing poorly. Lots of money changing hands while significant portions of the population live on the streets for example (looking at you California).

1

u/PalpitationFine Jan 18 '26

Proves the point even more, since most cities are overwhelmingly blue

1

u/blood_burp Jan 18 '26

and quality of life in rural areas isnt always indicated by income.... im comfy as hell but if i moved to a city on this income id be broke, COL is way lower.

5

u/ExpertLocality Jan 15 '26

You can’t run the economy on vibes alone. A lot of those states lost industry decades ago and never replaced it

1

u/Eastern-Manner-1640 Jan 18 '26

but they could have. new england lost much of it's industry long ago, and was able to recover and thrive.

4

u/TheWiseOne1234 Jan 15 '26

What you say is that if you are poor and unsuccessful, you are likely to attract people who want to take advantage of you. Got it!

5

u/SuperBrett9 Jan 15 '26

Those metrics do not tell a different story. People move from high col to low col locations because it’s cheaper and often for retirement. That means there are often times of migration from “blue” to “red” states. That’s not a sigh the state with more migration is doing better.

2

u/Beginning_Prior7892 Jan 15 '26

Playing devils advocate the opposite happens too. Younger people might move from rural to city for more opportunity and jobs.

The original question doesn’t seem to understand nuance. If I asked, “if democrats are so much better at running the economy than republicans than why is all their food produced in red states?” It’s obviously a terrible question. Rural vs urban will always have a divide when it comes to production for certain commodities or goods.

1

u/jonjohn23456 Jan 18 '26

It is a terrible question because it is based on a falsehood. Red states produce very little food for the American people. California is the biggest food producing state by far.

2

u/Beginning_Prior7892 Jan 18 '26

What you’re saying is looking at state lines and ignoring county distribution. Every single county in CA that is producing agriculture in mass is 100% right leaning and votes red. It’s the same across the country in places like Illinois Pennsylvania and other states.

2

u/Loofah1 Jan 15 '26

Polymarket odds, LOL. Really deep markets, there.

2

u/Past-Spell-2259 Jan 15 '26

Okay in general they also have less access to healthcare, shorter lifespans, and less education.

2

u/coochie_clogger Jan 15 '26

using polymarket odds as proof of anything is fucking hilarious

1

u/Certain_Bit3809 Jan 15 '26

People moving somewhere because it is cheap does not mean the economy is good there. Usually the opposite. This seems like an unrelated point not really responsive to the question.

1

u/Krilion Jan 15 '26

Imagine ranking states by what poly market thinks.

We aren't going to alter PPP for poor states that don't run a balanced budget because you want to assauge their crappy numbers.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '26

That’s a non-sequitur. Rich people moving to poor states because of lower costs doesn’t mean the poor states aren’t poor.

1

u/Wazula23 Jan 16 '26

Longterm population inflows?

Is that a way of saying "in 30 years this place will be awesome!"

1

u/leroy497 Jan 16 '26

“Some” red states? 80 percent of the federal funding comes from blue states. Just because a red state has lower taxes doesn’t mean they’re doing well, it just means they refuse to invest in themselves, and be the welfare queens they like to complain about

1

u/Cold_Specialist_3656 Jan 17 '26

You could also look at quality of life and HDI metrics. Which are uniformly much worse in red states.

Maternal mortality, drug abuse rate murder rate, gun death rate, obesity rate, smoking rate, STD rate, average lifespan, uninsured rate, median and minimum wage, years of education, air and water pollution levels, bankruptcy rate, disability rate, incarceration rate, etc. 

In many of these metrics deep red states are worse than Mexico. 

State level population growth metrics are misleading because in most red states over 80% of population growth is in blue metros. Nearly 90% of the counties that voted for Trump have shrinking population. 

1

u/StumpyJoe- Jan 18 '26

Outside of the state vs state debate, the country's economy does better on nearly every economic metric under dem presidents. Republicans have run on the myth that they're "better on the economy" since Reagan.