(09-27-2012 07:41 PM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  Mining coal - Very Mature industry. Low wage
Growing corn - Very mature industry. Low wage
Raising poultry - Very mature industry. Low wage.
Mining petroleum - Very mature industry. Higher wages
Making energy - Technological driven. Can be higher wage.
Making production machinery - Most profits go to the the developer of the technology.
Making sewage/water piping - Very mature industry. Lower wages
Constructing Yucca mountain - Government job
Designing/building Constellation - Government job
Manufacturing consumable goods - Usually mature industry. Declining wages
Tractor/farm equipment manufacturing - Mature industry. Declining wages
Automotive manufacturing - Mature industry (save new technology) - Wages only high in union areas.
Aerospace - Highly governmental supported. Higher wages in Union areas.
Weaponry - Governmental.

All industries in Conservative areas. When you think about it, we run this biotch.

The difference in Liberals and Conservatives; libs need cons, cons don't need libs.

There you go.

(09-27-2012 02:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 01:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 12:57 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 11:57 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I don't think Richard Florida opined that his theory was applicable 100 or even 30 years ago.

Then he has no data to back up his claim, and it's just another exaggerated pretense to promote what he thinks the world should be like. Typical progressive "scholarship."

Then why are the high paying jobs virtually all concentrated in liberal areas. And no engineers making 50k a year working at some plant don't qualify as 'high paying'.

Wow, you've moved the goalposts yet again, AND gotten confused between correlation and causation. All while implicating the oppressive rich as being liberals! Good thing for you you were born into money.

Here's a tip for you though, if you want to win one of these discussions, try being right. It's a big help.

Puhleeze. California will be fine. And will produce the 'next big thing' in technology, science, medicine, or entertainment. Because California attracts talent from everywhere. Lynchburg or Roanoke or Mobile...not so much. Its great that those places can get a plant to manufacture some of the components for the new technologies started in liberal areas...but...know that the vast majority of the money from those new technologies will stay where it is created.

A lot of what is in California was put there before it became hyper-liberal. Look at Hollywood, as liberal as they are, they make most of their movies everyplace else but in Hollywood. The same can be said of the aerospace industry to some degree.

You watch, as more and more people and companies leave California, even the most die hard liberal companies will leave because they're the ones who will be stuck with the tax bill for the crazy liberal agenda.

Bottom line: California is committing suicide and they don't care because there will always be someone around to tax.

(09-27-2012 02:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Puhleeze. California will be fine.

It will be, until it's not. Then we'll hear all sorts of excuses as to why this happened and it's NOT anything like what the critics predicted, even though it's exactly what the critics predicted.

Everyone on this thread said Calif has lots of resources and probably won't disappear tomorrow, or even next year. But things can change in a hurry, and I'm hesitant to go 15-20 years out.

(09-27-2012 07:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 07:41 PM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  Mining coal - Very Mature industry. Low wage
Growing corn - Very mature industry. Low wage
Raising poultry - Very mature industry. Low wage.
Mining petroleum - Very mature industry. Higher wages
Making energy - Technological driven. Can be higher wage.
Making production machinery - Most profits go to the the developer of the technology.
Making sewage/water piping - Very mature industry. Lower wages
Constructing Yucca mountain - Government job
Designing/building Constellation - Government job
Manufacturing consumable goods - Usually mature industry. Declining wages
Tractor/farm equipment manufacturing - Mature industry. Declining wages
Automotive manufacturing - Mature industry (save new technology) - Wages only high in union areas.
Aerospace - Highly governmental supported. Higher wages in Union areas.
Weaponry - Governmental.

All industries in Conservative areas. When you think about it, we run this biotch.

The difference in Liberals and Conservatives; libs need cons, cons don't need libs.

There you go.

And here you go

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/stor...57846600/1

(09-28-2012 06:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 07:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 07:41 PM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  Mining coal - Very Mature industry. Low wage
Growing corn - Very mature industry. Low wage
Raising poultry - Very mature industry. Low wage.
Mining petroleum - Very mature industry. Higher wages
Making energy - Technological driven. Can be higher wage.
Making production machinery - Most profits go to the the developer of the technology.
Making sewage/water piping - Very mature industry. Lower wages
Constructing Yucca mountain - Government job
Designing/building Constellation - Government job
Manufacturing consumable goods - Usually mature industry. Declining wages
Tractor/farm equipment manufacturing - Mature industry. Declining wages
Automotive manufacturing - Mature industry (save new technology) - Wages only high in union areas.
Aerospace - Highly governmental supported. Higher wages in Union areas.
Weaponry - Governmental.

All industries in Conservative areas. When you think about it, we run this biotch.

The difference in Liberals and Conservatives; libs need cons, cons don't need libs.

There you go.

And here you go

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/stor...57846600/1

Of course, because red states generally tend to be MUCH poorer than blue states. I would expect them to have higher growth as we start to exit a recession. Its easier to have income growth when you are poor as dirt than if you are starting with a higher wage base. Once the job market tightens up..then you see the higher income growth shift to red states. But its very hard for a low wage state focused on mature industries to catch a high wage blue state.

Leaving legal issues aside, would some liberal explain the moral justification for someone in fiscally responsible North Dakota or New Hampshire being forced to bail out fiscally irresponsible California or Illinois?

Please don't say anything stupid like "We're all in this together" or "It's only fair".

just give us your money already white boy

Come take it, black boy.

(09-28-2012 10:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Leaving legal issues aside, would some liberal explain the moral justification for someone in fiscally responsible North Dakota or New Hampshire being forced to bail out fiscally irresponsible California or Illinois?

Please don't say anything stupid like "We're all in this together" or "It's only fair".

There is no good reason. But Pelosi was speaker for a while and that will get money sent to Cali, and any president who wants votes wouldn't completely ignore a state (unless we're talking about Obama and Texas)

This country really needs to require all of its states to pass a balanced budget. It's kind of hard to do that when there's no example from Washington.

(09-28-2012 10:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Leaving legal issues aside, would some liberal explain the moral justification for someone in fiscally responsible North Dakota or New Hampshire being forced to bail out fiscally irresponsible California or Illinois?

Please don't say anything stupid like "We're all in this together" or "It's only fair".

Actually its pretty well documented that Blue states heavily subsidize red states as far as tax reciepts vs tax payments.

ND and Wyoming are helped by the fact that they have massive energy revenues in relation to their population. They aren't representative of other states.

(09-29-2012 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually its pretty well documented that Blue states heavily subsidize red states as far as tax reciepts vs tax payments.

I'm not at all certain that's actually the case. There are a bunch of charts and graphs out there purporting to show that, but none of them ever seem to be accompanied by any description of what the methodology and assumptions were. And without those, the charts themselves are meaningless.

I'm not just making this point to be contrary. There are a number of potentially very significant methodological issues that could skew the results dramatically. Do you know what the methodology and assumptions used in any of them were?

(09-29-2012 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2012 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually its pretty well documented that Blue states heavily subsidize red states as far as tax reciepts vs tax payments.

I'm not at all certain that's actually the case. There are a bunch of charts and graphs out there purporting to show that, but none of them ever seem to be accompanied by any description of what the methodology and assumptions were. And without those, the charts themselves are meaningless.

I'm not just making this point to be contrary. There are a number of potentially very significant methodological issues that could skew the results dramatically. Do you know what the methodology and assumptions used in any of them were?

It actually is releated to the income levels in red states vs blue states. Most of the high PCI states are blue states. The poorest states tend to be red states. Entitlements also help fund red states, which tend to have larger numbers of the very poor.

Its funny in a way, the GOP plan to destroy entitlement spending will have dire consequences for their states.

(09-29-2012 04:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-29-2012 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2012 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually its pretty well documented that Blue states heavily subsidize red states as far as tax reciepts vs tax payments.

I'm not at all certain that's actually the case. There are a bunch of charts and graphs out there purporting to show that, but none of them ever seem to be accompanied by any description of what the methodology and assumptions were. And without those, the charts themselves are meaningless.
I'm not just making this point to be contrary. There are a number of potentially very significant methodological issues that could skew the results dramatically. Do you know what the methodology and assumptions used in any of them were?

It actually is releated to the income levels in red states vs blue states. Most of the high PCI states are blue states. The poorest states tend to be red states. Entitlements also help fund red states, which tend to have larger numbers of the very poor.
Its funny in a way, the GOP plan to destroy entitlement spending will have dire consequences for their states.

Number one, I don't think conservatives look at it that way, they care about individuals not states.

Number two, I'm still not convinced by the studies that flash up a nice graphic with no explanation. There are some serious issues about how a number of things are counted.

Number three, I don't think conservatives see those consequences as being nearly so dire as you do.

(09-28-2012 10:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  just give us your money already white boy

So you're incompetent and you can't compete in a free market. You need the force of government to transfer wealth from those who earned it to you so you can pay your bills.

You're pathetic.

(09-28-2012 10:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  just give us your money already white boy

It is a phrase she uses a lot in her line of work.

(09-27-2012 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Then why are the high paying jobs virtually all concentrated in liberal areas. And no engineers making 50k a year working at some plant don't qualify as 'high paying'.

Unless they get a raise, and those "high payed" bastards should be taxed 40% of that.

Right? Do I need to search quotes from that thread Tom?

(09-29-2012 10:27 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(09-28-2012 10:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  just give us your money already white boy

So you're incompetent and you can't compete in a free market. You need the force of government to transfer wealth from those who earned it to you so you can pay your bills.

You're pathetic.

WEALTH = societal value. Yes, that is exactly how this works.

Honestly, your @sshole must be jealous of the awful sh*t your mouth gets to spew.

(09-29-2012 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2012 04:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-29-2012 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2012 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually its pretty well documented that Blue states heavily subsidize red states as far as tax reciepts vs tax payments.

I'm not at all certain that's actually the case. There are a bunch of charts and graphs out there purporting to show that, but none of them ever seem to be accompanied by any description of what the methodology and assumptions were. And without those, the charts themselves are meaningless.
I'm not just making this point to be contrary. There are a number of potentially very significant methodological issues that could skew the results dramatically. Do you know what the methodology and assumptions used in any of them were?

It actually is releated to the income levels in red states vs blue states. Most of the high PCI states are blue states. The poorest states tend to be red states. Entitlements also help fund red states, which tend to have larger numbers of the very poor.
Its funny in a way, the GOP plan to destroy entitlement spending will have dire consequences for their states.

Number one, I don't think conservatives look at it that way, they care about individuals not states.

Number two, I'm still not convinced by the studies that flash up a nice graphic with no explanation. There are some serious issues about how a number of things are counted.

Number three, I don't think conservatives see those consequences as being nearly so dire as you do.

Seen this in multiple places and articles.

Here is a link to what looks like a research versus political site:

http://www.nemw.org/index.php/resources-...l-funds/42

Yes, I see a few methodological problems there, and the description is not sufficiently detailed to determine whether there might be others.