Hacker News Reader

Comment by golemotron | Hacker News Reader

The nation is pretty tired of California and NY trying to save it.

Pretty sure California and New York are tired of paying billions of dollars to the Federal government that gets re-distributed to all of the failing Federal welfare states.

If they're so tired, I'm sure they'd be happy to give back the billions of dollars they receive any time now.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-state...

If you want to states to not get federal gov't funds, you're in agreement with the people who think the scope DC should be reduced and states to do more. So now that you're in agreement, get to enacting those changes.

On your other point, I'll just leave this here:

>“How come the white working class uses government programs while railing against handouts?” Because you are the government. They’ll take what they can, but they’ll be damned if they beg for it. “Why are all these hicks voting for authoritarianism?” Exercise some basic cognitive empathy, please. They’re not voting for authoritarianism. They’re voting for fuck you.

https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/159702160399/the-subp...

I think the picture is more complex than donor states and receiver states. As the article below argues, the Rockefeller study that the data comes from has flawed methodology.

New York for example benefits tremendously from its large financial industry that pays a lot in taxes. But arguably the industry is so concentrated in New York today because of federal laws that force the federal reserve to conduct its financial activities only in New York, among other hard coded advantages that the state has lobbied for. In addition, retirees who receive billions in benefits each year from the federal government commonly leave the state in favor of places like Florida, further distorting the picture. Unlike more fiscally prudent states, New York also has billions in tax exempt bonds outstanding that deprive the federal government of revenue but are not counted by the Rockefeller study.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/new-york-is-no-donor-state-...

Ahh, yes.

The WSJ commentary/opinion section. Truly a pinnacle of economic discussion.

I know what you mean but I think think this specific article makes a good case. For example the financial industry concentration in New York and retiree mass emigration really do distort things.

It's because of inequality. California and New York have a higher GINI coefficient than most countries. If high net worth people from those states moved to other states, the transfer payments you are talking about wouldn't happen.

Are you speaking for everyone? I feel like this needs a citation.

The nation is dependent on the money that California and NY put in to the federal tax system. You're welcome.

"A 2017 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that traditional blue states like Connecticut ($15,643), Massachusetts ($13,582), New Jersey ($13,137), New York ($12,820), and California ($10,510), contributed significantly more in federal taxes, per citizen, than traditional red states like Mississippi ($5,740), West Virginia ($6,349), Kentucky ($6,626), and South Carolina ($6,665).

Not only do some states contribute more to the federal budget than others, but some also receive less from the federal government in return. On average, each of our 50 states receives about $1.14 from the federal government for every tax dollar they send to Washington.

This is why our federal government runs a deficit every year. The traditional red states mentioned above, however, receive more — much more. For example, Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar it sends to Washington by way of federal taxes, West Virginia $2.07, Kentucky $1.90, and South Carolina $1.71.

For some large traditional blue states, California receives only 96 cents, Massachusetts 83 cents, Connecticut 82 cents, New York 81 cents, and New Jersey 74 cents for every tax dollar they sent to Washington. The discrepancy is significant."

https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/carroll/opinion/cc-op-...

If states like CA and NY are getting such a raw deal why don't they want to change it?

This tired old trope needs to be taken out back and shot. The net in or out flow from any given state is not enough to substantially impact anything.

Pretty much every state gets back what it puts in plus or minus 10-20%. Considering that each state is putting in a number that is only a small fraction of its GDP the overall difference is negligible. I think most people in the states that are getting paid would consider the economic hit to be a cheap price to pay for removing federal oversight from the things those dollars pay for.

Furthermore, even the poor states are just fine by European standards.[1][2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

I mean red states are more rural which alone would account for more subsidies.

But regardless, seems like you’re all for redistribution of wealth unless it goes to the political “undesirable”?

You just made a great argument against redistribution - it’s too fraught with politics.

> I mean red states are more rural which alone would account for more subsidies.

Yeah, duh, that's their point.

We are strong as a country because our wealthy, dense state economies support our poorer, rural state economies; and that's why it's laughable when red-state citizens and politians rant about seceding from the "evil communist blue states."

By "poor rural" areas you mean the people that grow the food you eat?

Yup! That's not an insult, just reality.

I'm also in favor of returning governance to the stats and we're probably in disagreement about a lot of things. Seems like an easy political win for Washington would be to return power to the states

The nation is pretty tired of people rejecting reality like this.

Yeah let's run the country like Alabama instead. They're doing well! /s

Maybe we should let each state run the way they see fit... you know kind of like how the Constitution assumed things should be done until the Commerce Clause was used by the Federal Government to hammer every state into submission.

States love independence until their power grid fails or they get hit by a hurricane or an international pandemic.

And states love the federal government until they can't get the legislative buy in to enact their pet policies.

There's no free lunch.

Alabama has a higher GDP per capita than Germany, Belgium, Israel, France, Japan, the U.K. and...I could go on.

Alabama is doing well. We live in such an enormously wealthy country that it only looks bad by comparison. But not by comparison to basically anywhere else on Earth.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states...

GDP is, unfortunately, a flawed metric. Or at least an incomplete one.

I greatly doubt the average German, Belgian, Japanese, etc. would want to live in Alabama :-)

Edit:

Another flawed metric, but probably closer to the truth, tells a slightly different story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

Alabama has roughly the same HDI as Cyprus. Cyprus is a nice place, but it's quite a bit behind the countries on your list.

If we try to use the inequality adjusted HDI (which depending on how you look at it, might get us closer to the real situation - or might not), things look even worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequalit...

I can't find the number of Alabama, but considering that it's generally in one of the last places in the US, I can't imagine it being higher than the US average, so I wouldn't be shocked to see it somewhere around Croatia's level.

You realized you just dismissed GDP per capita, a quantitative metric, as too “flawed”, then instead relied on HDI which entirely a made up metric based on subjective measures?

Yes, because money isn't everything. I know (you seem to be American) that this is probably a strange concept :-p

And HDI is still quantitative, it's still a number: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#New_me...

You might not like the magic numbers in the formula or the things they choose to weigh, but GDP is much, much too coarse to evaluate anything about the greater well-being of a population, especially in developed countries.

It’s a really terrible index if you’ve ever dig into the criticisms. It’s doesn’t do a very good job of measuring the things it claims to measure.

So you’ve basically argued against a quantifiable measure that is a major determinant of quality of life and replaced it with something worse?

>Yes, because money isn't everything.

That's the exact same argument people in net tax recipient states use for reducing federal taxation even when it hurts them slightly.

In the very least you'd have to adjust for purchasing power parity and look at the median rather than the mean, to say anything useful about quality of life for normal people.

Yes, I agree. GDP is a very rough measure. I'd prefer PPP, but I couldn't find it for individual states after a cursory search. (I still think most readers will be surprised by Alabama's GDP, relative to wealthy European nations, so it's not totally useless.)

It’s GDP not income so not sure what the median would do since that would ignore any distribution through taxes.

Agreed, PPP would be better, but my cursory search didn't turn up a convenient list like the one I linked for GDP. (This is a bit like the old joke about a guy searching for his keys 20 feet from where he dropped them, because that's where the streetlight is.)

Hahahaha no, Alabama is not doing well...at anything.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/quality-of-...

In response to my claim that Alabama only looks bad by comparison to other U.S. states because of how rich the U.S. is, but that it's in fact a very wealthy place by comparison to everywhere else -- in response to this you offered...a ranking of U.S. states?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com