Perhaps compromise might be possible in future generations, cuz it's not a useful word today. Political polarization is pretty impressive worldwide at the moment.
The Democrats in office can barely agree on even basic moves to get public approval, good luck ever getting them to agree on directly harming millions of people just because they don't agree with how they vote.
I'd really like to see a rigorous calculation and explanation behind the decisions, because I think this could be a useful stat for comparing states' fiscal success relative to one another.
For example should the calculations include federal spend on federal employees? It's not really a reflection of the state's actions if the federal government happens to have a big agency headquarters there inflating the 'federal spend'.
It will be even more interesting if the red states then stop sending the blue ones things like food, water, and energy.
It may turn out that those things are more important than simulated pieces of green paper.
Thinking of it state by state is a mistake, though, isn't it? Are "blue" states net contributors to federal tax if "red" citizens move out?
see stuff like this https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/dining/fruit-vegetables-i...
Or if you want the latest raw data from the USDA Economic Research Service, you can grab it here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-u-s-tr...
It's true, many fresh produce foods are imported, but the majority (~80%) of food consumed in the US is domestically produced / grown.
Candy is not a large part of the American diet so it's not really that meaningful to call out its inclusion.
American agriculture is going to be more important than ever in light of the coming (present?) gas crisis. I'm not well informed enough to make a comment on Mexico but I would wager they're likely in a pretty good spot too.
But sure looking at something expensive like candy
About 37billion in sales https://www.foodbeverageinsider.com/market-trends-analysis/u...
Compared to 70ish billion of produce https://theproducenews.com/headlines/produce-department-sale...
That seems significant for all good and beverage sales. Nevermind alcohol, which I'm pretty sure was included in that first 80% number. Look at a supermarket, how much of that is real food. I think my local one has 3-4 aisles of snacks and candy
80% of american food and beverage is significant. And more significant than 20% of it, obviously.
Candy is a pretty small portion of the food people eat even if there's a lot of shelf space on the supermarkets. Most food that people eat are grains and meat, which is largely sourced internally.
The imported stuff is mostly fresh produce which is nice but also not really natural or essential to have year round.
The country doesn’t need this line of thinking and it benefits nobody but Putin.
https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17844
I would like to see how it breaks down by red vs. blue, and I suspect there might be a slight edge for team red, but California in particular fills an important niche of supplying most of the non-grain foods, and can produce food year round.
However California is probably going to lose its status as #1 as aridification continues.
We shouldn't be bragging about punishments of blue vs red at all, because should such a thing occur everyone is going to have a much worse quality of life, blue or red.
Text editors make software, and programmers just mash on keyboards?
There’s a lot more to farming than tending to the land. Crops don’t magically grow. Your simplistic view of it is both insulting to those who farm and dangerous.
Programmers for now do make the software, in that there's a dramatic difference in the ability of a good programmer vs. a mediocre programmer to actually complete a project, and they're compensated accordingly. That'll likely change in a decade or so, though. Then the software will be largely already written, and it'll be maintained by management structures with commodity programmers slotting into roles in the org chart. It's already happening for many roles.
It's a perspective shift from "here's a laborer making a product" to "here's a role for how the product is made, and any number of different laborers could slot into it", and it happens when there are enough people with the skills to make the product that any one of them can slot into it.
"Dollar value" and "calories" are two different things.
California produces a lot of high-dollar-value luxury crops, but doesn't actually produce many of the calories that stand between the population and starvation. It doesn't even produce enough calories to feed itself.
I have no idea what actual percentage of the state's land is farms, but...I'm certainly surrounded by them. Many miles of farmland; plenty, at least, to supply the people around here, if used efficiently.
The idea that "blue states are urban" and "red states are rural" is just plain wrong. There are cities in red states (though some red states don't have any large cities in them), and there's plenty of rural land in blue states.
Welcome to nuance.