Regulations are a really big drag on US growth

[EnjoyIt]

I would even go so far as to say the entire department of education needs to be dismantled and funding should go directly to the states allowing states to dictate their education. The one size fits all education process is failing our youth.

OK, finally we've got a concrete answer as to what you want to change.

Can you explain how changing education from the federal level to the state level impacts regulation?  Why will state governments be more efficient at providing the same service?  How much will this change improve US growth?

Given that state legislation has a track record of making poor educational decisions (pretending that Christian religious ideas like creationism are science for example), how do you minimize the growth risk caused by having non-standard education across the country?  Will someone be able to transfer between schools in different states, given that they will have totally different curriculum?  Since some states will be better than others at education, how will you level the playing field regarding employment so that people who graduate from the good states aren't always preferentially treated for job offers . . . or will people born in the bad states just forever be lower earners?

Although there is plenty to speak against the department of education in particular how money is siphoned off from the states, bureaucratically wasted at the federal level before handed back down to the states to be spent on schools.  This funding is even used as leverage to force states to comply with federal wishes.  The only thing the dept of education does that has any value is maybe administer Pell Grants.

In reality it is the job of the government to prove its usefulness to us and not the other way around.

[Glenstache]

Straw men are clearly under-regulated.

[EnjoyIt]

Straw men are clearly under-regulated.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[GuitarStv]

I would even go so far as to say the entire department of education needs to be dismantled and funding should go directly to the states allowing states to dictate their education. The one size fits all education process is failing our youth.

OK, finally we've got a concrete answer as to what you want to change.

Can you explain how changing education from the federal level to the state level impacts regulation?  Why will state governments be more efficient at providing the same service?  How much will this change improve US growth?

Given that state legislation has a track record of making poor educational decisions (pretending that Christian religious ideas like creationism are science for example), how do you minimize the growth risk caused by having non-standard education across the country?  Will someone be able to transfer between schools in different states, given that they will have totally different curriculum?  Since some states will be better than others at education, how will you level the playing field regarding employment so that people who graduate from the good states aren't always preferentially treated for job offers . . . or will people born in the bad states just forever be lower earners?

Although there is plenty to speak against the department of education in particular how money is siphoned off from the states, bureaucratically wasted at the federal level before handed back down to the states to be spent on schools.  This funding is even used as leverage to force states to comply with federal wishes.  The only thing the dept of education does that has any value is maybe administer Pell Grants.

In reality it is the job of the government to prove its usefulness to us and not the other way around.

Bureaucracy does not equal regulation.  Nobody was arguing that it is the job of citizens to provide usefulness to the government.

Did you have any comments to make related to the posts you quoted?  I don't understand what point you're making, or follow how your statements are connected to what was written.

[Chris22]

Interesting article I saw posted to FB this morning that strikes at the heart of the argument IMO:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/26/why-americans-dont-trust-government/?postshare=3951464268844830&tid=ss_tw

Excerpt:

I have an op-ed in the Boston Globe today on infrastructure, addressing the issue of quality rather than quantity of investment. Rachel Lipson, a graduate student at Harvard, and I describe the fiasco that has emerged from what should have been a routine maintenance project on the Anderson Memorial Bridge over the Charles River next to my office in Cambridge. Though the bridge took only 11 months to build in 1912, it will take close to five years to repair today at a huge cost in dollars and mass delays.

Investigating the reasons behind the bridge blunders have helped to illuminate an aspect of American sclerosis — a gaggle of regulators and veto players, each with the power to block or to delay, and each with their own parochial concerns.  All the actors — the  historical commission, the contractor, the environmental agencies, the advocacy groups, the state transportation department — are reasonable in their own terms, but the final result is wildly unreasonable.

At one level this explains why, despite the overwhelming case for infrastructure investment, there is so much resistance from those who think it will be carried out ineptly.

[ariapluscat]

This might be overly specific, but in the case of the bridge the people pushing for pedestrian and bike paths were local people and the people in major institutions who regularly use some historic buildings like the weld house, not federal/state/local regulation employees. That addition of 256 days is not (merely) due to regulations, but instead due to locals delaying the process until the demands were met.
The article makes it sound like we've failed to hold the city of Boston and Cambridge accountable for the delays when some of the delays were because individual residents were holding the cities accountable for walkability and historic needs.

I also think a lot of the regulations the article decries wouldn't apply to building new bridges and infrastructure since the 2/3 delays he cites are only applicable to repairing old historic infrastructure. these delays being due to historic regulation, resident needs / environmental initiative regulation, and a problem found during construction.

[golden1]

Yes, that's a poor example.  Working around existing infrastructure is always more difficult.  Besides, I can give a counterexample from the same area.  If planned properly, you can fix 14 bridges in 10 weekends on a major highway:  http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/12mayjune/03.cfm .  I commuted through this and it went smoothly. 

See, this is the problem with the "evil government" fallacy.  Everyone hears about the failures, and they definitely happen, but rarely about the successes that outnumber them.  If your company only reported the months with poor earnings, you would feel pretty negative about that too. 

[Chris22]

This might be overly specific, but in the case of the bridge the people pushing for pedestrian and bike paths were local people and the people in major institutions who regularly use some historic buildings like the weld house, not federal/state/local regulation employees. That addition of 256 days is not (merely) due to regulations, but instead due to locals delaying the process until the demands were met.
The article makes it sound like we've failed to hold the city of Boston and Cambridge accountable for the delays when some of the delays were because individual residents were holding the cities accountable for walkability and historic needs.

I also think a lot of the regulations the article decries wouldn't apply to building new bridges and infrastructure since the 2/3 delays he cites are only applicable to repairing old historic infrastructure. these delays being due to historic regulation, resident needs / environmental initiative regulation, and a problem found during construction.

Why should individuals be able to do that though?

[GuitarStv]

This might be overly specific, but in the case of the bridge the people pushing for pedestrian and bike paths were local people and the people in major institutions who regularly use some historic buildings like the weld house, not federal/state/local regulation employees. That addition of 256 days is not (merely) due to regulations, but instead due to locals delaying the process until the demands were met.
The article makes it sound like we've failed to hold the city of Boston and Cambridge accountable for the delays when some of the delays were because individual residents were holding the cities accountable for walkability and historic needs.

I also think a lot of the regulations the article decries wouldn't apply to building new bridges and infrastructure since the 2/3 delays he cites are only applicable to repairing old historic infrastructure. these delays being due to historic regulation, resident needs / environmental initiative regulation, and a problem found during construction.

Why should individuals be able to do that though?

Sometimes decisions are made that affect individuals.  While it may slow down the whole process of building something, it's heartening to know that there is some recourse for these people.

Let's say that your city wanted to build a subway, and they needed to appropriate your land for the construction.  Would you prefer that they simply cut you a cheque for the current value of the land they're going to take and move the bulldozers in, or would you prefer that some discussion happens?

[Chris22]

This might be overly specific, but in the case of the bridge the people pushing for pedestrian and bike paths were local people and the people in major institutions who regularly use some historic buildings like the weld house, not federal/state/local regulation employees. That addition of 256 days is not (merely) due to regulations, but instead due to locals delaying the process until the demands were met.
The article makes it sound like we've failed to hold the city of Boston and Cambridge accountable for the delays when some of the delays were because individual residents were holding the cities accountable for walkability and historic needs.

I also think a lot of the regulations the article decries wouldn't apply to building new bridges and infrastructure since the 2/3 delays he cites are only applicable to repairing old historic infrastructure. these delays being due to historic regulation, resident needs / environmental initiative regulation, and a problem found during construction.

Why should individuals be able to do that though?

Sometimes decisions are made that affect individuals.  While it may slow down the whole process of building something, it's heartening to know that there is some recourse for these people.

Let's say that your city wanted to build a subway, and they needed to appropriate your land for the construction.  Would you prefer that they simply cut you a cheque for the current value of the land they're going to take and move the bulldozers in, or would you prefer that some discussion happens?

This was changes to an existing bridge.  The example doesn't make sense.  Eminent domain is a whole 'nother ball of wax.  This was private citizens hijacking a public bridge for their own special interests.  Gov't should be able to tell them to fuck off, we're fixing the bridge, leave us alone.

[ariapluscat]

This might be overly specific, but in the case of the bridge the people pushing for pedestrian and bike paths were local people and the people in major institutions who regularly use some historic buildings like the weld house, not federal/state/local regulation employees. That addition of 256 days is not (merely) due to regulations, but instead due to locals delaying the process until the demands were met.
The article makes it sound like we've failed to hold the city of Boston and Cambridge accountable for the delays when some of the delays were because individual residents were holding the cities accountable for walkability and historic needs.

I also think a lot of the regulations the article decries wouldn't apply to building new bridges and infrastructure since the 2/3 delays he cites are only applicable to repairing old historic infrastructure. these delays being due to historic regulation, resident needs / environmental initiative regulation, and a problem found during construction.

Why should individuals be able to do that though?

Because by being able to do this the people who live in the city, who pay the cost of the bridge through taxes and tolls, get their transportation needs met. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the bridge, but there's a lot of foot and bike traffic around the charles and across that bridge.

There's no point building a bridge if it's built in a way or in a place that no one wants to use it.

[ariapluscat]

This might be overly specific, but in the case of the bridge the people pushing for pedestrian and bike paths were local people and the people in major institutions who regularly use some historic buildings like the weld house, not federal/state/local regulation employees. That addition of 256 days is not (merely) due to regulations, but instead due to locals delaying the process until the demands were met.
The article makes it sound like we've failed to hold the city of Boston and Cambridge accountable for the delays when some of the delays were because individual residents were holding the cities accountable for walkability and historic needs.

I also think a lot of the regulations the article decries wouldn't apply to building new bridges and infrastructure since the 2/3 delays he cites are only applicable to repairing old historic infrastructure. these delays being due to historic regulation, resident needs / environmental initiative regulation, and a problem found during construction.

Why should individuals be able to do that though?

Sometimes decisions are made that affect individuals.  While it may slow down the whole process of building something, it's heartening to know that there is some recourse for these people.

Let's say that your city wanted to build a subway, and they needed to appropriate your land for the construction.  Would you prefer that they simply cut you a cheque for the current value of the land they're going to take and move the bulldozers in, or would you prefer that some discussion happens?

This was changes to an existing bridge.  The example doesn't make sense.  Eminent domain is a whole 'nother ball of wax.  This was private citizens hijacking a public bridge for their own special interests.  Gov't should be able to tell them to fuck off, we're fixing the bridge, leave us alone.

The bridge already had foot paths on it and I think the bridge expansion was getting rid of them, so people wanted them to stay and worked for that by engaging the gov't. Also the Charles has a lot of foot traffic bridges over it and walking along the esplanade.

[Miskatonic]

I'm curious what some of you think of the new payday loan regulations. Good? Bad?

New Rules To Ban Payday Lending 'Debt Traps'

[Frs1661]

Freakonomics had a good podcast on this topic: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/payday-loans/

According to the industry they make about $15 for every $100 borrowed (per 'few week' term).  As an annualized rate this is very high; but these aren't meant to be long-term loans. This doesn't seem predatory to me.

Looks like the rule requires more detailed checks into the borrowers finances,  which will increase costs and may eliminate many of these types of loan.

Also the people who need this type of short term loan the most are the least likely to pass the increased scrutiny.  Is it better to pay a high interest rate for a few weeks or to lose your job because you can't pay to fix your car so you can get to work?

I think the high 'roll over'  rate of these loans points to a need for better financial education in our schools,  not reduction of a tool that can be a lifesaver when used correctly.

[matchewed]

The predatory nature is not necessarily based on their profits but on how much they cost their customer.

[projekt]

There have been articles about the industry in the past, where people are really unable to come up with the money to pay off the short term loan and are forced to renew week after week, and that is where the majority of the profit comes from. I'm not sure, but I think there was an article in Harpers a while back that was pretty convincing that it was basically loansharking, i.e., the mob uses the same model.

[Frs1661]

The predatory nature is not necessarily based on their profits but on how much they cost their customer.

When these loans are rolled over for months and months those costs do get to be high.  Perhaps a limitation on number of roll overs would be appropriate.

Given the large number of these payday loan companies that all compete on the same streets, I assume there isn't much room for profits to go down while still being able to offer this service.  Then the question becomes,  is this a valuable (if relatively expensive) service for those without emergency funds and access to more traditional credit or not? If regulations make this business unprofitable they won't continue to offer these services.

If the government eliminates these services perhaps it should offer them directly,  or support a non profit model company to do the same with the lowest costs possible.

[projekt]

If the government eliminates these services perhaps it should offer them directly,  or support a non profit model company to do the same with the lowest costs possible.

There are organizations promoting post-office banking for these sorts of things, where small loan interest rates would be reasonable and demand accounts could be virtually fee-free. It would also give the post office another good reason to keep maintaining all of their storefronts, which are useful but apparently expensive.

[Frs1661]

If the government eliminates these services perhaps it should offer them directly,  or support a non profit model company to do the same with the lowest costs possible.

There are organizations promoting post-office banking for these sorts of things, where small loan interest rates would be reasonable and demand accounts could be virtually fee-free. It would also give the post office another good reason to keep maintaining all of their storefronts, which are useful but apparently expensive.

That sounds like a fine idea to me!

I assume default risk is very high on these products,  so I'm not sure how they would keep costs reasonable without running deep in the red.  Presumably it could be done at least somewhat cheaper than the current for profit model though...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[projekt]

I think that there is unnecessary waste in the current system because the entire storefront with its employees has to be paid for out of fees from a small population of debtors. This requires very high fees.

With postal banking, there may yet be a high interest rate for some products, but there should be amortization plans and much lower effective interest rates. Assuming you needed a payday loan because you literally needed the money before payday, you would then be behind a couple of weeks on being able to pay off the loan completely. You could then pay a minimum financing charge that also reduces your current balance and amortizes the loan, just like the current credit card rules. If you budget on a monthly basis, with biweekly checks, you should be able to pay off the loan when one of the "extra" checks comes in. You could even pre-arrange that. The government has no real interest in you being indebted to them, it just wants to make sure the system pays for itself.

The government also has trump cards to help with the default risk, such as being able to garnish wages pretty easily or subtract the owed amount each year from the Earned Income Tax Credit.

I bet that even a few high school students could brainstorm this out pretty well, so hopefully a few career government employees wouldn't screw it up too badly.

[Tyson]

The biggest flaw in the right's philosophy is that businesses are always (or even usually) benevolent benefactors of society.  Their second biggest flaw is the idea that government is always inept and evil. 

I'm a realist, so I like to look at outcomes.  The good news is that the US allows the individual states a wide degree of self determination with regard to policies.  So we can look at the states themselves to see what the outcomes are of the policies they've implemented.  So how do the red (mostly southern) states fare?  Well, here are some interesting maps that show the outcomes are not so good:

[A Definite Beta Guy]

So, I have a perspective that regulation is probably too heavy, and my perception of pay-day lending regulation is "who cares?" It's a tiny piece of the overall financial market. It took a long amount of time to find, but the Fed says 2010 market size was around $40 billion.
The US mortgage market is about $13.8 trillion right now.
Asking about payday loan regulation might be important for some consumers, but it's not the kind of regulation choking America's economic engine.

If you want to talk about financial regulation, then there's a lot of Dodd-Frank material to go through, including the unresolved Fannie/Freddie situation.

Regarding the poster above me:
The South was a Democratic stronghold until quite recently. It's also culturally unique in the US. Why not use states like Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Kansas as your baseline for Republican? They all have been voting Republican for much longer than the South:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Party_System#/media/File:USPresResults1932-1964.png

[Tyson]

The South used to be Democratic because until the 1960s the Democrats were very happy to go along with strong racial segregation and oppression.  After the Dems fully embraced civil rights in the 60's, all those "souther Democrats" became conservative Republicans wanting to "Take Our Country Back". 

And no one talks about Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Kansas because those states tend to be semi-reasonable within the political process.  They also tend to be sparsely populated rural states with not a lot of sway.  The South is where the ignorant and unhinged portion of the Right tends to reside nowadays.  The exact people that used to be Blue Dog Democrats.  They never went away, they just were welcomed in to the Republican party by Nixon and they have poisoned the Right, just like before the 60's they poisoned the Dems.  The problem is not the Left or the Right, but rather this specific part of the country (the South) is retrograde and poisonous. 

They are being left behind by the rest of the country (a good thing), but they are getting more and more pissed at their ever growing irrelevance.  The tragedy is that the Repubs have allowed them a national platform to carp and whine.  I say let them do their own thing and when the f*ck things up bad enough, the rest of us will eventually come in to rescue their @sses.  But in the meantime I think we should just cut them loose and when their policies result in them becoming the equivalent to a 2nd or 3rd world country, maybe THEN they will learn that they are doing things WRONG.  They say real change only comes after you hit rock bottom.  I say we let the South learn that lesson....

[Glenstache]

The South used to be Democratic because until the 1960s the Democrats were very happy to go along with strong racial segregation and oppression.  After the Dems fully embraced civil rights in the 60's, all those "souther Democrats" became conservative Republicans wanting to "Take Our Country Back". 

And no one talks about Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Kansas because those states tend to be semi-reasonable within the political process.  They also tend to be sparsely populated rural states with not a lot of sway.  The South is where the ignorant and unhinged portion of the Right tends to reside nowadays.  The exact people that used to be Blue Dog Democrats.  They never went away, they just were welcomed in to the Republican party by Nixon and they have poisoned the Right, just like before the 60's they poisoned the Dems.  The problem is not the Left or the Right, but rather this specific part of the country (the South) is retrograde and poisonous. 

They are being left behind by the rest of the country (a good thing), but they are getting more and more pissed at their ever growing irrelevance.  The tragedy is that the Repubs have allowed them a national platform to carp and whine.  I say let them do their own thing and when the f*ck things up bad enough, the rest of us will eventually come in to rescue their @sses.  But in the meantime I think we should just cut them loose and when their policies result in them becoming the equivalent to a 2nd or 3rd world country, maybe THEN they will learn that they are doing things WRONG.  They say real change only comes after you hit rock bottom.  I say we let the South learn that lesson....

We are all Americans. We don't have to accept the racist attitudes that persist strongly in the south (and other parts of the country too). But, a big part of how they have been left behind is economic. We should do what we can to bolster the economy in those regions in part because it neutralizes some of the conditions that give rise to asshats like Trump. *How* to do that is a different thread, but lack of regulation is probably not the answer (as they are being economically left behind in part due to liberal economic policies (liberal in the free/economic sense, not the Left political sense).

[Tyson]

We are all Americans. We don't have to accept the racist attitudes that persist strongly in the south (and other parts of the country too). But, a big part of how they have been left behind is economic. We should do what we can to bolster the economy in those regions in part because it neutralizes some of the conditions that give rise to asshats like Trump. *How* to do that is a different thread, but lack of regulation is probably not the answer (as they are being economically left behind in part due to liberal economic policies (liberal in the free/economic sense, not the Left political sense).

Well that is just the delicious irony of it all.  They in fact have a much stronger embrace of the free market and "keep government out of our lives" political structure. than the rest of the country.  And in fact it has not helped them at all.  They are facing economic collapse.  If the conservative economic/political approach was actually efficacious, WHY hasn't it helped the South avoid this calamity? 

I'll tell you why - it's because Conservative economics DO NOT HELP.  In fact they make things worse.  And we see that in reality - these states are NOT helped by their "Free Market Rulz" approach.  In fact the free market is happy to continue to rape them and then abandon them.  Which makes sense because there's more profit that way. 

[ncornilsen]

The biggest flaw in the right's philosophy is that businesses are always (or even usually) benevolent benefactors of society.  Their second biggest flaw is the idea that government is always inept and evil. 

I'm a realist, so I like to look at outcomes.  The good news is that the US allows the individual states a wide degree of self determination with regard to policies.  So we can look at the states themselves to see what the outcomes are of the policies they've implemented.  So how do the red (mostly southern) states fare?  Well, here are some interesting maps that show the outcomes are not so good:

I'd say the thing that the south gets wrong is they elect the worst kind of republicans - the evangelical types. Who have no interest or skill on the economic issues, and do bad things for their state... It's not that they're in bad shapes from free market ideals, they're in bad shape for a whole hodge podge of incoherent reasons, or half applications of free market ideals and theocratic ideals. And those conditions result in the election of more of the same.

And I'd say you're basically right with your assessment of the right's biggest flaws. But you'd have to concede that the Lefts biggest flaw is dogmatic belief of the exact opposite things.

[GuitarStv]

^ Nice 'no true Scotsman' fallacy on display there.  These states have continually elected Republicans?  Well yes, but not true Republicans . . . those crazy evangelical ones.

[ncornilsen]

^ Nice 'no true Scotsman' fallacy on display there.  These states have continually elected Republicans?  Well yes, but not true Republicans . . . those crazy evangelical ones.

what I said isn't really a 'no true scottsman' fallacy. I think it's pretty obvious there's a significant portion of the republican party that is all about the social policies like Abortion and gay marriage, who don't really know much about economics beyond playing lip service to free markets, and doing a poor job of crafting useful regulations for free markets. That's the sect that I see controlling the south.

Are you saying all republicans are the same?  Are all Hillary supporters the same as all bernie supporters?

[Northwestie]

 I think it's pretty obvious there's a significant portion of the republican party that is all about the social policies like Abortion and gay marriage, who and don't really know much about economics beyond playing lip service to free markets, and doing a poor job of crafting useful regulations for free markets. That's the sect that I see controlling the GOP south.

Fixed that for you

[Glenstache]

We are all Americans. We don't have to accept the racist attitudes that persist strongly in the south (and other parts of the country too). But, a big part of how they have been left behind is economic. We should do what we can to bolster the economy in those regions in part because it neutralizes some of the conditions that give rise to asshats like Trump. *How* to do that is a different thread, but lack of regulation is probably not the answer (as they are being economically left behind in part due to liberal economic policies (liberal in the free/economic sense, not the Left political sense).

Well that is just the delicious irony of it all.  They in fact have a much stronger embrace of the free market and "keep government out of our lives" political structure. than the rest of the country.  And in fact it has not helped them at all.  They are facing economic collapse.  If the conservative economic/political approach was actually efficacious, WHY hasn't it helped the South avoid this calamity? 

I'll tell you why - it's because Conservative economics DO NOT HELP.  In fact they make things worse.  And we see that in reality - these states are NOT helped by their "Free Market Rulz" approach.  In fact the free market is happy to continue to rape them and then abandon them.  Which makes sense because there's more profit that way.

I think this is referred to as either creative destruction or market efficiency.

And yes, the irony is delicious, as far as schadenfreude goes. Sadly, the side effects (Trump, various social platforms) are not as delicious.

[Chris22]

Well that is just the delicious irony of it all.  They in fact have a much stronger embrace of the free market and "keep government out of our lives" political structure. than the rest of the country.  And in fact it has not helped them at all.  They are facing economic collapse.  If the conservative economic/political approach was actually efficacious, WHY hasn't it helped the South avoid this calamity? 

Err, slow your role there.  Who is facing economic collapse?  The south? 

[Digital Dogma]

The South used to be Democratic because until the 1960s the Democrats were very happy to go along with strong racial segregation and oppression.  After the Dems fully embraced civil rights in the 60's, all those "souther Democrats" became conservative Republicans wanting to "Take Our Country Back". 

And no one talks about Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Kansas because those states tend to be semi-reasonable within the political process.  They also tend to be sparsely populated rural states with not a lot of sway.  The South is where the ignorant and unhinged portion of the Right tends to reside nowadays.  The exact people that used to be Blue Dog Democrats.  They never went away, they just were welcomed in to the Republican party by Nixon and they have poisoned the Right, just like before the 60's they poisoned the Dems.  The problem is not the Left or the Right, but rather this specific part of the country (the South) is retrograde and poisonous. 

They are being left behind by the rest of the country (a good thing), but they are getting more and more pissed at their ever growing irrelevance.  The tragedy is that the Repubs have allowed them a national platform to carp and whine.  I say let them do their own thing and when the f*ck things up bad enough, the rest of us will eventually come in to rescue their @sses.  But in the meantime I think we should just cut them loose and when their policies result in them becoming the equivalent to a 2nd or 3rd world country, maybe THEN they will learn that they are doing things WRONG.  They say real change only comes after you hit rock bottom.  I say we let the South learn that lesson....

Not to bandwagon or dog pile on this subject, but it brings up a topic I had been thinking about a lot lately since I overheard it on the Diane Rehm radio talkshow. I think the Southern culture plays a HUGE role in American politics, and some of it looks ugly from my perspective.

10:21:58
LATZER
The facts are that in the South of the United States, for well over a century, both Southern whites and Southern blacks had very high rates of interpersonal violence. That is, when they had conflicts within their families, among themselves and their friends, with other acquaintances, there was a tendency to use violence to resolve those conflicts. And this led to very high rates of assault and of murder in the South. And this was noticeable from the 19th century on. And as I say, it was a cultural manifestation associated with both whites and blacks.
10:22:44
LATZER
When African Americans migrated to the northern cities, which occurred throughout the 20th century, but especially, initially at war time -- World War I and World War II, when there were more economic opportunities -- and then in the '60s and the '70s. In the '60s you had the migration of 800,000 African Americans to cities of the North and the West Coast and, in the 1970s, another 1.5 million. Well some of this interpersonal violence that took place in the South was effectively transported to the North.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2016-02-09/trends-in-u-s-violent-crime-rates

[projekt]

Err, slow your role there.  Who is facing economic collapse?  The south? 

While fiscal collapse and economic collapse can happen at the same time, they are not the same thing. I mean, does it really pass the smell test that Mississippi is economically better off than California, New York, Connecticut, or Illinois?

That can be said leaving aside the fact that any "fiscal insolvency index" from an organization like Mercatus is bogus. Would you really pay more for bonds from Nebraska than you would from Massachusetts? These people must  be so smart that they know things that bond investors don't.

[Chris22]

Err, slow your role there.  Who is facing economic collapse?  The south? 

While fiscal collapse and economic collapse can happen at the same time, they are not the same thing. I mean, does it really pass the smell test that Mississippi is economically better off than California, New York, Connecticut, or Illinois?

Is it better to make $250k a year and owe $750k worth of mortage, car payments, and credit card bills, or make $35k a year and have minimal debt?  The "rich" states are going to get absolutely crushed by pension obligations here pretty soon. 

[desertadapted]

Is it better to make $250k a year and owe $750k worth of mortage, car payments, and credit card bills, or make $35k a year and have minimal debt?  The "rich" states are going to get absolutely crushed by pension obligations here pretty soon.

There are a lot of assumptions in the above that I can't find the data to substantiate.  For instance, there is readily accessible state-level data on the % a pension is underfunded.  http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/07/pewstates_statepensiondebtbrief_final.pdf
It doesn't appear to be strongly correlated with red/blue or rich/poor divide. 

I wasn't able to find data on pension liability as % of State GDP (sure it's out there), so I couldn't validate the idea that rich states will be crushed by their unfunded pension liabilities whereas poor ones won't.
Similarly, I couldn't easily find household debt service as percentage of disposable income broken out by state - just national data by the SL Fed.  https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP

If you have data on what you've said, I'd be interested to read more about it.

[EnjoyIt]

I left NY to live in Texas.  I left for financial freedom.  And while most of my previous colleagues are just barely making ends meet in NY, I have built wealth way earlier and beyond my wildest dreams in just under a decade.  In fact, many of my current colleagues have escaped the oppression of NY, NJ, and California and have much better and happier lives here in the south. 

Texas gets a constant stream of bright professionals from out of state.  Out of the top 10 fastest growing cities, Texas occupies half of them.  We all wonder how much longer the high tax highly indebted states will survive.  We have already seen a few cities in California and also Detroit reach insolvency.  How many more will follow before they learn and change their ways.

As for people living in poverty in Texas, a large junk of them or illegals, another chunk live out in the country and don't find themselves in poverty at all.  Remember poverty is a family of 4 making under $24,300/yr.  But if your home is paid for, you own a garden, have chickens and cattle, how much do you really need to spend every year?  Many sell what they harvest for cash avoiding the tax man. Shit MMM lives on $24K a year and he calls himself rich.

I think my two biggest gripes about the south is obesity and the pockets of racism that still persist.  Not in the big cities, but in the country.