Red states more Unequal than blue. Thoughts?

Started by linate

Replies
7
Posts
8
Page
1 / 1

Conversation

#1 •••
🔗 Link

The short answer is: it depends on how you measure inequality, but the data generally shows that economic inequality (income and wealth gaps) tends to be higher in many “red” states, though with some important nuances. Let me break it down carefully.

1. Income Inequality

  1. A common measure is the Gini coefficient (0 = perfect equality, 1 = maximum inequality).
  2. Red states (e.g., Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas) often have higher income inequality, partly because:
  3. Lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
  4. Lower minimum wages.
  5. Less progressive taxation overall.
  6. Blue states (e.g., California, New York, Massachusetts) often have more redistributive policies (higher income taxes, stronger social programs), which reduce inequality a bit, though some still have high inequality due to high cost-of-living urban areas.

2. Wealth Inequality

  1. Wealth inequality (assets minus debts) is very high in many blue states because:
  2. High housing prices and concentrations of wealthy professionals drive up net worth for the rich.
  3. But at the same time, red states often have a large population with very low wealth, widening the gap overall.

3. Poverty and Median Income

  1. Red states tend to have higher poverty rates and lower median incomes.
  2. Blue states tend to have higher median incomes, but the gap between the super-rich and middle/lower class can be extreme in urban areas like NYC or San Francisco.

4. Policy Effects

  1. Red states: lower taxes, less social spending → more bottom-end poverty, higher relative inequality.
  2. Blue states: higher taxes, stronger safety nets → lower poverty and less bottom-end inequality, but high cost of living can mask that.

✅ Summary

  1. Bottom-line income inequality: typically worse in red states.
  2. Top-end wealth concentration: some blue states have extremely wealthy populations, so the gap can look huge in dollar terms, but social programs mitigate extreme poverty.
  3. Overall societal impact: red states tend to have a larger share of people struggling at the bottom, while blue states tend to concentrate wealth at the top but lift the bottom more effectively.


Edit comment

#2 •••
🔗 Link
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#3 •••
🔗 Link
@wylted

I agree but he did mention poverty rates and median incomes

Edit post

#4 •••
🔗 Link
@Savant

Red states are poorer than Blue states. They are also doing badly under Trump.

Edit post

#5 •••
🔗 Link

Again, red and blue states don’t make for red and blue people.


Unfortunately, most if not all of these complaints about red states are because of things in southern red states like Mississippi, and not northern ones like Montana.


or, in this case, people. I’ll leave you to figure that one out

Edit post

I still don’t know what to type!

#6 •••
🔗 Link

I think red states have higher disposable income, or at least red areas of blue states do. The logic is that it often costs less to live in less desirable remote areas than the desirable urban or suburban areas. I dont know exactly how all this pans out by the rabbit hole in amalyzing stuff in this thread is deep

Edit post

#7 •••
🔗 Link
@Mag1cman
red states like Mississippi, and not northern ones like Montana.

or, in this case, people. I’ll leave you to figure that one out



Hmm. Are you hinting at a certain cultural demographic in that state?

Edit post

#8 •••
🔗 Link
@Shoresy

das rite

Edit post

I still don’t know what to type!