Half of US population lives in 9 states.

[Orlong]

Yet red states don't want to pull their own weight... constantly voting shit down that could better the entire country while soaking up welfare.

"I'm against welfare, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" says random person in red state that sucks up more in federal funding than they give. And they say this to a blue state person, who gets back far less than what they pay in federal tax.

Im tired of hearing this bullshit. You democrats give no context as to why this happens when you always spout your garbage about red states always taking more than they give. Did you ever break down what the funds are used for? For one a lot of that money goes for things like infrastructure. Large states with low population (as most red states are) cant possibly pay enough in taxes to maintain the tens of thousands of miles of roads and bridges in those states. Also a lot of that money goes to subsidize agriculture (which I dont agree with) so that you blue states arent paying $12.50 for a head of lettuce. Its not all the Republicans laying around in their trailer homes sucking up welfare

[Elegiac]

Im tired of hearing this bullshit. You democrats give no context as to why this happens when you always spout your garbage about red states always taking more than they give. Did you ever break down what the funds are used for? For one a lot of that money goes for things like infrastructure. Large states with low population (as most red states are) cant possibly pay enough in taxes to maintain the tens of thousands of miles of roads and bridges in those states. Also a lot of that money goes to subsidize agriculture (which I dont agree with) so that you blue states arent paying $12.50 for a head of lettuce. Its not all the Republicans laying around in their trailer homes sucking up welfare

You're not actually disagreeing, by the way. Really all you're demonstrating is that people living in rural states expect urban levels of infrastructure and service but aren't willing to pay the actual costs involved.

Also, keep this in mind next time you complain how expensive living in the city is. That cheap home in the country costs taxpayers a lot of money to run electricity and telecommunications to.

[Themius]

Im tired of hearing this bullshit. You democrats give no context as to why this happens when you always spout your garbage about red states always taking more than they give. Did you ever break down what the funds are used for? For one a lot of that money goes for things like infrastructure. Large states with low population (as most red states are) cant possibly pay enough in taxes to maintain the tens of thousands of miles of roads and bridges in those states. Also a lot of that money goes to subsidize agriculture (which I dont agree with) so that you blue states arent paying $12.50 for a head of lettuce. Its not all the Republicans laying around in their trailer homes sucking up welfare

So the blue states should pay for red states poor infrastructure because red states can't do it for themselves?

That sounds like a problem with how red states decide to live, so they pick a lifestyle that forces them to take more money from the government while complaining about "takers" while being takers?

If the problem is about infrastructure maybe reorganize if you can't afford your lifestyle as a state?

I mean red states have some of the highest rates of welfare because they're extremely poor states to begin with, with Texas being the only exception really... so yeah indeed red states have anise with "welfare people" taking up money since red states economies or so terrible that the blue states need to step in and pay to take care of red states own people.

[Rasulis]

Im tired of hearing this bullshit. You democrats give no context as to why this happens when you always spout your garbage about red states always taking more than they give. Did you ever break down what the funds are used for? For one a lot of that money goes for things like infrastructure. Large states with low population (as most red states are) cant possibly pay enough in taxes to maintain the tens of thousands of miles of roads and bridges in those states. Also a lot of that money goes to subsidize agriculture (which I dont agree with) so that you blue states arent paying $12.50 for a head of lettuce. Its not all the Republicans laying around in their trailer homes sucking up welfare

Need a better example. California produced 66% of the lettuce sold in the US. Arizona accounted for the rest.

https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.as..._3_251iT0R0x79

- - - Updated - - -

I am referring to the state GDP. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li..._states_by_GDP of the top ten states, Texas is second only to California and of those top ten, 6 went red in the last general election.

Any particular reason you picked 2016 instead of the more recent 2018 data?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...itories_by_GDP

Of the top ten, 5 are blue, 4 are red, and 1 purple. WA and MA surpassed NC which was #10 in 2016.

However, CA GDP was more than TX & FL combined. In fact, the gap between CA and TX GDPs grew from 1T in 2016 to 1.2T in 2018. So much for all the predictions that CA economy would slow down in 2018.

[Ivanstone]

Also a lot of that money goes to subsidize agriculture (which I dont agree with) so that you blue states arent paying $12.50 for a head of lettuce.

Without agricultural subsidies you'd have to pay more money for smaller potions at restaurants. Yet portion sizes at restaurants are one of your favourite complaints. Explain.

On the off chance you eventually end up having to pay for what food's actually worth at least you have a cushy unionized government job to pay for it.

[Kotuthan]

Im tired of hearing this bullshit. You democrats give no context as to why this happens when you always spout your garbage about red states always taking more than they give. Did you ever break down what the funds are used for? For one a lot of that money goes for things like infrastructure. Large states with low population (as most red states are) cant possibly pay enough in taxes to maintain the tens of thousands of miles of roads and bridges in those states. Also a lot of that money goes to subsidize agriculture (which I dont agree with) so that you blue states arent paying $12.50 for a head of lettuce. Its not all the Republicans laying around in their trailer homes sucking up welfare

Then they should close down some Roads, Bridges or make people start paying tolls to use them. Or close down state funded Schools,Hospitals and infrastructure such as Electricity and get their budget in order. Tax money should not be used to give people the ability to live beyond their means.

Also 12.50 for a head of lettuce? kek we can import the stuff cheaper. See tax money wasted on Red states for no benefit.

[crewskater]

All the more reason to have the electoral college!

[Kellhound]

I grew up and lived in Nebraska for 30 years so I sort of understand the appeal of the less densely populated states. Everyone is nicer, everything's quieter.

But then on the other hand, after moving to the Atlanta metro some years ago, I also don't know how I managed to not pull my hair out in Nebraska for 30 years. If I want something or if I want to go somewhere, it's probably just a 20 minute drive away. Sure, Amazon and the rest of the internet help fill that gap now for merchandise - but that's still a 1-2 day wait for delivery time. And shows? Most bands or theater acts or whatever skip half of the rural areas, so if you want to see them you have to go on a road trip. Don't even get me started on the retail or food chains that don't bother to setup there, either. I'm able to be 1000% more productive with my time in Georgia than I ever could have been in Nebraska.

Although I personally preferred Nebraska weather over Georgia. God damn heat and humidity 90% of the year. Give me snow any day.

I have lived in the heart of the Bay Area and in small isolated towns. I can get to anything I need/want in 30 minutes or less. I would rather die than live in a county with more than 500 people per square mile.

[Theodarzna]

this is why the electoral college must be abolished.

Why? Everyone knew the rules of the electoral process going in.

[melodramocracy]

This is largely due to the nature of work. While you won't see some sudden 'balance' happen, you will continue to see and watch people start to spread out as remote work becomes more of a thing, and starts to become feasible in more fields than just IT.

[lockedout]

Read an interesting article recently.

https://www.businessinsider.com/half...-states-2016-6

Why do you suppose this is? Why do you think half the population lives in these particular states?

Lets do away with the electoral college....

[Masark]

you will continue to see and watch people start to spread out as remote work becomes more of a thing.

Only if certain states develop meaningful infrastructure for such things.

And that seems extremely improbable, given that they appear to be actively regressing in that regard, at the behest of entrenched interests.

[melodramocracy]

Only if certain states develop meaningful infrastructure for such things.

And that seems extremely improbable, given that they appear to be actively regressing in that regard, at the behest of entrenched interests.

All you really need is reasonable internet access, which the vast majority of the country does already have. You can acquire anything you want, anywhere you want, thanks to online shopping and shipping efficiency. The only portions missing are arts, cuisine, and culture. My guess is that plenty of people are willing to forego some of these, or at least experience them in smaller doses if it means living in quieter, less expensive areas.

You'll see a slow gradual move inland over the next decades (climate issues notwithstanding), and it'd probably be a good thing for the country anyhow.

[Vanyali]

All you really need is reasonable internet access, which the vast majority of the country does already have. You can acquire anything you want, anywhere you want, thanks to online shopping and shipping efficiency. The only portions missing are arts, cuisine, and culture. My guess is that plenty of people are willing to forego some of these, or at least experience them in smaller doses if it means living in quieter, less expensive areas.

You'll see a slow gradual move inland over the next decades (climate issues notwithstanding), and it'd probably be a good thing for the country anyhow.

The vast majority does not. Cities do. Towns and rural have fuckall internet access. Which is why you end up with what you have now, cities enjoying a tech boom and rural places begging amazon to deliver to them.

[melodramocracy]

The vast majority does not. Cities do. Towns and rural have fuckall internet access. Which is why you end up with what you have now, cities enjoying a tech boom and rural places begging amazon to deliver to them.

https://geoisp.com/us/

Facts disagree with you.

Cities enjoy tech booms because the catch-22 game of people wanting to live closer to, again, culture, arts, variety, optimal weather, also draws commerce, which means that's where most jobs are.

And what that really boils down to is that as a society, we haven't gotten over the notion that going TO a common work area is somehow mandatory, even for industries where it actually isn't.

This will inevitably change. Silicon Valley, for example, simply isn't going to be able to sustain its self made housing crisis.

[Themius]

How can anyone be for the electoral college?

What happens when 70% of the country lives in cities, the 30% gets to rule over the entire country forever and ever and ever because a few hundred years ago some people wrote some laws largely based around slavery? Seriously America needs to get its shit together...

- - - Updated - - -

https://geoisp.com/us/

Facts disagree with you.

Cities enjoy tech booms because the catch-22 game of people wanting to live closer to, again, culture, arts, variety, optimal weather, also draws commerce, which means that's where most jobs are.

And what that really boils down to is that as a society, we haven't gotten over the notion that going TO a common work area is somehow mandatory, even for industries where it actually isn't.

This will inevitably change. Silicon Valley, for example, simply isn't going to be able to sustain its self made housing crisis.

I find the concept of going into a central working hub when it isn't necessary to be entirely silly and a waste of time and resources.

Why would I want my developers traveling for an hour, having lunch, and then traveling for probably another hour+ when they can work from home likely more efficiently perhaps even start earlier in the day and be done with work earlier which gives them a better home life?

It isn't always a job that requires one to be in the office.

Kind of reminds me of call centers, why are they a thing? If you have a computer and a decent internet connection and privacy... they can just work from home. Why waste so much money on office space for something that can be done from home? People getting dressed up in business casual suits to go into work spending 2-3 hours a day traveling, to literally make calls over a voip and access systems that can be integrated in a web application accessible from anywhere is just... fucking stupid.

[melodramocracy]

H
I find the concept of going into a central working hub when it isn't necessary to be entirely silly and a waste of time and resources.

Why would I want my developers traveling for an hour, having lunch, and then traveling for probably another hour+ when they can work from home likely more efficiently perhaps even start earlier in the day and be done with work earlier which gives them a better home life?

It isn't always a job that requires one to be in the office.

Kind of reminds me of call centers, why are they a thing? If you have a computer and a decent internet connection and privacy... they can just work from home. Why waste so much money on office space for something that can be done from home? People getting dressed up in business casual suits to go into work spending 2-3 hours a day traveling, to literally make calls over a voip and access systems that can be integrated in a web application accessible from anywhere is just... fucking stupid.

Agreed completely. It's annoying for the workers, and it's additional expense for the company in quite a few ways. If you're in an IT shop and not providing either face to face customer service, or hands / feet server support, there's no practical reason for you to even have an office to go to.

[Vanyali]

https://geoisp.com/us/

Facts disagree with you.

Cities enjoy tech booms because the catch-22 game of people wanting to live closer to, again, culture, arts, variety, optimal weather, also draws commerce, which means that's where most jobs are.

And what that really boils down to is that as a society, we haven't gotten over the notion that going TO a common work area is somehow mandatory, even for industries where it actually isn't.

This will inevitably change. Silicon Valley, for example, simply isn't going to be able to sustain its self made housing crisis.

Having access does not, in any way, mean that it is good access, nor access that can do much of anything. Especially if it's anything that requires constant upload / download or access.

The housing bubble also isn't unique to Silicon Valley in California. And it's mostly caused by boomers, tbqh - any house under ~300k is a 55+ house. Any "starter" house? 55+. Which means all you can get is 500k+... which younger people can't afford, which causes them to flood apartments... which oh btw, half of those are ALSO 55+. Guess who also gets housing assistance? 55+ get priority along with kids with families and disability for all housing assistance. It's a huge issue, and the sudden flood of available housing when the boomers all get shifted to nursing homes and/ or die is going to be great. Because they eat up anywhere that's affordable regardless of how little sense it makes (seriously... the schools around here? Mostly 55+ communities. Have a kid going to school? Enjoy being at least a mile out, because the old folks gotta live close so they can... enjoy the quiet????????) because no one wants to piss off AARP.

But again, tele-commute requires you to have good internet, not "access" to internet. Which is much harder to get the more rural you get, not to mention more expensive than most people's access. Which is why we have a surge of commuters that might not need to commute, but are forced to do so by internet provider monopolies and CEOs that couldn't figure out how to turn a computer on, let alone the idea of tele-commute.

[Kellhound]

The vast majority does not. Cities do. Towns and rural have fuckall internet access. Which is why you end up with what you have now, cities enjoying a tech boom and rural places begging amazon to deliver to them.

You just have to find the right small towns. The last one I lived in had 300k readily available 4 years ago.

[Vanyali]

You just have to find the right small towns. The last one I lived in had 300k readily available 4 years ago.

Sure, we'll just truck rural people across multiple states. That's a solution that's worth... not doing at all, is this a serious answer?