Started By
Message
locked post

States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates

Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:42 pm
Posted by shipshoal
In the 404
Member since Nov 2005
790 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:42 pm
LINK /

Are Republican governors better for a state’s economy? Fresh evidence offers some tantalizing clues.

Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republicans governors, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS on Wednesday released a state-by-state comparison of GDP growth.

Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.

North Dakota, in the midst of a fracking oil-boom, led the way with 8.4% growth in the final three months of 2013. Rounding out the top five were West Virginia, Wyoming, Louisiana and Nevada.

Only West Virginia, one of the nation’s poorest states, has a Democratic governor among the top 10 states.

The reasons why some states grow faster than others, of course, are varied and complex and often beyond short-term political control.

Most of the top performers are in the South and Southwest, previously underdeveloped regions whose economies have been stoked in part by soaring population growth. Other states like North Dakota have benefited from the fortuitous exploitation of abundant raw materials, primarily oil and gas.

Many of the slowest growing states such as Massachusetts and New York, by contrast, are older and more settled. They are also wealthier than the national average, however, and have higher percentages of residents with college degrees.

Other explanations for the disparity in growth include the level of taxes and regulations. Taxes in the South are lower, there are fewer unions and states in the region are more lightly regulated. So businesses have been keen to set up shop.

Economic legacy is also something that cannot be overlooked. Mississippi has been dominated by Republicans for more than a decade, but the historically poor state has not kept up with most of its Southern brethren.

In any case, the Republican advantage does not appear to be a one-quarter quirk. States led by Republican governors have also fared better since the end of the Great Recession in mid-2009.

Seven of the 10 fastest growing states, including the top seven, were run by Republican governors for all or most of the period from 2010 to 2013.

North Dakota again was No. 1 at 16.7% growth. The state was followed by Texas (7.1%), South Dakota (6.3%), Nebraska (6.3%) and Utah (5.8%).

What do MarketWatch readers think? Are Republicans better for your economy? Or are Democratic states better places to live?
Posted by JEAUXBLEAUX
Bayonne, NJ
Member since May 2006
55358 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:49 pm to
Thank you Gov. Christie
Posted by stevengtiger
Member since Jul 2013
2778 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:52 pm to
In general, I would say its fair to say that Republican run states produce a better economy than Democrat states. The link below can also attribute to that IMO.

How much $100 is worth in your state
Posted by inelishaitrust
Oxford, MS
Member since Jan 2008
26078 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:53 pm to
Does growth hold and do overall economic conditions surpass that of blue states? It's gonna take time to see. 10% growth on $1 is a gain of 10 cents. So is 5% growth on $2.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 12:54 pm
Posted by Hawkeye95
Member since Dec 2013
20293 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:54 pm to
i think if you look at the charts, many of the fastest growing states - for instance ND - are resource rich, and are usually pretty rural. thus republican.

resource rich states have done better due to the increase in the price of commodities (thanks fed!).

Definitely food for thought though. would be interesting to map that to regulations, and see if there is a correspondence.
Posted by inelishaitrust
Oxford, MS
Member since Jan 2008
26078 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:58 pm to
quote:

In general, I would say its fair to say that Republican run states produce a better economy than Democrat states. The link below can also attribute to that IMO. How much $100 is worth in your state


Debunked that in the previous thread.

Purchasing power is higher where incomes are lower. For example, mississippi's median income is $37,095. When you adjust it up for purchase power parity you get only $42,933. New Jersey's median income is $69,667 even adjusted down for PPP it comes out to $61,056. The dollar goes farther in Mississippi in large part because the demand to live there is lower, but it's not anywhere near enough to make up for low wages.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 12:59 pm
Posted by stevengtiger
Member since Jul 2013
2778 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:01 pm to
quote:

would be interesting to map that to regulations, and see if there is a correspondence


There is little doubt in my mind that regulations are a main factor for economic growth rates. If Cali, for instance, would loosen regulations on oil/gas companies and let them drill and produce in the state, it would be hard to argue that they couldn't help thier financial situation.
Posted by inelishaitrust
Oxford, MS
Member since Jan 2008
26078 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:06 pm to
Texas' median income is $50,740 before adjustment. California's is $58,328. Adjusted for cost of living, economic powerhouse Texas beats "destitute" California $52,581 to $51,661.

New York is $56,448 before adjustment and $48,917 after. Florida is $45,040 before and $45,584 after.
Posted by stevengtiger
Member since Jul 2013
2778 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:06 pm to
quote:

Purchasing power is higher where incomes are lower. For example, mississippi's median income is $37,095. When you adjust it up for purchase power parity you get only $42,933. New Jersey's median income is $69,667 even adjusted down for PPP it comes out to $61,056. The dollar goes farther in Mississippi in large part because the demand to live there is lower, but it's not anywhere near enough to make up for low wages.


Comparing apples to oranges. What about Cali to TX? Depending on what source you look at, median income in TX is around $51K and Cali is $57K. I would say that is a better comparison for the purpose of this thread.

ETA: Ohio and Illinois would also be a good comparison of republican leadership vs. dem leadership in terms of size and median income.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 1:09 pm
Posted by inelishaitrust
Oxford, MS
Member since Jan 2008
26078 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:08 pm to
quote:

Comparing apples to oranges. What about Cali to TX? Depending on what source you look at, median income in TX is around $51K and Cali is $57K. I would say that is a better comparison for the purpose of this thread.


I thought you'd ask ;)
Posted by BaylorTiger
Member since Nov 2006
2083 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:08 pm to
Generally in any debate like this among economists regardless of the topic...North Dakota is removed as an outlier.
Posted by Hawkeye95
Member since Dec 2013
20293 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:10 pm to
quote:

What about Cali to TX? Depending on what source you look at, median income in TX is around $51K and Cali is $57K. I would say that is a better comparison for the purpose of this thread.

yes, but you have to remember, you have to want to live a place for that to work.

are you economically better off in texas? outside of silicon valley types and hollywood, probably. Would a large portion of cali residents be happy living in texas? No fricking way.
Posted by stevengtiger
Member since Jul 2013
2778 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:12 pm to
quote:

Adjusted for cost of living, economic powerhouse Texas beats "destitute" California $52,581 to $51,661.


In your opinion, why is California "destitute" while TX continues to be an economic powerhouse? I would say that leadership and regulation have alot to do with it.
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy
Alabama
Member since Feb 2013
7905 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:13 pm to
W.V. dems are really republicans because if they act like national dems they get voted out.

I expect Manchin may change parties after the election.
Posted by BaylorTiger
Member since Nov 2006
2083 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:13 pm to
quote:

demand


What about supply? What your saying is 100% true but it's inherently more complicated than that...that is just one, albeit a primary, factor of many, many factors.
Posted by inelishaitrust
Oxford, MS
Member since Jan 2008
26078 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:14 pm to
quote:

Generally in any debate like this among economists regardless of the topic...North Dakota is removed as an outlier.


Tiny population, massive natural resources, and serious investment by very wealthy companies to obtain those resources. You don't see too many people fawning over the u.a.e
Posted by Hawkeye95
Member since Dec 2013
20293 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:14 pm to
quote:

In your opinion, why is California "destitute" while TX continues to be an economic powerhouse? I would say that leadership and regulation have alot to do with it.


housing bubble is probably the biggest reason.
Posted by stevengtiger
Member since Jul 2013
2778 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:15 pm to
quote:

Would a large portion of cali residents be happy living in texas? No fricking way


An equally large or larger number of Texans wouldn't be caught dead moving to Cali.

quote:

yes, but you have to remember, you have to want to live a place for that to work.


So your telling me that ND is booming like a son of a bitch because people want to live there? No. It is growing because of economic benefits that have come forth through lack of regulation of o&g companies and smart leadership IMO.
Posted by inelishaitrust
Oxford, MS
Member since Jan 2008
26078 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:16 pm to
quote:

In your opinion, why is California "destitute" while TX continues to be an economic powerhouse? I would say that leadership and regulation have alot to do with it.


Because I pulled it from another thread in which the person I was replying to called California destitute.
Posted by Hawkeye95
Member since Dec 2013
20293 posts
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:18 pm to
quote:

An equally large or larger number of Texans wouldn't be caught dead moving to Cali.


absolutely correct.
quote:

So your telling me that ND is booming like a son of a bitch because people want to live there? No. It is growing because of economic benefits that have come forth through lack of regulation of o&g companies and smart leadership IMO.

sure, but the population is still very low. No one wants to live there, which is why they pay so much money.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram