- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:42 pm
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?
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 on 8/20/14 at 12:52 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
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
How much $100 is worth in your state
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:53 pm to shipshoal
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 on 8/20/14 at 12:54 pm to shipshoal
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.
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 on 8/20/14 at 12:58 pm to stevengtiger
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:01 pm to Hawkeye95
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:06 pm to stevengtiger
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.
New York is $56,448 before adjustment and $48,917 after. Florida is $45,040 before and $45,584 after.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:06 pm to inelishaitrust
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:08 pm to stevengtiger
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:08 pm to stevengtiger
Generally in any debate like this among economists regardless of the topic...North Dakota is removed as an outlier.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:10 pm to stevengtiger
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:12 pm to inelishaitrust
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:13 pm to shipshoal
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.
I expect Manchin may change parties after the election.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 1:13 pm to inelishaitrust
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:14 pm to BaylorTiger
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:14 pm to stevengtiger
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:15 pm to Hawkeye95
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:16 pm to stevengtiger
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 on 8/20/14 at 1:18 pm to stevengtiger
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News