I knew Colorado was relatively wealthy, but I didn't think it would be #6.
How ironic it is that rich states tend to be Obama states while poor states tend to be McCain states. Not that that is a big surprise or anything.
I think the general point is how McCain states generally saw better increases in the incomes of the lower 10% than those of Obama states generally. With CA, HI and CT actually experiencing negative income growth for those in the bottom 10%.
Because you have to pay a California poor more than a South Dakota poor, thus leading to greater growth in industries that need low wage labor.
Well more the case of CoL rising faster than income for the bottom 10% in those three states specifically.
It could simply be a case of regression to the mean, where the bottom 10% converge to a common level through the country (with 3 states approaching it from a negative change), with labor mobility possibly being the driving dynamic.