Income Inequality Across States
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:22:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Income Inequality Across States
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Income Inequality Across States  (Read 622 times)
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 09, 2009, 07:44:31 PM »
« edited: October 09, 2009, 09:29:04 PM by phknrocket1k »

Pretty interesting post.

It's not surprising to see a scatter plot showing that in poor states the poor have a higher growth rate; this could be the effect of "regression to the mean".

Though while observing the rich do better in rich states; that seems counter to regression effect tendencies.

Labor mobility (which is high in the US compared to other countries) could also be at play here, though I'm too lazy to talk about that.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/12/cool_graphs_of_trends_in_income_inequality_within_states.html
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2009, 10:51:00 PM »

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.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2009, 01:11:30 AM »
« Edited: October 10, 2009, 01:13:33 AM by phknrocket1k »

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%.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2009, 01:24:37 AM »

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.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2009, 01:35:51 AM »
« Edited: October 10, 2009, 01:44:16 AM by phknrocket1k »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 11 queries.