Why must the Democratic states be so expensive to live in?

[FerrisBueller86]

Fellow Democrats: Does this bother you?  I know it bothers me.

The most heavily Democratic states tend to have the highest cost of living.  Hawaii, California, New York, Washington DC, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. have a high cost of living that you can confirm at apartments.com.  Even rural states like Maine and Vermont have a high cost of living.

The cheapest places to live, on the other hand, are heavily Republican.  These states include West Virginia, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and North Dakota.

[opebo]

They are expensive because they are the states everyone wants to be in - the centers of economic, social, and intellectual activity.  Backwaters by contrast are cheap and vote Republican.

[TomC]

West Virginia is not a heavily Republican state. In fact, except for Bush, it goes for Democrats over Republicans pretty regularly.

[TheresNoMoney]

Fellow Democrats: Does this bother you?  I know it bothers me.

The most heavily Democratic states tend to have the highest cost of living. 

That's mainly due to the Democratic states having the best economic opportunities, best colleges, and best entertainment. LA, New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and Washington DC are all in Democratic states/districts.

A lot of the red states have very limited economic opportunities and thus, are cheaper to live in.

[DanielX]

Fellow Democrats: Does this bother you?  I know it bothers me.

The most heavily Democratic states tend to have the highest cost of living. 

That's mainly due to the Democratic states having the best economic opportunities, best colleges, and best entertainment. LA, New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and Washington DC are all in Democratic states/districts.

A lot of the red states have very limited economic opportunities and thus, are cheaper to live in.

Not entirely true - the most vibrant states (economically and recreationally) are actually purple or slightly red.

Some pretty vibant red and purple states:
Florida (Entertainment? Florida has Miami and Orlando, plus hundreds of beaches... and it's economically doing very well)
Nevada (Las Vegas is not only a tourist mecca, but it's one of the fastest-growing cities in the country)
Arizona
Colorado (okay, the whole Southwest except rural New Mexico is vibrant...)
Utah (okay, not recreationally vibrant... but economically doing well. And there's no redder state in the Union!)
Virginia (May not be a red state for long, as fastest growth is in the government-friendly north)
North Carolina (very strong growth in recent years).

College towns are liberal because they are college towns - even in red states.

Population-wise, stagnation is most evident in the Northeast and Midwest - the former is a Democratic stronghold, the latter a swing area.

[Shira]

By no means could I imagine myself living among these bizarre people of Mississippi or Oklahoma or any other place in the Bibile Belt.

[bgwah]

Fellow Democrats: Does this bother you?  I know it bothers me.

The most heavily Democratic states tend to have the highest cost of living. 

That's mainly due to the Democratic states having the best economic opportunities, best colleges, and best entertainment. LA, New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and Washington DC are all in Democratic states/districts.

A lot of the red states have very limited economic opportunities and thus, are cheaper to live in.

Not entirely true - the most vibrant states (economically and recreationally) are actually purple or slightly red.

Some pretty vibant red and purple states:
Florida (Entertainment? Florida has Miami and Orlando, plus hundreds of beaches... and it's economically doing very well)
Nevada (Las Vegas is not only a tourist mecca, but it's one of the fastest-growing cities in the country)
Arizona
Colorado (okay, the whole Southwest except rural New Mexico is vibrant...)
Utah (okay, not recreationally vibrant... but economically doing well. And there's no redder state in the Union!)
Virginia (May not be a red state for long, as fastest growth is in the government-friendly north)
North Carolina (very strong growth in recent years).

College towns are liberal because they are college towns - even in red states.

Population-wise, stagnation is most evident in the Northeast and Midwest - the former is a Democratic stronghold, the latter a swing area.

But the parts of those states you mentioned are mostly Democratic!

Miami, Denver, and Las Vegas all voted Kerry...

[Rob]

Miami, Denver, and Las Vegas all voted Kerry...

Phoenix voted solidly for Bush.

[Shira]

By no means could I imagine myself living among these bizarre people of Mississippi or Oklahoma or any other place in the Bibile Belt.

What the hell does that have to do with the topic?

If people are unwilling to live in a certain place, this place becomes inexpensive.

[Beet]

My hypothesis: the blue states tend to restrict growth which limits the supply of available housing and jobs.

[Shira]

By no means could I imagine myself living among these bizarre people of Mississippi or Oklahoma or any other place in the Bibile Belt.

Why not? You have a Bible verse in your signature.

The bible is good the Bible Belt is bad.

"They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness"
_______
Psalm (82:5)

[Rob]

If people are unwilling to live in a certain place, this place becomes inexpensive.

The fact that you don't want to live in those states doesn't mean that no one wants to.

[Shira]

Notice where the major universities, cultural centers, museums and orchestras are concentrated. (Yes, there are also pretty good orchestras in Atlanta and Dallas). Educated people “consume these products” and want to be close to them.

[Alcon]

Phoenix did not vote solidly for Bush. The suburbs of Phoenix did. Arizona's 4th congressional district, which contains downtown Phoenix (I believe) voted 62-38 Kerry. AZ-2 (northern suburbs) voted 61-38 Bush, AZ-5 (northeastern and eastern suburbs) voted 54-45 Bush, and AZ-6 (far eastern wealthy exurbs) voted 64-35 Bush.

Liberal areas tend to cost more because they have higher taxes, among other things. They tend to be more heavily populated, thus putting land costs higher.

It is not because smart people live there. There is nothing that causes property values to rise in proportion to IQ. There are plenty of highly educated Republican areas. However, cities tend to be more liberal, and things just cost more in cities because land is at a premium.

It's really as simple as that.

[Rob]

I meant metro Phoenix. Anyway, the growth is in the suburbs.

[Shira]

If people are unwilling to live in a certain place, this place becomes inexpensive.

The fact that you don't want to live in those states doesn't mean that no one wants to.

It’s not personally me. It’s the number of potential candidates who are willing to live in these places. I know many conservatives (not social conservatives) who strongly prefer to live in the blue areas rather in the red ones.

[dazzleman]

My hypothesis: the blue states tend to restrict growth which limits the supply of available housing and jobs.

I think that's part of it.  The more expensive states are those without the land to increase housing supply within reasonable distances of their cities.  This is the problem in New York, Connecticut, California, etc.  This is not a problem in Texas, at least not yet.

I think there is a direct relationship between ability to expand housing supply and political philosophy.  The Democratic philosophy is largely a redistributive one, and one that will ring true to people who live in an area where you can only get something, like a house, by taking it from someone else.  The reality of inability to expand and create new housing supply permeates the thinking in these areas.

The Republican philosophy, on the other hand, is based upon creating a bigger pie so that those with less can improve their position without necessarily impacting those who already are strongly positioned.  This philosophy rings true to a larger extent in areas where the housing supply can be increased.  This ability to expand the housing supply keeps prices in check.

[Alcon]

My hypothesis: the blue states tend to restrict growth which limits the supply of available housing and jobs.

I think that's part of it.  The more expensive states are those without the land to increase housing supply within reasonable distances of their cities.  This is the problem in New York, Connecticut, California, etc.  This is not a problem in Texas, at least not yet.

I think there is a direct relationship between ability to expand housing supply and political philosophy.  The Democratic philosophy is largely a redistributive one, and one that will ring true to people who live in an area where you can only get something, like a house, by taking it from someone else.  The reality of inability to expand and create new housing supply permeates the thinking in these areas.

The Republican philosophy, on the other hand, is based upon creating a bigger pie so that those with less can improve their position without necessarily impacting those who already are strongly positioned.  This philosophy rings true to a larger extent in areas where the housing supply can be increased.  This ability to expand the housing supply keeps prices in check.

I see little, if any, difference between suburban Republican areas and suburban Democratic areas in affordability relative to income. In fact, they are pretty much identical within their respective states. I think this is not about politics at all, and rather about supply and demand.

[patrick1]

By no means could I imagine myself living among these bizarre people of Mississippi or Oklahoma or any other place in the Bibile Belt.

twit.

[Blue Rectangle]

That's mainly due to the Democratic states having the best economic opportunities, best colleges, and best entertainment. LA, New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and Washington DC are all in Democratic states/districts.

A lot of the red states have very limited economic opportunities and thus, are cheaper to live in.

No.  Sorry, but most of the economic growth in the U.S. over the past decade or so has been in the interior West and the South.  As far as colleges go, many of the better tech schools are in those areas too.  The colleges generally seen as the best liberal arts colleges are the Ivy League schools, but they were around before Republicans and Democrats existed.

[danwxman]

I meant metro Phoenix. Anyway, the growth is in the suburbs.

Not at all. Phoenix is growing rapidly too.

[David S]

They are expensive because they are the states everyone wants to be in - the centers of economic, social, and intellectual activity.  Backwaters by contrast are cheap and vote Republican.

And yet you chose to live in a very low cost of living area.

[Alcon]

I meant metro Phoenix. Anyway, the growth is in the suburbs.

Not at all. Phoenix is growing rapidly too.

Not for Arizona - it is growing at a rate of 3.8%, in comparison to 10.0% for Maricopa County as a whole and 8.8% for the state. This is based on 2000-2003 Census estimates.

[danwxman]

I meant metro Phoenix. Anyway, the growth is in the suburbs.

Not at all. Phoenix is growing rapidly too.

Not for Arizona - it is growing at a rate of 3.8%, in comparison to 10.0% for Maricopa County as a whole and 8.8% for the state. This is based on 2000-2003 Census estimates.

Phoenix's grew by 67,000 people between 2000-2003. That's still growing quite rapidly.

[bgwah]

Phoenix isn't that expensive, either...