I’m sure that this is just a coincidence!

Sometimes the stories on America Online can be a bit overhyped — is that a redundancy? — but I looked through this story, The 10 States Where No One Wants to Buy a New Home. You can look through the Gallery, to see the reasons, but, looking at the list, one thing jumped out at me:

  1. Rhode Island Rhode Island Rhode Island
  2. West Virginia West Virginia West Virginia
  3. Illinois Illinois Illinois
  4. Michigan Michigan Michigan
  5. Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut
  6. Ohio Ohio Ohio
  7. Massachusetts Massachusetts Massachusetts
  8. New York New York New York
  9. Maine Maine Maine
  10. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania

I’m sure you can guess what the color codes mean: the 2008, 2004 and 2000 Presidential elections, and whether the state was carried by the Republican or Democratic candidate. And with the notable exception of West Virginia, one of our poorest states, and one in which the land itself makes homebuilding much more difficult than normal, what I noted was a rather marked tendency toward a more Democratic Party, more liberal posture.

Of course, I’m sure it was all just a coincidence.
____________________________
Update: While referring to this graph, in writing this comment, I noticed another “Top Ten” list of “states”, the top ten states in job creation:

  1. Texas Texas Texas
  2. Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana
  3. North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota
  4. District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia
  5. Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma
  6. Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska
  7. Alaska Alaska Alaska
  8. Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming
  9. South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota
  10. New York New York New York

Yup, another coincidence!
____________________________
Cross posted on Truth Before Dishonor.

17 Comments

  1. Pingback: I’m sure that this is just a coincidence! « Truth Before Dishonor

  2. I don’t know whether it is a coincidence or not, but to too simply make a correlation with the political party in power is naive, to say the least.

    For example in the first list is made up of old industrialized states whose economy has suffered greatly in recent decades due to the movement of jobs overseas by greedy business owners and corporations. Add this to the collapse of the housing bubble and the difficulty in obtaining a mortgage, should it be a surprise to anyone that people are not buying houses?

    By the way, on this subject, Texas avoided the housing bubble by imposing strict regulations on mortgages. Hey, there’s that word ‘regulation’, associated with the good Gov Perry, who wants government to get smaller and smaller. There is a place for good government, and here is one example!

    Another example, in the second list, most are relatively sparsely populated states in which agriculture is a major industry. Their output is in high demand, therefore quite lucrative. Moreover, they are the recipients of massive federal subsidies. New York state is the outlier, much to their credit!

    I’m not saying that the political party in power is not a factor, but these two issues are much too complicated to draw a correlation like you just did, Dana, as you jump at any opportunity to make such a point about the wonderful Repubs, a party which thinks nothing of pushing this nation toward default just to make a political point, not giving a damn about the millions of American folks whose investments are in place to provide for their children’s college educations and their own eventual retirements. That move will not be easily forgotten by the voters come November 2012!

  3. Perry says:
    27 August 2011 at 13:26

    Clean up on aisle two! Code brown!

    That move will not be easily forgotten by the voters come November 2012!

    As the Conservatives solidify their 2010 gains and increase them, throwing out of power the worst (and uncoincidentally most socialist) President evah!

  4. I don’t know whether it is a coincidence or not, but to too simply make a correlation with the political party in power is naive, to say the least.

    Says the guy who does that ALL. THE. TIME around here. But only when it shows the GOP/conservatives as the “villains.”

    Example #19,622 that Perry is a rock-solid hypocrite.

  5. Perry says:
    27 August 2011 at 13:26
    I don’t know whether it is a coincidence or not, but to too simply make a correlation with the political party in power is naive, to say the least.

    Perry doesn’t see it because he doesn’t want to see it.

  6. Perry missed it:

    I don’t know whether it is a coincidence or not, but to too simply make a correlation with the political party in power is naive, to say the least.

    It’s not a correlation with the party in power, but more of a correlation of the attitudes of the voters. Texas is a conservative state, and even when Democrats hold power in Texas, they are relatively conservative Democrats. The same is true in Louisiana, in the Dakotas, in most of the states on the most job gains list.

    On the other hand, it’s the blue states noted where the housing market is the worst, and even when Republicans hold some power, they are more moderate, even liberal, Republicans, though that seems to be changing in Pennsylvania.

    These things are reflected in their presidential votes, but the part far fewer people see is that the state governments generally reflect the attitude of the voters.

    Our friends on the left will try to tell us that the record in Texas, for which Governor Perry will claim credit, isn’t as good as it seems, or isn’t real, or isn’t the result of conservative government. But if people are willing to look, they’ll see that these things seem to correlate over a much broader spectrum: the conservative states, in general, have had better job creation, the liberal states have the worst housing markets, Illinois raises taxes, and jobs leave, California has high taxes and an over-regulated business environment, and Pyrite State officials travel to Texas to find where their jobs have gone.

    Again, just a coincidence, but when coincidences start piling up . . . .

  7. It’s not a correlation with the party in power, but more of a correlation of the attitudes of the voters.

    Oh, bullshit. Alternative explanations are “race to the bottom” and “reversion to the mean”.

  8. It’s not a correlation with the party in power, but more of a correlation of the attitudes of the voters.

    Oh, bullshit. Alternative explanations are “race to the bottom” and “reversion to the mean”.

  9. Pingback: If It’s Job Creation You Want « Truth Before Dishonor

  10. Of those top ten jobs creation states, seven of them have a common thread: TX, LA, ND, OK, NE, WY and SD are all Right-to-Work states, where workers can choose whether or not to join a union, but are not forced to do so as a condition for employment.

    Why would a business owner or a corporation want to create jobs in a state where workers are compelled to join a union, whether they desire to join a union or not? Why would workers choose to be forced to pay union dues against their wills, only to be affiliated with the dirty tactics that were on display by the CWA and the IBEW during the recent failed Verizon strike?

    As more and more states join the Right-to-Work movement, employment for all is bound to increase–except perhaps for the exploiters of union members and their forced dues, the union “leaders”.

    [format issues fixed - pH]

  11. Gretchen opines:
    As more and more states join the Right-to-Work movement, employment for all is bound to increase–except perhaps for the exploiters of union members and their forced dues, the union “leaders”.

    You really mean the DNC, Right?

  12. “Of those top ten jobs creation states, seven of them have a common thread: TX, LA, ND, OK, NE, WY and SD are all Right-to-Work states, where workers can choose whether or not to join a union, but are not forced to do so as a condition for employment.”

    What about the other three states, Gretchen?

    “Why would a business owner or a corporation want to create jobs in a state where workers are compelled to join a union, whether they desire to join a union or not?”

    Because enlightened business owners or corporations would realize that negotiations could result in better employer-employee relations, thus increased productivity.

    “Why would workers choose to be forced to pay union dues against their wills, only to be affiliated with the dirty tactics that were on display by the CWA and the IBEW during the recent failed Verizon strike?”

    In an ordered society based on democratic processes, there are times when we are out-voted, therefore must do some things against our wills, like pay taxes. If you don’t like it, then one can get involved in a campaign of movement to overturn the policy. Thus, the unions practice democratic processes, and must abide by the wishes of the majority of the membership.

    Just what were the dirty tricks that the IBEW used during their strike against Verizon?

    “As more and more states join the Right-to-Work movement, employment for all is bound to increase–except perhaps for the exploiters of union members and their forced dues, the union “leaders”.”

    Do you understand that “forced dues” are no different than forced taxes? Therefore, if a majority of employees choose to unionize, then all employees should be required to pay union dues, as this is a basic tenet of a democratic process and outcome.

    On a macro scale, I think you will agree that without unions, the portion of the pie which goes to workers has been decreasing in America for decades, while the burdens on the workers have been increasing. The inability for workers to unionize is, I believe, a major factor in this decline. Other than unionizing, I don’t see any other solution to this problem. Do you, Gretchen, or anyone else?

    You might want to consider the German model, where unions are very strong, where productivity is high, and where the German economy has been strong relative to their competition. Moreover, Germany depends heavily on export, so they have been more than competitive.

    A well run union movement can help to “bridge the gap” between employee and employer, in my opinion!

  13. As more and more states join the Right-to-Work movement, employment for all is bound to increase–except perhaps for the exploiters of union members and their forced dues, the union “leaders”.

    Riiiiight – just like when everybody at a concert stands up, they can all see better…

  14. Do you understand that “forced dues” are no different than forced taxes? Therefore, if a majority of employees choose to unionize, then all employees should be required to pay union dues, as this is a basic tenet of a democratic process and outcome.

    Since when did unions usurp the role of government, Herr Censor?

  15. ” Therefore, if a majority of employees choose to unionize, then all employees should be required to pay union dues, as this is a basic tenet of a democratic process and outcome.”

    And that’s why democracy sucks! So you’re saying if 51 out of a hundred say you should be killed, then you should be killed. After all that too would be based on the tenet of democratic process and your death would be your democratic outcome. And that’s why we don’t live in a democracy but rather in a constitutional republic where each of us are free to choose our own path. It’s called Freedom, live with it.

  16. “So you’re saying if 51 out of a hundred say you should be killed, then you should be killed.”

    No, I didn’t say that Hoagie-John, so your argument is absolutely ridiculous!

    “And that’s why democracy sucks!”

    Why am I not surprised that you said that? It’s mostly all about you, Hoagie-John, and your convoluted idea about what freedom is all about in an orderly society like we Americans strive to have. Your approach will produce only chaos, which is the direction we are presently headed, unfortunately, because it is your unelected ilk who are really calling the shots in DC.

    You folks mouth “freedom”, when what you really want is control over the rest of us slobs!

  17. You folks mouth “freedom”, when what you really want is control over the rest of us slobs!

    Aside from the fact that “slob” is an appropriate moniker (at the very least), once again we see Herr Censor twisting himself into a rhetorical pretzel. You scream about others wanting to “control” you, yet want unions to have the power to force me to pay them.

    My God. How did you make it as a teacher with such ridiculous logic skills?

Comments are closed.