Why do Blue States have higher unemployment than Red States?

I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and then compared their information against a map of the 2008 Presidential Election results I found at Wikipedia. Here is what I found: 8 of the Top 10 US States for Unemployment are Blue States If you count DC (not actually a state), then 9 of the Top 10 are Blue States. 42% of Blue States are below the national average for unemployment 63% of Red States are below the national average for unemployment Why is this? Somebody told me that income level has an effect... which I'm not sure is relevant as you either have a job or not, but I compared two states (Alabama (Red) and Rhode Island (Blue)) just to see the differences. Here is what I found: 2007 Median Household Income (I couldn't find 2008 numbers): Alabama: $49901 Rhode Island: $54735 (A 9.6% lead for Rhode Island) Cost of Living Difference: 35.06% This makes Alabamas $49901 equal to $67398 in Rhode Island. A 23% lead for Alabama. Alabama has a 2.5% lower unemployment rate meaning you have a better chance of having a job to earn that money. Those numbers don't consider taxes. Alabama has 2-5% income tax Rhode Island has a 3.75-9.9% income tax. Meaning you keep more of those dollars in Alabama that are already worth more than in Rhode Island. That doesn't count a hose of other taxes like gas tax (20.9 cents per gallon in Alabama vs. 31 cents per gallon in Rhode Island) The clear winner in this first examination is Alabama. I would also like to know what those Blue Politicians are doing with all those tax dollars. Higher Taxes + Higher Incomes = More Tax Revenue. So why is their crime and unemployment still so high? ?: No you did not touch a nerve. What you did do was find some interesting information about my randomly selected states. Thanks! John Q: Higher populations means nothing. Standard of living? Do you have proof? Bash: Actually I did provide a source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics the 2008 Presidential election. Thanks for playing. Yes, SC is in the Top 10 worst states for unemployment (see the Bureau of Labor Statistics). One of two red states to make that list. Again thanks for playing. t79a: I selected two states at random. I'm sure similar we could compare California and any red state. The blue states traditionally always have higher populations. So unemployment numbers should by your logic be worse in the Red States. luap: your logic is faulty. Higher populations is not relevant. Unemployment rates are based on a percentage of total population. Therefore a state with a lower population should be more vulnerable to higher unemployment numbers. Mark T: Like Obama you said a lot but never answered the question. You talked about overall revenues, but revenue is useless. What matters is how far that revenue goes. For example if a steak is $1 in Alabama, and $5 in California, who is better off .. the guy making a $1 an hour in Alabama or the guy making $3 in California? Tax revenue is also not relevant. The lower cost of living means that the value of the lower incomes in most red states casues their actual value to be higher than in blue states. Add to that the fact that most blue states have higher taxes and you have a real problem. Next you have lower unemployment in red states that means you have a better chance of actually having a job at all. You want to say that red and blue have no meaning, but due to the consistant nature of the data, I have to say I disagree. Hmmm... don't you think that the political preferences in those areas dictates who the political leadership is and therefore dictates policy?

Public Comments

Libs are lazy and would rather live off the government teet .....
Does liberalism cause unemployment? Or does unemployment cause liberalism? High unemployment rates are because high taxes, combined with a poor business climate, while hating the rich have driven job creating business's out of town. This creates dependency on the government for help. Either way the bottom line is anyone that gets a paycheck from the government votes for democrats.
They also have the highest populations, densest cities, highest mean incomes, and highest standards of living, but don't let that get in the way of your cherry-picking..... edit: Alabama also has the second or third highest infant mortality rate and one of the lowest life-expectancies. I guess I touched a nerve!
what's the diff their are alot of people unemployment in ALL states....
I notice you didn't provide a source for your rant. As my state, south carolina, has the second highest rate of unemployment in the nation....not to mention failing schools throughout the state....and since we are subsidized by all of the 'blue states' and the federal government just to stay afloat, I believe you are incorrect. And I have sources to back me up: http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Subsidized-Red-Donor-Blue.html "Data shows, on average, the Red States get back $1.33 for every dollar sent to Washington, Blue States receive $0.93. Ironically, the political party dominating Red State Politics is the one that complains loudest about taxes. SUBSIDISED STATES: (Dollars received for every tax dollar paid) North Dakota (2.03), New Mexico (1.89), Mississippi (1.84), Alaska (1.82), West Virginia (1.74), Montana (1.64), Alabama (1.61), South Dakota (1.59), Arkansas (1.53), Hawaii (1.52), Virginia (1.47), Oklahoma (1.47), Kentucky 1.46), Louisiana (1.44), Idaho (1.34), South Carolina (1.32), Missouri (1.32), Maine (1.31), Tennessee (1.24), Iowa (1.22), Arizona (1.20), Maryland (1.20), Nebraska (1.19), Utah (1.14), Kansas (1.14), Vermont (1.12), Pennsylvania (1.08), North Carolina (1.07), Rhode Island (1.06), Wyoming (1.05), Ohio (1.02), Georgia (1.01). (26 Red States, 6 Blue States)"
Because Blue States have more people that have recently lost their jobs whereas Red Staters are more likely to be chronically jobless and don't show up in unemployment statistics.
Those blue states you mentioned, how long have they been blue states. Also take into consideration the industries that are dominant in the states you list as the top 10. Are those the industries that have been the hardest hit. Also consider the population differences in Rhode Island and Alabama, the slightest hit to a low population is going to have devastating effects on employment. LOL, if you actually map they year of labor statistics against a political map from THAT year, it's mostly red my friend. Alabama also has a rep as having the WORST standardized testing scores in the nation.
In urban areas there are more single mothers than in rural areas. Urban areas tend to be within blue States. I think unemployment, crime, taxes, and political preference are a result of demographics. I don't think that political preference causes unemployment. I think that both are a result of demography. EDIT: For the people that wanted links, here they are, and the numbers he gives are accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/ Good question.
Blue states have a much higher population, therefore when times are bad, there will be more unemployment, red states have more farm workers, or have jobs that are not affected as much, due to there goegraphel location.
If red-state/blue-state economics make So much emminent sense, than perhaps you would care to explain why BLUE states end up subsidizing the lower cost of living in Alabama. The REASON Alabama can have a lower cost of living is because it's getting money from other (mostly blue) states. Here you get to a market paradox, it's "smarter" to move to a receiving state individually, but that means that less monies are available for your chosen state of residence so a minutely less amount is received by your new home-state. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html We are much more interconnected than it's commonly thought, so it's worth bearing in mind that your cost of living is a result largely of jobs available and various other factors related to quality of life. http://www.hcareers.com/us/resourcecenter/tabid/306/articleid/455/default.aspx This idea is exhaustively examined in Richard Florida's "The Creative Class", and notes - not terribly suprisingly that states like Alabama are at a total loss as to how to attract and maintain - high value - salaries, vs. states with a much higher quality of life. So yeah, Birmingham, Alabama is much nicer than New Brunswick, NJ, for example, but if I don't like that city, go 10 miles south to Princeton, or 10 miles away in New York. Boston, has tons of environments, Harvard Square, Lexington, etc. Yes, it can be expensive, but qualitatively the blue states, tend to offer alot more opportunities for fun, personal and professional development than red states. If there was as much to do, these states would attract workers, companies and - guess what - cost of living would go up. Atlanta, in this way is a PERFECT example. In a little more than 25 years, it went from a reasonably modern southern city to a major metropolitan area very much indistinguishable from northern cities or those in Washington. I guess it just means there are different things of importance, other than money, for some people.