You've Only Got Yourself To Blame

Tyler Durden's picture




 

The questions of who are the 1% and what level of income demarcates the fat cats from the rest of Americans are likely to become more and more polarizing in the coming weeks. What is perhaps the most intriguing is the apparent dichotomy between the demographics (youth - who face considerably worse employment trends) and state-wealth who voted for Obama. As ConvergEx's Nick Colas notes, of all the U.S. states with an above-average incidence of their citizens earning over $200,000 (14 in total), all but one (Alaska) went for President Obama in last week’s election.  At the other end of the income spectrum, only 2 states in the bottom 10 for +$200K earners (Maine and Iowa) had a majority of voters who sided with the President.

Via Nick Colas, ConvergEx:

In the spirit of the notion that politics makes strange bedfellows – we’ll interpret that to include roommates as well – I went looking for some examples from the recent Presidential election.  And since there is so much fuss about the question of “What level of income makes a household well-off?” we threw that into the mix as well.  In the tabel above you will find an analysis of state-by-state income levels, wealth disparity, cost of housing, and which candidate that state favored in last week’s election. 

 

A few summary points:

  • The greater the percentage of households making over $200,000/year in a given state, the more likely it is that its citizens voted for President Obama rather than Governor Romney.  Of the top 10 states in terms of “high income” households as a percentage of the total state-wide population, nine of them will be awarding their Electoral College votes to Obama.  The only holdout here is Alaska.
  • There are a total of 13 states (plus DC) where the number of +$200,000/year households as a percentage of the state-wide exceed the national average of 3.93%.  They are: the District of Columbia, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, California, Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.  As mentioned, Alaska went for Governor Romney.  And it is the only state on this list that did.
  • At the other end of the spectrum, the 10 states with the lowest percentage of +$200,000/year income households relative to the local population are Mississippi, Montana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Indiana, Maine, Alabama, and Iowa.  Eight of those states swung Republican in last week’s Presidential contest.  The two exceptions were Iowa and Maine.
  • The central irony of this straightforward math is that any increase in income taxes on the “Wealthy” will be disproportionately borne by the states which secured the President’s reelection.  Only 1.87% of the households in the states mentioned in the last bullet – the Republican leaning ones – earn over $200,000.  Conversely, an average of 6.48% of the households at the top end of the state-by-state list earns this much.  And, as mentioned, with the exception of Alaska they all favored President Obama over Governor Romney.
  • Whether this is merely correlation or causation is the subject of countless articles in political science journals, for as you review these lists of states you’ll see that this isn’t just about Election Day 2012.  The hard-core “Red” states tend to have lower percentages of wealthy households, and the dyed-in-the-wool “Blue” states have more.  Much more.
  • Also, if you look at the GINI Index – a measure of income inequality – Republican leaning states enjoy more equality on these terms than the citizens of traditionally Democratic areas of the country.  They may not be Sweden (GINI Index 23.0), but Romney-voting Mississippi, Montana, West Virginia, Arkansas and Idaho average 44.9 on the GINI scale.  On the other side of the political and economic coin, Democratic strongholds New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut and DC have an average GINI score of 48.0. That is a three-point difference – about the same as currently exists between the U.S. average (GINI score 47) and Iran (GINI score 45).
  • You might argue that a dollar goes a lot further in some states than others, and you’d have a point.  For example, the average median listing price for a single family home in the five states with the lowest percentage of +$200,000 households is $169,780 as of 2011.  For the top five states (plus DC) in terms of high-income households, that number is almost twice as much at $304,140.  “Wealthy” in Mississippi is different than “wealthy” in New York. Not that any attempt to implement a higher tax rate on the much-referenced “1%” will take that into account...
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:09 | 2978267 DCCynic
DCCynic's picture

Love it.  We really do get the government we deserve.  HL Mencken lives

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:21 | 2978306 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

REPLACE GUN WITH OBAMAPHONE.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:15 | 2978466 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

it is not about the price of a house but quality of education system and employment opportunities.

 

plus, areas where housing is cheap, people spend more money to get a larger house with larger real estate taxes and maintenance fees.

 

 

 

 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:26 | 2978504 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

I wish I could get paid to make such borad sweeping generalizations and not have to deal with that human factor.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 05:11 | 2979077 GernB
GernB's picture

OK, here's the human factor. In attempting to equalize income by raising taxes you will put hundereds of thousand out of work. In trying to provide a living wage, the minimum wage is pricing hundereds of thousands of people ot of the work place condemining them to poverty. In attempting to provide health care for all, the leviathan you put in place will take away personal choice and decide to kill people to control costs. You want compasion, then let people help people, because governments can only force people to take care of one another and there's no compassion in being forced to do something.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 05:11 | 2979078 GernB
GernB's picture

OK, here's the human factor. In attempting to equalize income by raising taxes you will put hundereds of thousand out of work. In trying to provide a living wage, the minimum wage is pricing hundereds of thousands of people ot of the work place condemining them to poverty. In attempting to provide health care for all, the leviathan you put in place will take away personal choice and decide to kill people to control costs. You want compasion, then let people help people, because governments can only force people to take care of one another and there's no compassion in being forced to do something.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:18 | 2980313 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

There are simply no facts to back up your assertion.  Do you honestly belive that if we reduce taxes on the wealthy they will give you a raise? No they won't - for the reason that giving tax breaks to the wealthy doesn't help the econemy - weatlhy people do not spend money.  No go shop your 'facts' to Karl Rove and Mitt Romney who obviously rely on illusions like yours to target their get out the vote campaigns.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:41 | 2979165 flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>At the other end of the spectrum, the 10 states with the lowest percentage of +$200,000/year income households relative to the local population are Mississippi, Montana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Indiana, Maine, Alabama, and Iowa.  Eight of those states swung Republican in last week’s Presidential contest.  The two exceptions were Iowa and Maine.<<<

Just means the culture wars are still being fought by an army of low-income whites who think voting Republican is a vote for American family "values."

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:21 | 2980323 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

And conversly there really are Wealthy Democrats who think that paying for this great society we live in is a good idea - so we don't end up like Mexico.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:21 | 2980324 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:40 | 2978516 ACP
ACP's picture

Disagree. It's about having an educational system that teaches people what they need to learn in life and the most effective ways to manage pitfalls.

The great educational system in Western Europe sure the hell didn't keep the populace from getting sucked into the black hole of socialism and fucking themselves raw, did it?

Edit: Additionally, an educational system that is "free" and where test scores are higher than another country means NOTHING when the social conscience of the students is completely back-asswards. Yes, education is important, but a free one isn't necessarily a good one. Why is the greatest innovation still in the US, even after decades of decline?

Opportunity, not social promotion.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 23:43 | 2978709 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

 

 

Okay, your edit earned a +1 and well deserved at that.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:09 | 2979133 Acet
Acet's picture

"the social conscience of the students is completely back-asswards"

That sounds a lot like a values statement to me. It's not the funtion of the Education system to imbue people with a specific set of Values, Ethics or Morals - its function is to give students the tools needed to succeed in life (wether later those students will actually use those tools or not is a whole different matter). As much as you think that "ACPs" set of Values is superior and everybody should come out of school thinking like you (for example, believing that Europe is Socialist) it should not be the function of the school system to make the students minds about those things - sure, teach them Skepticism, teach them the notions of Propaganda, Propagandistic techniques, Marketting techniques, the Scientific Method and Phsychology principles, but then leave them to choose their own path.

 

"Why is the greatest innovation still in the US, even after decades of decline?"

Money: the US imports he vast majority of its Scientists. Look around at the names in most Patent applications and Research Papers produced in the US - they ain't American.

 

Mind you, I agree with much of what you said.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:24 | 2980348 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Keep telling yourself that we lead in innovation, but it's simply not true.  We're being overtaken there too.  This country basically has natural resoruces and a bunch of farmland in the middle - that's it.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 08:19 | 2979199 blown income
blown income's picture

Houses are not cheap here , 1 example http://www.vaneatonromero.com/L12233232 this is in Lafayette La on postage stamp lot , I looked at this home for shit's and giggles Sunday ,no yard to speak of...s

 

 

Some homes here going for $200 a foot fucking joke- http://www.villageofriverranchrealty.idxco.com/i/4226/River_Ranch_Homes_...

 

 

 

 

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:06 | 2978757 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, Americans are the Olympic champions of false class consciousness! Pretty well more than 50% Americans believe or identify with ideas or values that do not actually represent them! The best brainwashing that money could buy perhaps deserves some Oscars to go with those Olympic gold medals?

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:51 | 2979172 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Yep.

There's an army of working class whites still out there fighting the false flag culture wars on behalf of the Republican Party.

The notable exception was Missouri voters who told the recruiting poster boy of the nut case anti-abortion faction, Todd Akin, to go fuck himself.

The state went to Romney, but MO Reps split down ticket and elected Mc Caskill for Senate and retained a Democratic governor. Jay Nixon.

I guess there comes a point when you can't vote for "stupid" any longer.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:10 | 2978272 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

So why the Hell am I to blame myself...................??

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:40 | 2978373 unrulian
unrulian's picture

Who cares?..what was the alternative? they both sucked

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:05 | 2978432 CH1
CH1's picture

Ummmm... stop playing a rigged game?

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:08 | 2978765 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

The game is ridiculously rigged to the degree that it is titled to practically be a vertical cliff! But, there is no choice but to play.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:19 | 2978778 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

It only looks rigged TO YOU I have to add.

 

I wonder why that is?

 

Complete lack of any perceptual ability I would conjecture ...

 

(Where did Michael Dell, Bill Gates et al get the hut-spa to excel, whereas you're flat on your ass?)

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 01:08 | 2978876 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

well, Bill Gates signed on the dotted line, and voila! 

insta-genius!  of course, the monies he gathers for setting up his intentionally buggy system on behalf of. . .

get poured into "foundations" that continue the Agenda he's rewarded for, etc. etc. etc.

Buffet's his best pal, donated HIS fortune to Bill for the foundational plots - do the math.

Warren E. Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and one of the world's wealthiest men, plans to donate the bulk of his $44 billion fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and four other philanthropies starting in July.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/business/26buffett.html

they work in mysterious ways, these men. . .

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:12 | 2978279 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Collective" gasp ;-)

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:58 | 2978411 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Here is a news flash for everyone outside of NY. Not all New Yorkers make $251,000. I'd argue that 95% of New Yorkers make less than that. I'd also argue that the majority of the 95% that make less than 250k are idiots. They voted O in for other reasons. Although they certainly are not against the 5% that make big bucks getting slammed. Although we all know that 5% is on Wall Street and they are the biggest beneficiaries of O's easy money polocies.

To summarize, NY is full of idiots, but most are not rich. California I would argue is full of rich idiots.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:17 | 2978470 Cabreado
Cabreado's picture

In the latter stages of chaos, the definition of "idiot" will morph into something, anything different, and the slant will be towards a self-serving definition.

What you're looking for, I think, is awareness, outward thinking, humility...

Those are the things that, left by the wayside, brought us down.

Lots of "intelligent" people who possess none of the character traits necessary to sustain anything.

Self-Absorption is the most dangerous force on this planet.
It just so happens that you and I happen to be here when it reaches its peak -- and it reaches its peak only because it has to.

 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:28 | 2978508 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

No idea where you were going wtih that. Idiot literally means ignorant. Same word different root.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 05:00 | 2979073 chenn
chenn's picture

Ummm, no.  Ignorance is not knowing some fact or idea.  An idiot is mentally deficient in their ability to learn facts or ideas.

Example:

You were ignorant because you didn't know this but you are only an idiot if you don't understand it now.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:20 | 2979141 Acet
Acet's picture

Many years ago, having ended up in one of the hardest, most demending University courses (Physics) in my home country, surrounded by people whose IQs were far above the level of genious, I soon found out a deep truth that has been proven to me right again and again in my life:

  • Being Intelligent is not the same as being Smart

Yupes, people with huge memories, able to think very fast, capable to see the patterns behind the patterns behind the patterns, who can hold and change huge complex logical structures in their minds are still as likelly to be idiots as everybody else. The main difference is that they think highly of their own mental powers, to such a point that highly inteligent people are actually easier to scam.

In fact, being successfull in life is barelly correlated with IQ, and some of the biggest failures I've ever met were actually highly intelligent people.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:16 | 2978283 stocktivity
stocktivity's picture

How can Ron Paul say we are not as productive in this nation as we used to be....ha....take that general in Afghanistan. The commanding General of 60000 of our troops in Afghanistan has the time to send 30000 emails to some married gal in the states over the past 2 years. That's a lot of emails in 2 years....let's see...roughly 41 emails a day!  I guess he had nothing better to do besides try to protect 60000 soldiers. Don't tell me we aren't as productive....and now our Congress and President want to give him a promotion....to Petraeus job of CIA Director.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:23 | 2978314 Bawneee Fwank
Bawneee Fwank's picture

Well when your only job is to make sure the poppy harvest gets loaded up and sent out to various locations around the world there aint much to do.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:48 | 2978392 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Shit floats to the top in the military, just like it does in politics.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:54 | 2978579 machinegear
machinegear's picture

At least Petraeus wasn't surfing porn. He went after the real thing. Give props where due. Dude.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 01:32 | 2978914 ReactionToClose...
ReactionToClosedMinds's picture

Sir: when all is said & done ... I may end up agreeing with you .... but right now ... all you have are Team 44 news leaks to their proferred news media propagandists.

Let's see what the real story is when everyone has a change to weigh in ...but then asking for scepticism & patience is akin to asking the judicious mob at the Oxbow Incident to pause & reflect what is really going on ....

 

 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:24 | 2978321 TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

Your math is correct, but your explanation is wrong. We all respond to the self respecting humanity created by liberty. When everyone has about the same purchasing power, there is little envy. However, when the super rich demonstrate their arrogance and greed for all to see, envy is heightened. Therefore, where the rich lived, the less rich citizens were more likely to vote for Obama and the poor states had less envy and were less to vote for Obama.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:30 | 2978335 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Either way, Obama doesn't need the rich anymore, and the rich don't need anymore competition. Read my lips, no new riches...........bitchez.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 05:31 | 2979087 GernB
GernB's picture

Large cities tend to result in people with less empthy for their fellow man, They tend to intellectualize social problems and depersonalize others (like rich people) because they lack empathy. They believe people are inherently bad and must be forced to do the right thing by taxing them and using the taxes for charitable purposes, because they don't trust people to do it volentarily (or because they have no empathy for the life they are stealing from others in the form of their labor). They vote for people who promise to regulate and control and institutionalize fairness, because they think it is the only way to make sure the less fortunate are cared for.

People in rural areas tend to be more trusting and believe people are inherently good and therefore trust most people to use their freedom wisely and to the benefit of their fellow man. They tend to see social problems as stemming from individual interactions rather than as part of some grand abstract concept they can control. They vote for more individual freedom because they trust that people will take care of other people.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:25 | 2978323 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Is it possible that those at the lower end of the income ladder in those states with high percentages of high-income earners are indulging in class warfare? Perhaps the poor voted for Obama to stick it to those around them who are so much better off financially. Of course, there is no explaining why so many of 'the rich' in those high-GINI states voted for Obama. Wealth does not correlate well with intelligence.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:11 | 2978457 illyia
illyia's picture

Perhaps those in the more wealthy, democratically aligned states just have enough money to pass some on. Maybe their wealth affords them the luxury of seeing socialism as a good thing - as a duty. Maybe the poorer states are more inclined to want to keep their wealth at home and are proud. Like many impoverished people, perhaps they resent that all their work doesn't afford them as much as the wealthier blue states. I suspect education and technology has a good deal to do with this, as well a urbanisation.

Certainly there is a trend, and the wealth has clearly voted for Obama, even though they may pay more themselves.

That is what the chart says...

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:21 | 2978488 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

The Big money in NY voted for Romney. The semi big money (500k plus) certainly voted for Romney. The masses in NY (contrary to opinion) that make under 250k overwhelmingly voted in Obama.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:29 | 2980388 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

The masses making under 250k? The masses make well under 100k.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:42 | 2978545 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Like many impoverished people, perhaps they resent that all their work doesn't afford them as much as the wealthier blue states."

Perhaps, as the article implies, they are not as impoverished as you think.

I sat at a boat ramp yesterday and watched a 90yr old lady catch 8 fish that a NYC restaurant would charge 30 bucks a plate for. How is the fishing in NYC storm drains up there by the way?

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:46 | 2978558 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

i watch people around here pay $30 for Tilapia and think they are ordering a deiicacy. One time i just had to let everyone know that tilapia are fish used to eat other fish's crap. everyone was apalled and assumed i was making that up. whatever.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:33 | 2978517 Dasa Slooofoot
Dasa Slooofoot's picture

Of course, there is no explaining why so many of 'the rich' in those high-GINI states voted for Obama. 

 

Because it is government that affords them their rich salaries?  I'm from Long Island and for a public "servant" to make more than 250k is not rare.  

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:50 | 2978563 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

also from long island and agree with u about the public servants making big bucks. ironically i know a few and they are (now) hardcore repubs. they want someone to put a stop to this out of control monetary policy. of course their 6 figure pension has nothing to do with it. they earned that.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:29 | 2978330 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

I am waiting for those Dem states to implement higher state taxes on the rich. Seems they would be all over that...ya think.

Its not like they are hypocrites or anything.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:09 | 2978448 CH1
CH1's picture

The really rich (as opposed to the productive) don't give a shit.

First of all, only income is taxed, not wealth. Secondly, that's what trusts are for.

Socialism is the dream system of the criminal rich: it puts all the wealth under the control of a single entity, who is eager to work with them

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:31 | 2978331 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Faulty logic. The poor outnumber the wealthy in every state. Those making over $200K didn't put the president into office.

btw i do not consider $200K to be excessive. I consider the kleptocrat rat bastards like mozilo, paulson, corzine, blankfein, dimon, buffett, and his bozo billionaire's club to be the real problem.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:44 | 2978385 Vampyroteuthis ...
Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Well put buzzsaw. The sheeple elected Obamao, not the wealthy.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:13 | 2978459 CH1
CH1's picture

Hello..... the 10 richest counties all went for Obama.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!