# California vs Kansas economy... why can't we put bad ideas to rest? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583 "2016-11-04T02:53:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2016, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583/61 "2016-11-06T14:07:49Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > No. Conservatives don’t believe in no government. They believe in constrained government. Actually, conservatives don’t mind big government one little bit – so long as it’s aimed at somebody they don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583/62 "2016-11-07T16:11:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The conservative thought process seems to be something like this: > 1: By all measures, blue states are doing better than red states economically. > 2: But there are many uncontrolled variables, and correlation does not equal causation. > 3: Therefore, there is no proof that liberal economic policies are better than conservative economic policies. > 4: Therefore, since there is no proof that liberal economic policies are better, they’re not better. > 5: Since liberal economic policies are not better, it follows therefore that conservative policies are better. 1. This is not true at all. California as we have already shown has a unemployment rate 10% higher than the rest of the country. South Dakota, a red state, has one that is 40% lower than the rest of the country. North Dakota, a red state, has led the country in economic growth since 2010. By any reasonable standard red states are doing better economically than blue states. The red state blue state divide is of rather recent vintage. California voted for the Republican presidential candidate every election from 1952-1988 with one exception. During that time California was an economic juggernaut that tripled in population and founded Silicon Valley. Since 1992 California has started to lose population to other states and has only grown because of immigration from other countries. That is the pattern you see. The south was poor when it was ruled by the Democrat party and since it has broken that pattern it is now the fastest growing part of the country. The Northeast used to be solidly Republican and grew to be the richest part of the country. Since they went Democratic they are losing out to the South. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583/63 "2016-11-07T16:21:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Every state’s economy rises and falls at times. If you want to focus on which states have had bad economies at certain times, then we can put liberal CA in that category, too. What you are going to find, then, is that liberal states sometimes have good economies, and sometimes they have bad economies. Conservative states have good economies, and bad economies. > > If you want to complain about that data, I would say that 2010 was too close to the Great Recession to be particularly instructive. But that was the date I found data to be available across all states. If you want to present some other, comprehensive data, please do so. But do it for ALL states, not just a few. I would like to see if in your selected date, TX is the only conservative state with an economy that is strong (which I have defined as having a per capita GDP that is above average). That was the claim I was disputing. Per capita GDP is not a great way to measure how a state is doing since most of what it measure is how the state built up its economy in the past. Economic growth is a better way to measure an economy. Median household income for California fell 17% from 2000 to 2014. During the same time period Kansas had its median income climb 3%. I think the state that has its citizen’s incomes growing is the state with the better economy, not the one whose citizen’s incomes are shrinking. ---
**Author:** ![Begotten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Begotten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Begotten)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583/64 "2016-11-08T06:17:20Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > I’m sure conservatives will come up with more excuses when Kansas, in the next few years if not now, is thought of in the same way as Mississippi. > > The weird thing is that most of the people defending this lie that conservative policies work are the same ones being hurt by it. Their identity is tied up in being victims when they lose, and elites when they win. It never occurs to them to change teams. I mean really, what are they getting out of defending Kansas? A smug sense of satisfaction? Even that’s not worth the poverty and alcoholism and living in a trailer. > > If I were in their shoes, I’d rather join the liberals and try to get my cousin marriage annulled and eat some crow than perpetuating the lie that keeps me poor and stupid. I don’t want to look at a book at instantly think that it may have Forbidden Liberal Knowledge. It just has to be tremendously tiring and demoralizing to live like that each and every day, beaten down like a stray dog, with no hope of getting out Wow. It’s been a while since I’ve seen this much smug condescension in one post. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583/65 "2016-11-08T06:46:22Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Per capita GDP is not a great way to measure how a state is doing since most of what it measure is how the state built up its economy in the past. Economic growth is a better way to measure an economy. Median household income for California fell 17% from 2000 to 2014. During the same time period Kansas had its median income climb 3%. I think the state that has its citizen’s incomes growing is the state with the better economy, not the one whose citizen’s incomes are shrinking. Ideally, we’d look at several economic indicators that gave a picture of the economy over time. So yeah, my definition wasn’t the best on in the world, but it was a start, and it was one that didn’t take hours and hours of research to get an answer. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583/66 "2016-11-08T17:11:04Z")
> [@Begotten](#): > > Wow. It’s been a while since I’ve seen this much smug condescension in one post. Get ready for 4 years of it then ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583/67 "2016-11-08T19:12:06Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Per capita GDP is not a great way to measure how a state is doing since most of what it measure is how the state built up its economy in the past. Economic growth is a better way to measure an economy. Median household income for California fell 17% from 2000 to 2014. During the same time period Kansas had its median income climb 3%. I think the state that has its citizen’s incomes growing is the state with the better economy, not the one whose citizen’s incomes are shrinking. Umm, where did you get that number. [Here](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSCAA646N) is a chart of California Household income, which shows a rather substantial increase from 2000 to today, $47K to $63K. Unadjusted for inflation, true, but we haven’t had that much inflation. [Here is data for Kansas](https://www.statista.com/statistics/205825/median-household-income-in-kansas/), showing an increase from $41K in 2000 to almost $55K today, also in constant dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583/68 "2016-11-08T19:16:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Ideally, we’d look at several economic indicators that gave a picture of the economy over time. So yeah, my definition wasn’t the best on in the world, but it was a start, and it was one that didn’t take hours and hours of research to get an answer. Come on John, if California median household income had shrunk so much over that time I think we both would have seen it. It would kind of make the papers too. A state with collapsing household income is unlikely to have as robust a housing market as we do. I thought that maybe 2000 was a high point due to it being right at the end of the bubble, but it does not seem an exceptional year. These numbers don’t pass the smell test. I saw in another page that median household income has gone up 7% over 3 years, and the increase the past year is above the national average, which really isn’t surprising. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583/69 "2016-11-08T19:53:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Umm, where did you get that number. [Here](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSCAA646N) is a chart of California Household income, which shows a rather substantial increase from 2000 to today, $47K to $63K. Unadjusted for inflation, true, but we haven’t had that much inflation. > [Here is data for Kansas](https://www.statista.com/statistics/205825/median-household-income-in-kansas/), showing an increase from $41K in 2000 to almost $55K today, also in constant dollars. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income). Since I last posted it now has a note that the provenance of those numbers is in dispute. Here are some others from 2005 to 2015 [California](http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/california/) median income fell 1% and [Kansas](http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/kansas/) median income rose 6%. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583/70 "2016-11-08T21:40:10Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income). Since I last posted it now has a note that the provenance of those numbers is in dispute. Here are some others from 2005 to 2015 [California](http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/california/) median income fell 1% and [Kansas](http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/kansas/) median income rose 6%. Well, my cite comes from the Fed, using the same census data I assume, but a bit more believable than from some clown on Wikipedia - with, as you note, a warning. I don’t think a drop of $19,000 in median family income from 2007 - 2009 seems very plausible. Obviously there was a drop, but over 20%? Doesn’t smell right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-vs-kansas-economy-why-cant-we-put-bad-ideas-to-rest/770583.md?page=3)