California vs Kansas economy... why can't we put bad ideas to rest?

Actually, conservatives don’t mind big government one little bit – so long as it’s aimed at somebody they don’t like.

  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.

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.

Wow. It’s been a while since I’ve seen this much smug condescension in one post.

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.

Get ready for 4 years of it then

Umm, where did you get that number. Here 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, showing an increase from $41K in 2000 to almost $55K today, also in constant dollars.

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.

Wikipedia. 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 median income fell 1% and 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.