The Dakotas and Manitoba/Unemployment rate

[WheatCat]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The mention of farm subsidies isn’t really relevant to my point. It was just an illustration. My thesis is merely that low-population states are net “takers”.

Come on:

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The low-population states are all huge net beneficiaries of federal spending versus federal taxes paid, thanks to farm subsidies and military spending…

There is no way to take that other than that farm subsidies and military spending account entirely for the economic conditions leading to low unemployment in the states named; all the states named.

Now, how about a cite to back up this “huge net beneficiary” claim, and if it does not come from agriculture and industry where does it come from?

[GreasyJack]

@nearwildheaven

A couple years ago, I saw a news story about a call center in the Dakotas (can’t remember where) that was in a town with high unemployment, and they had to go offshore because they couldn’t get people to work there. :eek: How horrible a place must this have been, if you think about it?

Like I mentioned above, it’s partly just cultural. People from an area with a strong history of agricultural and other outdoorsy jobs generally aren’t going to want to sit in an office all day, especially doing the sort of white-collar busywork that usually gets outsourced.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@WheatCat

Now, how about a cite to back up this “huge net beneficiary” claim, and if it does not come from agriculture and industry where does it come from?

Oh dear. You seem to have been banned. If you’re still lurking, refer to the Tax Foundation figures I linked in Post #27. As for where the extra money comes from, I have no idea.