Some Red State/Blue State Indicia
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
States with the largest increase in life expectancy from 2000 to 2024:
1. New York
2. California
3. Massachusetts
4. Hawaii
5. Alaska
6. Connecticut
7. Washington
8. Minnesota
9. Arizona
10. New Jersey
Bottom 10
1. West Virginia
2. Mississippi
3. Alabama
4. Kentucky
5. Oklahoma
6. Arkansas
7. Louisiana
8. Tennessee
9. South Carolina
10. New Mexico
1. New York
2. California
3. Massachusetts
4. Hawaii
5. Alaska
6. Connecticut
7. Washington
8. Minnesota
9. Arizona
10. New Jersey
Bottom 10
1. West Virginia
2. Mississippi
3. Alabama
4. Kentucky
5. Oklahoma
6. Arkansas
7. Louisiana
8. Tennessee
9. South Carolina
10. New Mexico
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I asked Grok if the differences between the top 10 and bottom 10 due to policy or luck. His/Her reply:
The differences in life expectancy increases between the top 10 states (e.g., New York, California, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Alaska, Connecticut, Washington, Minnesota, Arizona, New Jersey—mostly Northeast and West) and the bottom 10 (e.g., Southern/Appalachian states like West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, New Mexico) from around 2000 onward are primarily due to policy differences, not luck.
Research from sources like the Yale School of Public Health (2025 study on century-long trends), The Lancet (2024 "Ten Americas" analysis), and studies in JAMA Network Open and Milbank Quarterly consistently attributes these regional disparities to cumulative, policy-driven factors rather than random chance or isolated events. Key drivers include:
While some variation stems from demographics or historical legacies, the evidence points overwhelmingly to policy choices as the dominant, modifiable cause. Researchers emphasize that without targeted policy changes—such as stronger public health investments and equity-focused reforms—the gaps are likely to persist or widen. This isn't about individual luck but systemic differences in how states address health determinants.
The differences in life expectancy increases between the top 10 states (e.g., New York, California, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Alaska, Connecticut, Washington, Minnesota, Arizona, New Jersey—mostly Northeast and West) and the bottom 10 (e.g., Southern/Appalachian states like West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, New Mexico) from around 2000 onward are primarily due to policy differences, not luck.
Research from sources like the Yale School of Public Health (2025 study on century-long trends), The Lancet (2024 "Ten Americas" analysis), and studies in JAMA Network Open and Milbank Quarterly consistently attributes these regional disparities to cumulative, policy-driven factors rather than random chance or isolated events. Key drivers include:
- Public health and social policies — States with more progressive or liberal-leaning policies (common in the Northeast and West) have implemented stronger measures on tobacco control, Medicaid expansion, minimum wage/income support, gun violence prevention, drug overdose response, environmental regulations, and access to healthcare/education. These lead to larger gains in life expectancy, especially for women and certain demographics. For example, studies show states with more conservative policies (prevalent in the South) experienced slower gains, stagnation, or even declines in recent decades, with life expectancy for some groups barely improving over long periods.
- Healthcare access and investment — Top-gain states often have better-funded public health systems, broader insurance coverage (e.g., via Medicaid expansions), and preventive care focus, reducing deaths from chronic diseases (heart disease, cancer, diabetes), smoking-related issues, and preventable causes. Bottom states frequently face underfunding, limited access (especially rural areas), and weaker initiatives, contributing to higher mortality from these same causes.
- Socioeconomic and structural conditions — Policies influence education, income inequality, poverty levels, and social determinants of health. Higher educational attainment and income in top states correlate with better outcomes, while persistent disadvantages in Southern states (tied to historical and ongoing policy choices) exacerbate gaps. The "Ten Americas" framework highlights how geographic, racial/ethnic, and economic divides—shaped by policy—widened life expectancy gaps from ~12–13 years in 2000 to over 20 years by 2021 (exacerbated by COVID but rooted in pre-existing trends).
- Other contributing factors (not luck) — Behaviors (e.g., smoking rates, obesity), environmental exposures, and demographics play roles, but these are heavily influenced by policy environments (e.g., tobacco regulations, food access programs, urban planning). Random "luck" (like natural disasters or one-off events) doesn't explain the consistent, decades-long regional patterns.
While some variation stems from demographics or historical legacies, the evidence points overwhelmingly to policy choices as the dominant, modifiable cause. Researchers emphasize that without targeted policy changes—such as stronger public health investments and equity-focused reforms—the gaps are likely to persist or widen. This isn't about individual luck but systemic differences in how states address health determinants.
sturg33
I
Apparently they make commercials that smoking bad for you and arrest you for not wearing a seat belt
Democrats are a danger to country. Hav to think outside the box to fix the mess they’ve left.
sturg33
I
Just have to do what the founders intended
sturg33
I
Imagine being a tax payer here... being robbed blind in order to fund an increase in the people shitting on the sidewalk not allowing you to walk around the city with your kids
Outcomes don't matter to dems. Politicians have learned this, and have decided they will raid the treasury
Outcomes don't matter to dems. Politicians have learned this, and have decided they will raid the treasury
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
"Low-tax state" is somewhat of a political brand. The actual level of public services and spending in those states is much closer to high-tax states than the tax burden numbers suggest, because the gap is quietly filled by federal redistribution from the high-income, high-tax coastal states.
California in 2024 paid $276 billion more to los federales than it received back. That's as it should be under our federal system where the rich help out the poor. But if California was able to retain those funds it could cover virtually all of its budget with it. That's right that $276 billion extra that California sends out to the rest of the country could fund over 90% of its own budget. No flowers or thank you notes expected. Well maybe a small pat on the back to acknowledge that it is funding much of the safety net of our poorer states. California is not unique in this regard. New York, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc, fund a very big part of state and local funding in red states. It is done quietly through the federal transfer system.
California in 2024 paid $276 billion more to los federales than it received back. That's as it should be under our federal system where the rich help out the poor. But if California was able to retain those funds it could cover virtually all of its budget with it. That's right that $276 billion extra that California sends out to the rest of the country could fund over 90% of its own budget. No flowers or thank you notes expected. Well maybe a small pat on the back to acknowledge that it is funding much of the safety net of our poorer states. California is not unique in this regard. New York, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc, fund a very big part of state and local funding in red states. It is done quietly through the federal transfer system.
sturg33
I
why can't it function with any competence with the dollars it spends on itself?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
You obviously have your own definition of competence.
Mine would include basic health outcomes like life expectancy, educational attainment, the productivity of the workers.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
without federal transfers and technological spillovers from hubs like San Francisco, Seattle, San Jose, New York and Boston would a state like Oklahoma be like Mexico?
The short answer: probably not Mexico, but closer to a lower-middle-income country — and the numbers make a strong case.
Here's how to think through it in layers:
Layer 1: The raw GDP per capita numbers
Oklahoma's real GDP per capita in 2024 was $51,957, ranking 42nd out of 50 states. NCBI That's the inflation-adjusted figure. The nominal figure is higher — Oklahoma's nominal GDP in 2024 was $263.7 billion CDC for a population of about 4.1 million, putting nominal GDP per capita around $64,000. Mexico's GDP per capita in 2024 was about $14,034 USAFacts — so even a stripped-down Oklahoma would be well above Mexico on raw output alone.
But that's the wrong comparison to make, for reasons that get more interesting the deeper you go.
Layer 2: Strip out the federal transfers and the picture changes dramatically
In 2022, every Oklahoman received $17,129 in federal dollars while paying in only $9,221 — a net gain of $7,908 per capita, ranking Oklahoma 10th highest in the nation for federal dependency. As a state, Oklahoma paid $37 billion to the federal government while receiving back $68.8 billion. P2pclimate
That $31.8 billion net inflow represents roughly 12% of Oklahoma's entire nominal GDP — and 31.7% of Oklahoma's total state and local government revenues came from federal transfers in FY2022, more than 5 percentage points above the national average. NCHStats Remove that and Oklahoma's public sector essentially collapses: when Medicaid portals were frozen briefly in early 2025, it threatened roughly $8 billion in federal funding to the state alone, and over $14 billion in total federal dollars flow to Oklahoma annually. Wikipedia
Layer 3: Strip out the technology spillovers and it gets worse
This is the part that's harder to quantify but arguably more important. Oklahoma's nominal GDP includes substantial oil and gas revenue — oil and gas extraction contributes 8.4% of Oklahoma's GDP versus just 0.9% nationally USAFacts — which is a commodity economy subject to price volatility, not the kind of compounding high-value economic activity generated by tech hubs. The intellectual property royalties, high-wage employment, and corporate tax bases flowing from places like Silicon Valley, Seattle, and Boston don't just benefit those states — they generate the federal tax revenue that funds the transfers Oklahoma depends on.
Layer 4: What would a realistic counterfactual look like?
Without federal transfers and the indirect benefits of being in an integrated national economy, Oklahoma would look something like this:
The deeper point your question is getting at
The real issue is that Oklahoma is not actually a self-sustaining economy in any meaningful sense — it's an oil-and-agriculture economy heavily subsidized by a national redistribution system funded predominantly by the innovation-driven coastal economies it often politically opposes. The irony, well documented by economists, is that the states most rhetorically committed to self-reliance and opposition to federal spending are structurally among the most dependent on it. Oklahoma's state lawmakers have been able to keep tax rates among the lowest in the nation while still providing services Oklahomans need and expect precisely because federal transfers have allowed them to do so.
The social return on innovation in major tech clusters far exceeds the private return — meaning the firms and workers in Silicon Valley, Boston, and Seattle capture only a fraction of the value they create, with the rest diffusing broadly across the economy as a kind of permanent, invisible subsidy to every worker in every state who uses the resulting technologies. USAFacts Oklahoma is, in this sense, one of the largest beneficiaries of a redistribution system it doesn't fully acknowledge — one that operates not through tax forms and federal checks, but through the smartphones in workers' pockets, the software running their tractors, and the medical protocols keeping their hospitals functioning.
The short answer: probably not Mexico, but closer to a lower-middle-income country — and the numbers make a strong case.
Here's how to think through it in layers:
Layer 1: The raw GDP per capita numbers
Oklahoma's real GDP per capita in 2024 was $51,957, ranking 42nd out of 50 states. NCBI That's the inflation-adjusted figure. The nominal figure is higher — Oklahoma's nominal GDP in 2024 was $263.7 billion CDC for a population of about 4.1 million, putting nominal GDP per capita around $64,000. Mexico's GDP per capita in 2024 was about $14,034 USAFacts — so even a stripped-down Oklahoma would be well above Mexico on raw output alone.
But that's the wrong comparison to make, for reasons that get more interesting the deeper you go.
Layer 2: Strip out the federal transfers and the picture changes dramatically
In 2022, every Oklahoman received $17,129 in federal dollars while paying in only $9,221 — a net gain of $7,908 per capita, ranking Oklahoma 10th highest in the nation for federal dependency. As a state, Oklahoma paid $37 billion to the federal government while receiving back $68.8 billion. P2pclimate
That $31.8 billion net inflow represents roughly 12% of Oklahoma's entire nominal GDP — and 31.7% of Oklahoma's total state and local government revenues came from federal transfers in FY2022, more than 5 percentage points above the national average. NCHStats Remove that and Oklahoma's public sector essentially collapses: when Medicaid portals were frozen briefly in early 2025, it threatened roughly $8 billion in federal funding to the state alone, and over $14 billion in total federal dollars flow to Oklahoma annually. Wikipedia
Layer 3: Strip out the technology spillovers and it gets worse
This is the part that's harder to quantify but arguably more important. Oklahoma's nominal GDP includes substantial oil and gas revenue — oil and gas extraction contributes 8.4% of Oklahoma's GDP versus just 0.9% nationally USAFacts — which is a commodity economy subject to price volatility, not the kind of compounding high-value economic activity generated by tech hubs. The intellectual property royalties, high-wage employment, and corporate tax bases flowing from places like Silicon Valley, Seattle, and Boston don't just benefit those states — they generate the federal tax revenue that funds the transfers Oklahoma depends on.
Layer 4: What would a realistic counterfactual look like?
Without federal transfers and the indirect benefits of being in an integrated national economy, Oklahoma would look something like this:
- Per capita income would fall meaningfully — perhaps to the $40,000–$45,000 range once you remove federal transfer income flowing to individuals (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, veterans' benefits)
- Oklahoma's poverty rate is already 15.3%, above the national 12.5%, and its median household income of $65,039 ranks 43rd in the nation Data.gov — without transfers, those numbers deteriorate sharply
- More than a quarter of Oklahoma's entire population is on Medicaid — over one million people — and more than half of those are children CDC. Without federal matching funds, the state simply could not sustain that coverage
The deeper point your question is getting at
The real issue is that Oklahoma is not actually a self-sustaining economy in any meaningful sense — it's an oil-and-agriculture economy heavily subsidized by a national redistribution system funded predominantly by the innovation-driven coastal economies it often politically opposes. The irony, well documented by economists, is that the states most rhetorically committed to self-reliance and opposition to federal spending are structurally among the most dependent on it. Oklahoma's state lawmakers have been able to keep tax rates among the lowest in the nation while still providing services Oklahomans need and expect precisely because federal transfers have allowed them to do so.
The social return on innovation in major tech clusters far exceeds the private return — meaning the firms and workers in Silicon Valley, Boston, and Seattle capture only a fraction of the value they create, with the rest diffusing broadly across the economy as a kind of permanent, invisible subsidy to every worker in every state who uses the resulting technologies. USAFacts Oklahoma is, in this sense, one of the largest beneficiaries of a redistribution system it doesn't fully acknowledge — one that operates not through tax forms and federal checks, but through the smartphones in workers' pockets, the software running their tractors, and the medical protocols keeping their hospitals functioning.
Last edited:
sturg33
I
Mine would include a reduction in homeless after tripling spending to achieve it. Or completed train after tens of billions and a decade spent on it. Or and improvement in education outcomes after quintupling spending per student. Or houses that were burned to the ground to be rebuilt within a year.
Do look at the examples above and declare competence?