Some Red State/Blue State Indicia

nsacpi said:
is there a correlation between how nice a place is to live and how much it costs to live there...is the correlation positive or negative

Short answer: yes—there’s generally a positive correlation.
Places that are widely considered “nicer” to live in tend to be more expensive, not less.

📈 Why the correlation is positive​

Think of cost of living as a kind of price signal:

1. Demand for desirable places​

  • Good weather, amenities, safety, culture → more people want to live there
  • More demand → higher housing prices → higher overall cost

2. Limited supply​

  • Coastal cities, historic areas, or constrained geographies can’t expand easily
  • That scarcity pushes prices up even more

3. High-income job markets​

  • “Nice” cities often have stronger economies
  • Higher wages → people can pay more → costs rise

​

Click to expand...
what would be a good indicator of a nice place to live? Net migration?
 
sturg33 said:
But not a place where people seek to move to?
Click to expand...
I think attracting people is a positive indicator. Attracting young ambitious people is an even more positive indicator.

Being a low cost of living place not necessarily. See my earlier post about correlation between costvof living and a place being a good place to live.
 
nsacpi said:
I think attracting people is a positive indicator. Attracting young ambitious people is an even more positive indicator.

Being a low cost of living place not necessarily. See my earlier post about correlation between costvof living and a place being a good place to live.
Click to expand...
The high cost of living is bleeding humans, tax revenue, and political influence

I really cant figure out your gaze aversion to the reality on the ground. Dem governance is driving people away in hordes
 
sturg33 said:
The high cost of living is bleeding humans, tax revenue, and political influence

I really cant figure out your gaze aversion to the reality on the ground. Dem governance is driving people away in hordes
Click to expand...
He’s being purposefully obtuse

And old ancient act of futility
 
Tapate50 said:
He’s being purposefully obtuse

And old ancient act of futility
Click to expand...
are there any programs the phd can point to that that are working in these states?

health outcomes we've discussed in detail... he points to a tobacco commercial

but are the education programs working? the homeless programs? the drug reduction programs? the housing crisis programs? the healthcare programs producing cheaper care?

Hell, FL is whooping ass in higher education these days.

What

Is

Working?
 
sturg33 said:
The high cost of living is bleeding humans, tax revenue, and political influence

I really cant figure out your gaze aversion to the reality on the ground. Dem governance is driving people away in hordes
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it hordes.

California's net migration was down like 300K a year, 300K of 39 million is less than a percentage point.

Florida is the only top 10 net migration states that was top 10 in population density. Most of the states experiencing net migration losses are top of the chain in density. Only other state in top 10 population density that gained population in that time frame was Delaware. Most of the states that gained either were COVID remote work expanded states (lost of people left Mass, NY and PA and moved to neighboring states as you saw states like Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire have gains. When people were given the opportunity to make the same amount of money they could and move elsewhere they took that opportunity to get a better house/more land, etc. in a different state.

Couple that with the aging population (2024 had a record high 6.1 wmillion adults hit retirement age) and people deciding to retire to places with mroe space. I'll give an extreme example. Had a coworker who lived in NH, had a decent plot of land and house, they moved to Montana to be closer to their kids and have much more land.
 
zitothebrave said:
I wouldn't call it hordes.

California's net migration was down like 300K a year, 300K of 39 million is less than a percentage point.

Florida is the only top 10 net migration states that was top 10 in population density. Most of the states experiencing net migration losses are top of the chain in density. Only other state in top 10 population density that gained population in that time frame was Delaware. Most of the states that gained either were COVID remote work expanded states (lost of people left Mass, NY and PA and moved to neighboring states as you saw states like Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire have gains. When people were given the opportunity to make the same amount of money they could and move elsewhere they took that opportunity to get a better house/more land, etc. in a different state.

Couple that with the aging population (2024 had a record high 6.1 wmillion adults hit retirement age) and people deciding to retire to places with mroe space. I'll give an extreme example. Had a coworker who lived in NH, had a decent plot of land and house, they moved to Montana to be closer to their kids and have much more land.
Click to expand...
Dem states are poised to lose more than a dozen congressional seats in the next census. If that's not hordes, I don't know what is
 
sturg33 said:
Dem states are poised to lose more than a dozen congressional seats in the next census. If that's not hordes, I don't know what is
Click to expand...
Dem states represent 7 of the top 10 in pop density, Ohio and Florida are the red states and Penn is purple. Ohio also has hadpop loss.

What will you say when states with 65+ pops north of 15% lose those people to death, some of those states already don't ahve many seats (Vermont, Maine, Delaware, West Virginia, but when Florida with it's 20+% of pople 65+ has those people croak, will they lose those seats? quite probably.
 
zitothebrave said:
Dem states represent 7 of the top 10 in pop density, Ohio and Florida are the red states and Penn is purple. Ohio also has hadpop loss.

What will you say when states with 65+ pops north of 15% lose those people to death, some of those states already don't ahve many seats (Vermont, Maine, Delaware, West Virginia, but when Florida with it's 20+% of pople 65+ has those people croak, will they lose those seats? quite probably.
Click to expand...
Florida has been old as long as I've been alive

Only the last 6 years or so have they been surging in destination... whereas NY and California are bleeding
 
sturg33 said:
Florida has been old as long as I've been alive

Only the last 6 years or so have they been surging in destination... whereas NY and California are bleeding
Click to expand...
Florida's 65+ has nearly doubled since 2004

Aging In Florida Dashboard: Overview | FLHealthCHARTS.gov - Florida Department of Health

www.flhealthcharts.gov www.flhealthcharts.gov

My math is their 65+ population has increased by about 63%. Their overall population estimate increase is about 35% so the aging population is increasing at a higher rate than their overall population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top