Some Red State/Blue State Indicia

sturg33 said:
I'm mad they're letting this monster out early. Fuck those that are doing it. And if he offends again - I want to punish those who let him out early

But here's the problem. When leftists across the country let murderous animals out after 6 months over and over again, lawyers have easy precedent arguments to make for people like this to compare to.

And people like you? You have nothing to say - ever - about murderous animals getting out early and easy. You have no opinion, apparently. So you when you bring this to the board - I chuckle at how unserious and how much of a joke you are. you are the cancer that has got us here.
Click to expand...
I believe his stance has always been that “the wheels of justice turn slowly but surely”

I wonder if he still believes that
 
Traditional industries like motion pictures are indeed declining in LA and shifting to cheaper venues. Meanwhile, the entertainment industry there is innovating and reinventing itself. And staying ahead of the curve.

As the traditional Hollywood studio system faces slowing growth, rising costs, and global competition, Los Angeles has been reinventing itself as a hub for digital, social, and experiential entertainment. While legacy film and TV production shrinks in terms of employment and margins, a new generation of companies is capturing revenue, attention, and influence in innovative ways.


Digital Gaming and Esports – Riot Games​


  • Riot Games turns entertainment into interactive, global experiences.
  • Its flagship League of Legends and Valorant titles combine gaming, streaming, and professional esports leagues, generating high-value IP and recurring revenue.
  • Riot exemplifies how L.A. can leverage creativity in digital-first, scalable formats, partially replacing the traditional studio role in driving economic and cultural influence.

Social Tech and Attention Platforms – Snap Inc.​


  • Snap and similar social media platforms transform attention and engagement into monetization, particularly among younger audiences.
  • Snapchat, AR experiences, and tools for influencers allow brands, creators, and advertisers to interact with audiences in ways that traditional TV cannot.
  • While employment effects are indirect, Snap’s platform fuels a creative ecosystem of influencers, studios, and content producers, keeping L.A. central in the cultural economy.

Live Experiences and Events – Live Nation Entertainment​


  • Live Nation dominates concert promotion, ticketing, and venue management, integrating multiple revenue streams into live entertainment.
  • It sustains high-wage jobs in event production, logistics, and marketing, ensuring that L.A. remains a hub for global live culture.
  • Unlike purely digital firms, Live Nation fills a more direct employment gap, offering a modern alternative to traditional studio employment.

Content Creators and Influencer Economy – YouTube, TikTok, Twitch, Instagram​


  • Thousands of creators and small studios in L.A. produce content for YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Twitch, building careers in video, music, lifestyle, and gaming.
  • Companies like Awesomeness TV, Fullscreen, and smaller studios act as bridges between creators and monetization platforms, offering production support, marketing, and sponsorship access.
  • This ecosystem is highly decentralized, emphasizing freelance and gig-style work, but it generates substantial revenue and cultural output, filling the void left by shrinking network TV and studio employment.

Direct-to-Consumer & Lifestyle Media – E-commerce, Beauty, and DTC Brands​


  • Many L.A.-based startups combine content creation with commerce: lifestyle brands, beauty companies, and apparel lines integrate influencer marketing and digital storytelling.
  • Examples: Glossier-style beauty brands, streetwear labels, and fitness apps. These companies leverage L.A.’s creative talent and global media infrastructure.


Economic Takeaways​


  1. Revenue over jobs: Most of the new entertainment economy focuses on scalable IP, digital platforms, and monetizable attention, generating enormous revenue but fewer traditional jobs than Hollywood once did.
  2. Hybrid ecosystems: L.A.’s competitive advantage lies in its ability to combine technology, content creation, and real-world experiences, from gaming and AR to live events and influencer marketing.
  3. Partial employment replacement: Platforms like Live Nation and creator-support companies provide direct work, but much of the growth is freelance, project-based, or platform-driven, unlike the old studio system’s steady employment.
  4. Global reach: Unlike local production for films and TV, digital content and live experiences scale globally, positioning L.A. as a hub for modern entertainment revenue streams rather than merely production labor.
 
Adaptation of the sort outlined above characterizes many parts of California and many blue states. They aren't chasing after jobs in declining sectors. They are staying on the cutting edge. And they have the income growth to validate their approach.
 
There is a tradeoff between job intensity and revenue per worker. I think revenue per worker is the way to go and that's by and large how places like LA County are evolving.
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
No no no Mr. Dimon. Our phd says its old and unproductive people leaving!

https://twitter.com/x/status/2039702468871725257
Click to expand...
See my earlier post about job intensity and revenue per worker. Red states are going for job intensity. Blue states revenue per worker. I'm guessing even within companies (like JP Morgan Chase) the shift of certain jobs to red states like Texas facilitates higher revenue per worker in places like New York. It is a form of outsourcing. Outsourcing is a very good way to enhance productivity and revenue per worker in the core location.
 
Summary of why we see faster job/population growth in red states and faster income growth in blue states:

Income growth in blue-state cores is structurally linked to the concentration of high-revenue-per-worker jobs and the outsourcing of labor-intensive tasks to lower-cost regions. This pattern explains much of the geographic divergence in wages and economic growth across the U.S.:

  • Blue-state metros → high-value work → high income growth.
  • Red-state metros/hinterland → labor-intensive, lower-wage work → slower income growth, but higher job intensity.
 
LOL head in the sand. Who cares about higher income if cost of living is grows at a higher pace? If you're rich, you'll be fine. If not, good luck!

**Texas and Florida are more affordable overall than California and New York when considering both median household income growth and cost of living (COL).** The lower COL in TX/FL more than offsets their moderately lower median incomes, resulting in greater purchasing power and better housing affordability for typical households. CA and NY offer higher absolute incomes (especially CA), but extremely high COL—driven largely by housing—erodes much of that advantage.

### 1. Median Household Income (2024 data)
Here are the most recent median household income figures:

- **California**: $100,149
- **New York**: $86,830
- **Texas**: $81,490
- **Florida**: $77,735
- **U.S. national**: ~$81,600–$83,700

CA leads by a wide margin, followed by NY. TX and FL are closer to (or slightly below) the national average.

### 2. Income Growth Trends
Recent growth (roughly 2010 to recent years) shows CA pulling ahead in percentage terms due to its tech-heavy economy:

- California: +33.5%
- New York: +25.6%
- Texas: +24.2%
- Florida: +23.6%
- National average: +22.4%

Over the longer term (1970–2023, inflation-adjusted), CA also saw strong real growth (~61%), with TX (~48.5%) and FL (~40.4%) outperforming NY (~30.5%). TX and FL have benefited from population and economic expansion (e.g., strong GDP growth rankings, with FL often #1 or #2 nationally in recent periods). All four states have seen solid gains, but CA’s higher growth starts from (and stays at) a much higher COL base.

### 3. Cost of Living (Latest Indices, National Average = 100)
COL is dramatically higher in CA and NY:

- **California**: 142.3 (highest among the four)
- **New York**: 125.1
- **Florida**: 102.2
- **Texas**: 92.1 (well below national average)

Housing is the biggest driver: CA homes often exceed $800k median (sometimes $833k+), NY around $500k–$660k in many areas, while TX is ~$300k–$370k and FL ~$400k–$445k. Groceries, utilities, and transportation also run higher in CA/NY.

### 4. Affordability: Income Adjusted for COL (Purchasing Power)
A simple way to compare is to adjust median income for the COL index (higher number = better real buying power):

- Texas: ~$88,500 effective
- Florida: ~$76,100 effective
- California: ~$70,400 effective
- New York: ~$69,400 effective

**TX and FL clearly come out ahead.** A typical household in TX/FL can buy more with their income. Housing-specific metrics confirm this: CA and FL rank among the *least* affordable for homeowners (housing can consume 60–70%+ of median income in high-cost areas), while TX scores high on affordability and homebuilding report cards (often A- grades). NY and CA frequently get F grades due to high prices and limited new construction relative to demand.

### Bottom Line: Which Are More Affordable?
- **Texas and Florida win on affordability.** Lower (or near-average) COL combined with decent and growing incomes gives residents more disposable income, cheaper housing, and overall better value. This is a key reason for strong net migration *into* TX/FL from CA/NY.
- **California and New York** have higher nominal incomes and strong growth (especially CA), but the extreme COL premium—particularly housing—makes them less affordable for most people. High earners in tech/finance can thrive there, but median households face more strain.

These are statewide averages; major metros (e.g., NYC, SF Bay Area, Miami, Austin) can vary sharply from rural/suburban areas within each state. Taxes (higher in CA/NY) and other factors like climate or job markets also play a role in personal decisions, but purely on income growth + COL, **TX/FL are the more affordable pair**. Data is from 2024–2025 sources (Census, BEA, World Population Review, etc.) and trends have been consistent in recent years.
 
HEcPEFya0AArc4W
 
Here's how Florida, Texas, New York, and California compare in 2024 using BEA data on per capita personal income, both nominal (unadjusted) and real (adjusted for regional price parities, or RPPs, to reflect purchasing power). All real figures are in chained 2017 dollars. The U.S. national average real per capita personal income was $59,195.


Nominal Per Capita Personal Income (Current Dollars, 2024)​


This is the raw average income before cost-of-living adjustments:


  • New York: $85,733 (highest among the four)
  • California: $85,518
  • Florida: $70,390
  • Texas: $67,942

New York and California lead due to high wages in finance, tech, and professional services, while Florida and Texas have lower nominal figures but benefit from no state income tax and strong job growth in various sectors.


Real Per Capita Personal Income (RPP-Adjusted, 2024)​


This adjusts for regional price differences (housing, goods, services). Higher RPP means higher costs, which reduces real purchasing power:


  • New York: $64,153 (highest among the four; RPP ~107.8–108)
  • California: $63,028 (RPP 110.7 — the highest in the nation, driven largely by housing)
  • Texas: $58,219 (RPP slightly below 100, lower costs boost real value)
  • Florida: $57,131 (RPP ~103.6, moderate costs)

Ranking by real income (purchasing power): New York > California > Texas > Florida. All four are close to or slightly above/below the U.S. average of $59,195, but the gaps narrow significantly after adjustment.
 
sturg33 said:
"average" income

interesting choice
Click to expand...
would you prefer median? the map uses median income and produces the same ranking of ny>california>texas>florida

florida does come off quite a bit worse when median is used

using real per capita california is $6K better than florida

using real median california is $10K better than florida
 
nsacpi said:
would you prefer median? the map uses median income and produces the same ranking of ny>california>texas>florida

florida does come off quite a bit worse when median is used

using real per capita california is $6K better than florida

using real median california is $10K better than florida
Click to expand...
then

why

does

everyone

keep

leaving

it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top