[Sixstrings]

A few people asked me for this, so here it is: FT

It's a tad old, dated Oct. 9. I imagine the map would look differently now, but I think the state by state trends still hold up. As in, Texas is best off at present (I've heard this other places, especially about Austin).

[patience]

Thanks, Sixstrings. A nice graphic to put things in perspective.

Actually, I didn't think Indiana where we live was as bad off as Calif., FLA, and MI. Our unemployment is going up, but I had no idea how much. A quick check of the figures shows our state to be at 6.5%, and going up. Kokomo, and auto mfg town, is 8.5%, and Elkhart, an RV and mobile home mfg center, is 10.5%. Here in the southern part of the state, New Albany is near us, and has 6.4%, which is about the state and national average. So, it's spotty, as always.

[Sixstrings]

Yeah, Patience, it opened my eyes to the fact that it's not gloom and doom everywhere. There are regional differences. I just happen to live in a state that ranks worst in all measures. And when I stop and think about the pockets of mega millionaires in my state, then things are even worse -- the super rich are making the average look better.

[Tyler_JC]

Noticed something interesting. Compare that map to the Red/Blue map of 2008.

Arizona should be counted as a Blue state because without McCain on the ticket, it surely would have turned Blue.

Indiana and North Carolina could also fairly be counted as a Red States because Obama had unique regional appeal in Indiana and unusually high black turnout in North Carolina.

I also ignore Washington DC because let's be honest, it's not a real state. Moreover, what's good for DC is generally bad for the country.

With that in mind, look at the breakdown of the individual figures:

Overall Ratings:
Best:
-12 Red States
-4 Blue States
Worst:
-5 Red States
-12 Blue States

Almost the complete opposite figures. Even if you ignore my little adjustments, we're still looking at an undeniable trend. Blue states are in worse economic shape than Red States. Could be that blue staters are hurting and want government help with Obama.

Or it could be that Blue State policies are causing economic havoc.

Let's look at employment:
Best:
-9 Red States
-1 Blue State (NM)
Worst:
-5 Blue States (MI, FL, RI, CA, NV)
.....no red states

Mind you, there are no adjustments to the employment states. The worst states for employment are all Blue States while the best states for employment are almost all Red States.

Want a job? Move to a state that voted for McCain.

Lastly, let's check out Personal Income Growth:

Best:
-9 Red States
-1 Blue State (CO)
Worst:
-2 Red States (IN, AR)
-9 Blue States

Looks like Red States for the win. Personal income growth for the past two years has been much stronger in Red States than Blue States.

Again, I'm not automatically assuming cause and effect here. There is a possibility that Blue States are suffering from forces beyond their control (and I certainly think that could be the case in much of the Rust Belt).

But there is also the strong possibility that Blue State policies are causing the economic damage in those areas. This could feed on itself.

Blue Staters become poorer, need more government help, become more inclined to support liberal policies, become poorer.

Just a thought.

[Sixstrings]

Clever breakdown of the red vs. blue states, Tyler. Keep in mind though that Florida has been a solid Red state. Perhaps a red state goes blue when it TSHTF in it.

[patience]

There is obviously a correlation, but I don't know what it means. From what I see in Indiana, I believe that it went Democrat (for the first time since Kennedy) because of the crappy economy. At this time, Repub's are very disenchanted with their party here. I also heard a lot of prejudicial talk before the election, against Obama, but he carried the state anyway, largely in the bigger cities, which tend to be racially mixed. So, the Repub's were definitely in an uphill battle here, overall.

As part of the Rust Belt, Indiana has taken some licks from the woes of the auto industry, which I'm sure had an effect on the election, also.

Manufacturing, Hardwood mfrd products (furniture and flooring), Auto mfg, and agriculture have made Indiana's economy pretty solid for a long time. But with the failure of housing and autos, only Ag was left, then the bottom fell out of grain prices this year, following months of high grain prices that had devastated the livestock farms. There isn't much left.

[AlexdeLarge]

Want a job? Move to a state that voted for McCain.

Quote of the year!

[vtsnowedin]

The chart was fixated on growth. measured both growth in employment and GDP which is measuring the same thing twice. States like Texas with large numbers moving in both legal and illegal will look like they are doing great even though there are more new people looking for a job each day than there are new jobs created that day. Vermont with a stable population, even declining if you take out retirees, shows little growth but has about the fourth lowest foreclosure rate.
Change the methodoligy and measure your misery index on a percapita basis and the ranks would be quite a bit differant.

[Revi]

Great! Maine is red. Tell me something I didn't know.

Great map!

[Eli]

That map is outdated and completely worthless.

Wyoming Oklahoma and Texas are headed head long into the shitter.

Oil has gone from 140 to 43 in less than six months that is a collapse worse than the 1980's. There are going to be 100s of thousands of jobs lost and the State budgets will be eviscerated by the lack of oil and gas tax revenue.

The energy consuming states collapse first then the oil producing states. 100s of billions of dollars gone.

[StormBringer]

Tks for the map but i found a flaw...Here in Mo. in all 4 sub-catagories we scored avg yet overall we scored worst????go figure

[StormBringer]

Tks for the map but i found a flaw...Here in Mo. in all 4 sub-catagories we scored avg yet overall we scored worst????go figure

[Minvaren]

That map is outdated and completely worthless.
Wyoming Oklahoma and Texas are headed head long into the shitter.
Oil has gone from 140 to 43 in less than six months that is a collapse worse than the 1980's. There are going to be 100s of thousands of jobs lost and the State budgets will be eviscerated by the lack of oil and gas tax revenue.
The energy consuming states collapse first then the oil producing states. 100s of billions of dollars gone.

Texas actually has a bit of a leg up - there's no government shortfalls yet this year, so we have a little bit more time to prepare for when the crunch sets in next year. House prices are relatively stable, so that provides a stable tax base (as property taxes fuel everything in the state, it seems). There is zero slowdown in commercial construction around town as well, which is a bit puzzling to me.

That said, as many other threads have indicated, scuttlebutt is that there is a general "freeze" in the oil and gas companies around town, and the longer things go on, the worse things get for everyone.

[Eli]

There is no way to prepare for the losses that are coming to the Oil States.

[Tyler_JC]

I wouldn't assume that oil prices are going to stay in the $40 range forever.

We are still well above the 2003 price level, let alone the 1990s price levels (adjusted for inflation).

When prices begin to rebound, the oil states will do alright.

It's the Rust Belt I'm worried about. Regardless of how much bailout money we give them, the US Automakers are going to be cutting large numbers of jobs. US Manufacturing has been shedding jobs for decades and the current downturn is only accelerating the trend.

When manufacturing finally rebounds, it will NOT be in the high cost Rust Belt states.

Look at where the foreign automakers are producing cars in the United States. It's in places like Alabama, not Michigan.

New York will also have some serious short term budget problems. Wall Street was a big part of the state's tax base and the deficit gets worse every time one of these investment banks implodes.