Higher education rates does not have a direct bearing on poverty line. Think India.
http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf - This is a must read for you intellectuals. Written by a Swedish Think Tank, it points out that "poor" Americans have more appliances, bigger houses and bigger TVs than middle class Europeans.
Last edited by angelatc; 11-09-2012 at 01:49 PM.
.
.
.
I blog at Red State Eclectic, I totally tweet here, I sell stuff here, and also here. Liberty rocks!
Due.Originally Posted by nasaal
Not necessarily. You "develop" a more liberal outlook during college, perhaps you haven't been there? Often that's where people start forming political opinions, because of friends, courses, etc.
The example I gave you, this girl got her master's degree, went to DC, met her husband at work--they both have high-paying jobs. Now they have a $900,000 home and two kids.
Her "conservatism" was left behind. I'd say she's a "conservative" democrat, as is the rest of her new family. And they'll all stay in a blue state, vote democrat, kids will be educated at a private school.
As I said though--that's what makes sense to me.
My father was educated, very conservative, same with my mom. And I grew up in a blue state, went to college and grad school. I'm not working right now, but if I stay in my field (biotech/analytical chemistry), there aren't many options in red states.
why aren't there many options in red states? Don't big pharma want to invest in low tax states?
You get educated (indoctrinated) in the Empire to learn how to spend other people's money. University degrees, licenses, official titles, etc are basically licenses to steal. That's why more "educated" people tend to make more money.
^^^ THIS ^^^ In regards to which, see: California, especially with respect to state & local budgets, pensions, etc. The place is a fiscal basket-case just waiting for the straw that will break its back.
And a number of other states are almost as scary. And the bluer, the scarier.
In other words, you can liquor up for quite a while with seemingly "free" or nearly "free" education, generous "anti-poverty" programs, etc. etc.
And he party is great - while it lasts. But when it's over and keg runs dry, the hangover will be a cast-iron bitch.
For further on this matter, I would refer you to the fable of the ant and the grasshopper.
Frederic Bastiat
When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law. - The Law Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Government
Oh, no, they won't! Anyone who claims to be an Austrian who tries to "prove" something to you by using statistical models (aka "charts") is a liar - i.e., he is NOT an Austrian.
When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law. - The Law Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Government
Yes that picture is a representation of the how each state went in presidential elections from 1992 to 2008. It also factored how big the split between red and blue votes. This is why I asked how are red and blue states defined. I already see one person in this thread identified KY as a red state although it has only had one Republican governor in 20+ years, its senate is nearly split and the Democrats own the house. Which I think is reflected in the map.
Insanity should be defined as trusting the government to solve a problem they caused in the first place. Please do not go insane!
Yeah they want low-tax states--generally that's Mexico, Puerto Rico...
An established product often goes out of country for production, there's not enough benefit to going to another US state that has the same minimum wage and costly red tape.
This is like asking, "Why is it that more chocolate coming out of Hershey factories are stamped "HERSHEY"?
Education, with all its massive subsidies, government controls, accreditation scams and such, is hardly a free market. The old adage, "Follow the money" applies here perfectly. One might just as easily ask, "Why does academia attract more fiscal progressives than fiscal conservatives?" It's not exactly a head scratcher if you get it out of inane aggregate-thinking, and break it down.
The word 'Education' is meaningless without a breakdown of who is attracted, what is being taught, and more importantly, to what end. Education is NOT an homogenous blob, but it certainly gets counted that way, as we look at "more education" and "less education" only -- which in turn is supposed to imply informed vs. ignorant, or 'smarter vs. dumber'.
A PhD in the liberal arts is counted as being the equivalent to a PhD in business. All PhD's have ties to careers, and all careers have ties to public and private sectors. An education that applies to a strictly private sector career, with no economic advantages or ties to state funding of any kind, is likely to result in someone voting for a party or candidate that is more favorable to their own funding, their own careers, their own survival and personal interests.
If we had a truly free market, and education was just another perfectly competitive industry player in that free market (and it most certainly is anything but), with no economic distortions, all of the results would be different.
I present papers at the Geological Society of America. I am an anomaly there, as all of my research is self-funded. These are all "educated", often HIGHLY educated, individuals. In that field. It's mostly a bunch of tenured college professors and their students, and out of the thousands that attend the convention, I would be absolutely shocked if I learned that more than 5% were politically conservative. Most of the buzz is about the latest hot-spot sources of government funding opportunities, with many of them trying desperately to find a "free market" angle to their knowledge.
So I don't scratch my head and wonder why a state-paid educator, a state-paid geologist, and someone with a degree in French comparative literature who is looking for grant to fund her next paper might be more likely to vote Democrat. They are indeed "more educated", and even "better informed"--about where their own bread is buttered.
The "educated" are the very FIRST to realize Alexander Fraser Tytler's prophetic axiom, that a Democracy "...can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." It is precisely because of their educations that they become The First Aware Majorities that actually cause a Democracy to devolve into nothing but a kleptocracy.
As for red states and blue states, think population sizes versus higher education centers only, and where they tend to be located in the largest numbers. Not GDP (which includes government), not income levels, or anything else. From there you only have to quantify what "education" really means.
Last edited by Steven Douglas; 11-09-2012 at 03:52 PM.
Big cities attract Socialists, you have poor , working poor and wealthy , the wealthy run for office and hand out stuff to the large populations of poor to gain power , get elected and remain overlords of the doofuses. Think , Chicago , LA, etc , welfare cities. States with these, have a population that can out vote the rest of the ordinary , more fiscally reasonable population. The Republic is dead, the Socialists out number the remainder of the population, think , California , Penn ( Philadelphia ) , Illinois etc.
Last edited by oyarde; 11-09-2012 at 10:36 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
