Sunday assorted links

Comments

"Nebraska has a higher average income than California after adjusting for purchasing power.”

But what would you purchase in Nebraska that's worth owning or experiencing?

Instead of stepping over human shit in San Francisco, you can step over cow shit in Nebraska.

You can buy a lot more house in California than in Nebraska - sort of the main point of life.

Honestly, I bet you have not seen the prices of an ocean-front property in Nebraska.

There are beautiful lake front properties in Nebraska that do not include hurricanes or tsunamis.

Now that's a sad life.

How so? I've accumulated a lot of equity in my house and I don't need to live a third world style life in somewhere like SF or NYC.

I own two houses and two lots, right next to each other in my beautiful mid-western semi-rural suburb, with more than 4 acres of woods and anything you can buy or eat in NYC or LA within a few minutes drive. I don't have to rent my second house. I just have it and enjoy it. My houses, lands and gardens are a constant joy and I promise you, I do not take home more than 100K.

Exactly. Near where I live in Virginia there's a Burger King, McDonalds, even a PF Changs.

Suburban folk sure do spend a lot trying to convince everyone on the internet that their suburban living choices are superior to those third world city folk. Almost as if they insist on validation from the very people they look down upon.

AJ are you sure it's a lot when compared to urbanites?

On the Internet? Yes. It's one of those self grandizong things conservative Internet commentators do. if you are to go by conservative Internet commentators, 80% of them are engineers and 0% of them are liberal arts majors. To be fair, you can make similar fun generalizations about liberals

But In real life? I don't think either care about the other, and are content with their lifestyles.

Every state probably has its nice places to live, with accompanying wide ranging costs of living. I've lived in three of the more inexpensive places (KY, TN , and FL), and there are fine places to live in all three..

I pointed out around 2005 that when the cost of living includes buying a home, Minnesota had the highest median standard of living in the country and California's was above only Hawaii and D.C.

Obviously, weather and Access to Power are not included in standard of living.

Don't forget to factor in the cost of home maintenance. A home in California can be left alone for years, without noticeable degradation; whereas a home in Minnesota which suffers extremes of heat and cold will need regular upkeep.

Oh, that's right, no one sells anything in Nebraska. They all just sit around naked in a field hoping that someday somebody will sell them something.

Warren Buffett seems to like Nebraska even though he obviously can afford to live anywhere.

http://www.omahasteaks.com

2) after adjusting for purchasing power. No shit? Higher purchasing power is associated with locales where fewer people want to live. Lower purchasing power is associated with locales where more people want to live, and limited space.

I'll take California over Nebraska any day, and for me Oklahoma is not OK. But what's interesting is that the differences are not that large, compared to Europe: Take #1, Mississippi, and divide it by the #51, DC, to get a ratio of 74%, which is not that big a differential to me, and I bet being black in Ole Miss is a lot worse than being black in DC.

You win and lose your bet.

Mississippi is a large and actually rather diverse place. MS is 42% as large as the Philippines and 95% the size of Greece. A MS African American man has life expectancy of 68.79 (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-african-american-male); not so great, but better than DC at 66.53.

The university of Mississipi, since you mentioned "Ole Miss", has 14.3% African American enrollment, Georgetown 6%, George Washington University 6.4%, University of Maryland 12.3%, American University 6.2%, The Catholic University of America 5.7%, Howard University and jackson State universities are each 91% AA enrollments. GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 10% AA ENROLLMENT in a 19.7% AA and a 25.3% AA metropolitan area.!
(http://www.forbes.com/colleges/university-of-maryland/) .

MS is 37% African American population, DC 48%.

19.7% AA state.

For a state with 37% AA population, it is shameful that Ole "pay the players what they want" Miss is only 14.3% AA enrollment. That means the still segregated public schools are still the same as they ever were.

It is shameful, but not so different than DC. Mississippi State University and the University of Southern Mississippi, the other of the 3 largest state schools, do better at 21% and 31%. There is more needing to be accomplished in MS, as there is in DC and the rest of the USA. Quality of life should be better for African Americans throughout. Comparison's to MS to make yourself feel better are often inaccurate, dated, and no reason to not work one one's own shortcomings.

Dare I mention THE FALLACY OF MOOD AFFILIATION? http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/03/the-fallacy-of-mood-affiliation.html

I think you agree that DC is doing far better than MS on these measures, no? That was my point, and it's true. DC is getting much whiter (it appears your stats below are in fact correct about UDC--don't know what I was looking at), but still, doing much much better than MS. I don't feel good about it. It makes me sad.

I do not agree that DC is doing better at all.

I don't understand, Jan. What's the problem?

You left off DC's only public university (Ole Miss is also public). It's 20-23% black, depending on what stats you look at.

U of DC would appear to be more like 62% AA and decreasing. http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-the-district-of-columbia/student-life/diversity/#. It is more complicated when comparing an HBCU . Mississippi has several HBCUs (Jackson State, Alcorn State, Mississippi Valley State, Rust College, Tougaloo).

Yes the HBCUs confuse the issue. For example the University of New Orleans is only 15% black. But its "sister" school SUNO is 87% black. Attempts were made to integrate the two schools, which would've made the numbers much more in line with actual population. The proposal was strongly condemned down by black leaders and voted down by the legislature as a result. http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2011/01/talk_of_merging_suno_and_uno_h.html

So it's a difficult issue. African-American leaders can't insist on maintaining HBCUs for historical reasons, then turn around and complain that A-A students are underrepresented at non-HBCU schools. The math simply doesn't work out.

Only in Mississippi is it legal to drive while drinking an alcoholic beverage, according to the aptly named site OpenContainerLaws.com

Blacks tend to do better in the south and west with the exceptions of Louisiana and New York.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-01/racial-equality-opportunity-gap/52923362/1
http://blackyouthproject.com/report-african-americans-live-better-in-the-south-and-the-west/

Do they do better in NY or is that selection bias from the stats including recent immigrant descendant African Americans in NY?

I don't know, I too think it might be due to immigration.

New York long has had a lot of bourgeois West Indians like Eric Holder.

In general, African Americans tend to do better in more conservative cultures like Texas and Georgia.

California has nice weather therefore liberal policies are excellent.

I just got back from a loop on my beach cruiser. I have to admit it makes it hard to hate the world.

Oh, and also discovered my garage door had been open for 2 days and a night. Bikes right there in front. So low crime is a plus too.

Did you ever notice that the liberals dominate the population everywhere that the weather is excellent? Smart people, I tell ya. Have fun in Houston.

Not so much in Orange County

Yeah, there are pockets, but if you go state by state, I think I have a point.

There's really only 2 states with 'excellent' weather: CA and HI. Both are pretty liberal, true, but the other liberal states don't really have great weather.

The other states simply haven't legislated good weather yet. Probably afraid of the anti-AGW backlash

I'd also count Washington State and Oregon as having excellent weather Colorado is not bad, but is a bit of an outlier as it is not extremely liberal.

Washington State and Oregon have excellent weather? I would have to disagree.

O.C is getting a little more purple year by year.

"Did you ever notice that the liberals dominate the population everywhere that the weather is excellent?"

Less conservative more likely to leave family and jobs for weather.

Guess it depends on what you consider 'excellent' weather, but liberals dominate a lot of northern states with hot summers and frigid winters (New York, New Jersey, Mass -- all of the northeast, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Illinois) and none of the states that 'snowbird' retirees tend to choose for their weather (and low taxes) -- Florida, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Arizona.

Yes, for weather I'd take Tennessee (ex Memphis), Carolina, or AZ ahead of Washington and Oregon, which get less sunshine than any other state. Most of Florida is ghastly though. Kind of silly to treat the original post as anything more than a 3d-grade level "blue good red bad" comment though.

I think the point is that if California coastal cities allowed more building the cost of homes would fall and many more people would live there and the enjoy the great climate a beautiful scenery. Also If California was run like Texas taxes could be lower and PP would fall and more people might move there.

BTW it would be great for the environment of the USA if for example the city of Oakland CA allowed builder to build as much as they want up to the density of Manhattan.

Yes, it's pretty ridiculous that California has enormously high taxes and spending on local education, yet its local education results are far worse than Texas on any measure. (Texas does really well on public education scores, especially compared within demographics.)

A huge amount of the cost of living has to do with artificially restricting housing supply. Yes, you have to have at least something that makes you attractive for the supply constraints to bite, but celebrating a restrictive monopoly is a bit queer.

Speaking as a born- and bred Californian, I am thrilled that housing supply is restricted and sometimes wish it would be even more so. The fewer people living here or coming here the better.

In fact, I have advocated for paying people to leave, so far without much success.

1) What share of MR readers didn't already think Stein was a whacko? As a wise man at a Trump rally once said, "[something something] that bitch!" Note, this was about the other female candidate. But I wonder if they'd say it about Stein after we tell them she is also in cahoots with Putin.

A meta-joke? How can you post if you're banned?

Well, I used to live there, as well as other former Soviet countries, so does that count? ;-)

Tyler is campaigning hard for the job of Press Secretary in the Clinton Administration. Although many of the Dem autocrat hard-liners don't trust him completely, they need someone they can point to as a "moderate" voice, although historically Tyler has explicitly endorsed all the features (punitive taxes, accelerated government spending, total federal control of flyover country, repeal of the 1st amendment) that compose the Clinton agenda that he implicitly advocates on behalf of here.

That Stein video is from December, why's it only now making the rounds. Also, link calls it creepy. How so?

It's creepy because potential Hillary voters may vote for Stein.

Is the Hillary campaign doing the equivalent of the 2004 Bush campaign for the Surge, this time trying to foment desire for war with Russia?

If Putin plays with the election and Hillary loses, good thing she won't have access to the nuclear button.

I think the link from MR was because of Tyler's newfound theme of foreign agents in the USA, an issue which he said will only get bigger. Btw, he's right, American "peace activists" and "anti nuclear activists" in the 60s and 70s were quite often on Moscow's payroll. And thus this creepy video of Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein talking about being "inspired" at an RT (russian state sponsored propaganda channel ) conference.

For a propaganda channel - I won't dispute that it's state sponsored - RT can't seem to get its message in order. I see a wider variety of viewpoints, crank as they may be, on RT than I do on FOX, MSNBC, CBS and all the rest. There's of course the Russian viewpoint, but also American green, American social democrat, American paleoconservative and American libertarian. What they all have in common of course is some kind of major gripe with the state of the US. This general state of affairs is favorable to Russia, yes, but believing this to be the most salient characteristic of such refreshingly wide range opinion is intellectually vapid.

And recall the situation with Abby Martin? She got off pretty well after condemning Russia's actions in Ukraine. She left roughly a year later, and was not swiftly fired as I'd expect to be the case if RT were simply an arm of Putin. The New Republic on the Martin situation:

http://bit.ly/2aERbLy

"This whole murkiness of message helps explain why RT’s public perception as a Kremlin-managed monolith is off-base: much of RT's programming is less a well-oiled Russian propaganda machine than a defensive, shapeshifting retort to the Western media—less focused on a coherent foreign policy agenda than on asserting itself as an alternative to American cable news, its ideological chorus so miscellaneous that it somehow includes both Abby Martin and Larry King."

A lot of what RT puts out is Soviet style leftist agitprop about how mean and racist the US still is. It's really not that refreshing. It's quite stale.

Some of the right-wing such as the 'alt-right' ignore this because they're what might be called post-American, and are influenced by European right-wing anti-Americanism and power worship.

There has been one (British) participant on Mr. Sailer's comment boards (and an insufferable chap he is). As far as I can see, the Unz crowd don't appear to be influenced by European strands of thought (unless you count Philip Giraldi's omnipresent loathing of Jews). The affection for Putin seems part and parcel with the self-aggrandizing qualities of what they say generally (see Sowell on 'one-uppers').

I agree with you about the Unz crowd. They tend to be older and predate the 'alt-right', and would be better characterized as paleocons or something. I'm referring more to the 'alt-right' crowd, which inhabits other sites and social media, and which is largely influenced by the European far-right and neo-fascism.

Its hairsplitting to debate whether the US media are more or lesser authoritarian than their hack Russian counterparts, but still, RT gets some pretty good stuff. Where else can you watch a grizzly bear take down a cow? https://www.rt.com/viral/355081-bear-kills-cow-video/

Not often, but the World Peace Council and affiliates was a Soviet front. I.F. Stone and Armand Hammer were also Soviet assets. In general, cretins like Alexander Cockburn and Victor Navasky were willing to make the case for the Soviets without a retainer.

I've read lots of stuff about how police and intelligence harassed and targeted peace activists, etc., through programs like COINTELPRO which Congress eventually killed (or more likely pushed further into the nether world of the dark state).

But the idea that peace activists, etc., were "quite often on Moscow's payroll"? Like, 0.1% of the time, amounting to some hundreds of cases, or are you claiming something more like "peace activists were generally Russian moles" or something.

This "peace activism = anti-Americanism" concept. Just boggles my mind. How can the people of a country stand for freedom and democracy in the same breath as peace being an anti-American concept (or at least such false charges are routinely thrown from the right wing towards any person with the temerity so mention any warlike American act in post-WWII history in a critical manner. (Maybe if insulting black and gay people first, such treatment wouldn't be dished out?)

The student movement during the period running from 1964 to 1972 had absolutely nothing to recommend it.

It was handled at Kent State.

What was 'handled'?

"Jill Stein, speaking to you from Moscow’s Red Square."
Will she be reviewing the troops?
"Five minutes with Einstein’s leather jacket. It still smells of pipe smoke."

Now, imagine how his lungs would be smelling if he were alive. Stop smoking, folks.

How EINSTEIN's lungs would be smelling if he were alive? I imagine not so great, he'd be 137 years old.

So, imagine 61 extra years of pipe smoke getting into them. I would say they would be ruined, worse than his jacket even.

You're definitely right about that.

1. Moral of the story: People respond very strongly to personal flattery, more than ideological alignment or shared values. Even (especially?) politicians and self-styled "intellectuals"

“Nebraska has a higher average income than California after adjusting for purchasing power.”

No, it has a higher average income if you assume a particular consumption bundle and assume the buyer should be indifferent between loci of residence.

As for people's preference for California, there's no accounting for taste. Ever.

"As for people’s preference for California, there’s no accounting for taste. Ever."

I'll really must recall that thought next early March when I smell the fragrant orange and lemon blossoms in my backyard or climb Vernal Falls in Yosemite National Park.

Mid western and mid Atlantic transplants to California have a saying about how the weather affects people east of the Rocky Mountains.

Severe weather makes severe people.

Severe weather actually causes conservatism. If your town regularly gets hurricanes or snowstorms or any natural disaster causing it to be cut off from outside help, you'd quickly learn the value of not relying on the government for everything. Conversely, when you live somewhere where government assistance can easily reach you, you'll naturally tend left.

This doesn't explain everything, but it's definitely a factor.

I'll remember your bleating about the snow the next time all that chapparal sets fire to Montecito or the San Andreas fault decides to wreck 'em some public works.

Here's the main problem with California: it's populated with Californians. Its a great collecting pool of frivolity.

Everyone knows that MS, AL and AR are extremely wealthy and prosperous compared to CA, MA, NY, CT, etc.

Alabama and Arkansas have positive net in-migration. New York's and Connecticut's have generally been negative in recent years.

Good argument. It proves that Alabama is indeed richer than Connecticut.

Stock vs flow.

More wealth in NY, CT.

Higher effective net income for those not in finance in AL.

#7: wearing the same everyday, big thinker style.

#2, and that probably doesn't even include the contingent liabilities of things like Calpers or the San Andreas fault.

What is interesting, however, are the comments above. Surely the people living in Nebraska want to be there just as much as the people in California want to be in California.

Up to a point. Some states have net in-migration and some net out-migration. California's rate of net in-migration in recent years is about twice that of Nebraska's. The places with net out-migration would be New England, the Rustbelt (esp Illinois and Michigan), and Mississippi. Interestingly, Kansas has been bleeding and Nebraska has not)

The dynamic in Kansas and Nebraska appears to be abandonment of the countryside and (to a lesser degree) small towns in favor of the cities and the towns with a critical mass of population. The critical mass would appear to be around 15,000 at this time and towns larger than that are at least holding their own as others sink. The core town and the service villages in Bob Dole's home county have lost 30% of their population since 1950; the surrounding countryside has lost 70%.

6. It looks like they are for plates and crusading against plate substitutes, such as slate slabs or rocks.

#2 And on many measures black USAers do better in the South and west than in the northeast and midwest states.

I understand the people who provide his funding are all in against Trump, but I'm disappointed to see Tyler pushing the new cold war angle.

Everybody's all in against Trump, except idiots and quislings.

I have been critical of the MR crowd, but they were not the last to get it. They/we caught on pretty quick. Twitter trolls will be the last, the ones to turn out the lights on the Trump campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TyynO6O0kc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wi7UsXW1As

#2) It's striking that the lowest 8 states+DC in terms of purchasing power are all blue states and 22 out of the lowest 23 are blue or purple states, Alaska being the lone exception.

Cause or effect?

Back in 2005 I outlined my theory of Affordable Family Formation:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/start-a-family.../article/716283

The "family values" party does better in states where forming a family is more affordable.

Good article.

I also have appreciated your writings on The Dirt Gap.

http://www.isteve.com/2005_Dirt_Gap.htm

1. Tyler has lost his mind. When you buy into the officially approved conspiracy theories against the out-group...you...are...done.

1. I mean Tyler has nothing to say about the fact that the former CIA Director, Mike Morrell, just publicly created a "reasonable suspicion" that Donald Trump is under the influence of a foreign nation. This essentially enables spying on Trump and his campaign by any number of US and Allied Intelligence agencies. In addition foreign intelligence agencies who are allied with the US have far less limits of the things they can do, and who they can share with.

Oh, and lest we forget, Mr. Morrell works for a PR firm that works for Hillary.

You have a clear case when an American candidate has been greenlit for massive espionage and God knows what else, because that candidate has had the temerity for question America's death cult masquerading as a foreign policy. But these days, Tyler cares way more about social status signaling than he does about liberty.

"This essentially enables spying on Trump and his campaign by any number of US and Allied Intelligence agencies. In addition foreign intelligence agencies who are allied with the US have far less limits of the things they can do, and who they can share with."

I never realized the former CIA director was in charge of deciding who is to be spied on (why the current director can't do the job or why they need "reasonable suspicion" to do clandestine work are left as exercises for the reader)-- specially by foreign agencies that don't need American permission to act and already have all the incentive they will ever need to please Obama and (possible) president Clinton. As for "reasonable suspicion", only the former CIA director can create it or press reports (as we know, there are no Democratic) do it or press reports (as we know, there are no Democrat journalists trying to fing bad things about Trump...) can be an excuse, too? But again you don't really need reasons, right? Trump and his associates already made it clear: either they win or it is cheating.

Might need to bring in some extra elections monitors. It seems Trump is already whining that if he loses it will be because the election was stolen from him. In the MSM, it is a rare criticism of Trump which is not primarily characterized by a careful effort not to rip into him half as much as the author actually believes is warranted.

Thomas,

Mike Morrell's statements can certainly be used by anybody inside American and Allied intelligence agencies to articulate "reasonable suspicion," which meets many of the thresholds for certain kinds of surveillance.

https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0J2tH7cADE

#2. why the minimum wage shouldn't be set nationally.

It should if you are California and want to kneecap Nebraska.

5. There may or may not be a direct positive relationship between the centralized state and economic growth. But if there is, how does that square with bureaucracy, a necessity for the centralized state, and everywhere and always a bastion of secrecy and mendacity?

The tax foundation published a table of the cost of living by state and looked at real per capita income comparisons for two states. California and Nebraska.

I wonder why they did not go ahead and show a table ranking all of the states by real per capita income.
It would have been very easy to do that.

I did it a year or two ago and found a lot of interesting relationships. For example, Nebraska is ranked number 6 with real per capita income at 114 of the national average.

What surprised me was how well the low population mid-western states like Nebraska, Iowa. Kansas, North & South Dakota did. I wonder if that is because they do not have much in the way of urban poverty. But that does not seem to be it because the poorest states do not have large poor urban communities either. Maybe it is just the impact of large scale agricultural activity.

The real surprise was that Utah was the poorest state and that Oregon was ranked 41st.
Why are these two states so poor?

Comments for this post are closed