You are not wrong, Neverfail. But that is not the end of the story. It may look like they are more productive but they may not be so. That's because the per capita income figures do not take into account the cost of living. While city folks earn more money than rural folks, the cost of living is higher in cities than in rural places.neverfail wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:20 amneverfail wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:09 amBut as the blue states are richer that means they must be more efficient generators of wealth than the red states. Why penalise the efficient? For years you have been telling me that you are opposed to that cass? Am I to believe that you have now turned against your own proclaimed guiding principle?Well of course they are cassowary. The higher real incomes reflect higher per capita productivity.
You need to see how long an average person has to work to buy a similar basket of goods. For example, how many hours does a city folk have to work to afford to pay the rent or purchase a house as compared to a rural person. We know that land is cheap in rural locations. So while the red state worker earns less, he needs to spend less.
The true measure of productivity is to compare how many hours a person needs to work to afford the same basket of goods. It seems that the tax plan gives a raw deal to city folks who vote mainly Democratic. In other words, instead of measuring how many $ you can earn in one hour, you should measure how many goods and services you can buy for one hour of work. In my view, that is a better measure of productivity.
They have to spend more money and have to pay more taxes. Why do cities spend more money than rural places? It could be partly because they have more crime and so need more police and jails! In small towns, where everybody knows everybody, crime is low. In the end, the quality of life may be better in rural places.