Ten poorest states are Red States.

[_aussieguy55]

Mississippi
New Mexico
Alabama
Louisiana
South Carolina
Kentucky
Georgia
North Carolina
West Virginia
Arkansas

Why?

[_subgenius]

Lets pretend you know at least diddly-squat about the US and then just remind you that the listed states are primarily agricultural and energy states and they offer a higher standard of living relative to housing costs and tax burdens.
In other words, a middle class American can more easily afford to own a house and a couple of cars in what seemingly are RED states as opposed to BLUE states (which is ultimately the clumsy and juvenile topic you are trying to approach here...some sort of backhanded insult that poorest states must somehow equal "stupid voter").
So maybe ask what the electoral implications are when a house in a BLUE market has average costs of over $200 sq.ft. while in a RED market it costs barely over $100 sq.ft.

Economics is not simply a measure of income you dolt - it also relates to consumption...and consumption inequality (and tax rates) is something BLUE minded people like yourself often ignore when measuring "poor-ness".
So, the REALITY is that RED states are actually "richer" if you take another measure instead of the narrow-minded flame-baiting measure that you are trying to allude to in your OP....geez.

Perhaps a better topic for discussion about "income inequality" would be - why has income inequality grown faster and been more dominate in the BLUE states? Why do BLUE states suffer more from housing unaffordability ? troubled school systems ? crumbling infrastructures ?

What you are ignorant of are the purple states...the Civil War accentuated the economic relationship between RED/BLUE, or rather, the raw goods and knowledge/trade economic dependence between states...but now we see BLUE states strengthening by incorporating RED state methods and vice versa (eg fracking in PA and tech companies in UT)...
...so while you may want to look down your nose at the arguably outdated economies of many RED states, the reality is that these states are able to enjoy a political advantage at the National level.....because, ultimately, they deliver "the goods" to more of their residents. People aren't stupid as you would wish, they are just simple...big difference.

[_EAllusion]

CFR subs that when you take into account cost of living differences, the per capita wealth of the poorest red states is comparable to or better than wealthy blue states. I looked it up and it turns out that Lousianna is still dirt poor even when you look at real income. In fact, the poorest cost of living adjusted states are places like Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, etc. but I'm sure you'll clear this up with solid data any moment now.

Once you provide that, I have a question for you. Suppose you save 10% of your income towards retirement. After you retire, you can live anywhere you want. Would it have been better to have drawn the median income in Manhattan or rural Alabama? I was looking at houses in Alabama the other day, and I can buy a near mansion on a waterfront property in Alabama for the cost of my modest house. Of course, then I'd have to live in Alabama, so I'm not eager to sell my house and move there. I can only imagine what I could do if I owned the equivalent of my house in San Francisco.

[_EAllusion]

aussie -

The short answer is red states are the poorest because slavery cast a long shadow and unpopulated areas tend to have less economic productivity.

[_subgenius]

aussie -

The short answer is red states are the poorest because slavery cast a long shadow and unpopulated areas tend to have less economic productivity.

well, that is a wholly incorrect answer....but please, ignore facts and tell us all about your suppositions on the matter (just let your imagination run wild).

[_EAllusion]

aussie -

The short answer is red states are the poorest because slavery cast a long shadow and unpopulated areas tend to have less economic productivity.

well, that is a wholly incorrect answer....but please, ignore facts and tell us all about your suppositions on the matter (just let your imagination run wild).

You got that real income data yet?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Of course, then I'd have to live in Alabama, so I'm not eager to sell my house and move there.

Have you ever lived in Alabama? It's absolutely one of the most beautiful states I've ever lived in. I owned property down in the Gulf Shores, I was stationed in Northern Alabama, home of NASA, and can say Huntsville was hands down one of the more charming cities I've resided in. Whatever people think about Alabama, the public consciousness so to speak, is wrong. It's just a fantastic place to live.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Of course, then I'd have to live in Alabama, so I'm not eager to sell my house and move there.

Have you ever lived in Alabama? It's absolutely one of the most beautiful states I've ever lived in. I owned property down in the Gulf Shores, I was stationed in Northern Alabama, home of NASA, and can say Huntsville was hands down one of the more charming cities I've resided in. Whatever people think about Alabama, the public consciousness so to speak, is wrong. It's just a fantastic place to live.

- Doc

The weather is oppressive and it lacks access to amenities I like.

[_Some Schmo]

The weather is oppressive and it lacks access to amenities I like.

I spent 5 months on a project in Birmingham several years ago. You're right; the humidity is killer. Thing is, by the time the project was over, I was used to it. You can get used to just about anything.

But if you want to see the Packers or drink Spotted Cow beer, you're SOL, so there's that.

[_Brackite]

Mississippi
New Mexico
Alabama
Louisiana
South Carolina
Kentucky
Georgia
North Carolina
West Virginia
Arkansas

Why?

New Mexico is not a red state.