Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[craft_6]

Income inequality is important for us because more unequal states will have more class conflict and a larger underclass willing to vote for redistribution.

I don't think this is necessarily the case.  States with high income inequality are also states where it is more possible to become wealthy, possibly due to lower taxes and more business-friendly regulations.  

The political culture in the state seems more important to me than the statistical distribution of wealth.  An underclass will not resent the wealthy as much if everyone places a high value on self-sufficiency, business success is respected, and those who start out with little have a chance of acquiring wealth.  New Hampshire ranks highly in the tables you provided, but the residents there seem resistant to calls to increase the role of the state.  

Consider a few other states outside the FSP's ten candidates.  Although I don't have the data, I would guess that Texas and Nevada have much higher income inequality than Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oregon, yet (or perhaps because) they are far more libertarian than those states.  Liberty tends to produce greater wealth, lifting incomes for everyone, but much more so for the most productive members of society.

I could be off-base, of course -- statistics sometimes prove things that aren't intuitively obvious.  Perhaps a comparison of the income inequality tables to percent of welfare recipients, or state government spending to state GDP will show a correlation.

On the other hand, income inequality numbers could also correlate with degree of urbanization, which might mean we should consider higher income inequality as a negative.

[JasonPSorens]

Maybe income inequality is mostly a result of economic dynamism or urbanization.  However, we already have variables measuring those things.  If two states are equal in economic dynamism and urbanization, which is better: the state with more income inequality, or the state with less?  Probably the state with less.  There's a good bit of economic literature on income inequality worldwide.  Worldwide, income inequality tends to correlate with poor economic growth and bad public policies (Latin America, for example).  Economic theory suggests as well that in more unequal societies the median voter will be more in favor of income redistribution than in more equal societies.  However, this theory is complicated by the fact that the income inequality figures presented above are post-redistribution, that is, after taxes and transfers.  So some states may score low on those tables simply because they have more egalitarian redistribution programs.  But then again, we already have figures on total government spending.  So we have to remember not to look at those figures in isolation, but as part of a whole state comparison matrix.

[ZuG]

I'm working on compiling data as to what it will be when we move there, as opposed to now (I think working on data that exists now rather than projections is kind of silly.)

I'm working on voter statistics, and I need statistics on percentage of voting age population that votes, or percentage of registered voters and percent of those voters who vote (same thing, really). I'll use that to project voters in 2015 and 2025.

If you know of data broken up into age groups, that's twice as good =)

[libertyNYC]

Affordability of a second or vacation home in the Free State is a criteria for me.  As you can tell from my username, I live and work in NYC, one of the least free places in the country (in terms of laws, anyway).  However, my profession is here and I doubt that any of the states selected have an abundance of jobs in my profession.  So, until I can afford to either retire or switch to a lower-paying profession, I intend to buy a second or vacation home in the free state and enjoy it as often as possible.  

Is anyone else in this same situation, or is everyone planning to move lock-stock-and-barrel to the Free State right away?

[ZuG]

I suspect that i'll have to take a lower paying job (i'm on my way to grad school for a Ph.D. in zoology) when I get to the free state, but if worse comes to worst I feel like I can always resort to subsistance farming, as I grew up near a farm and I think I could handle that.. I also have some computer skills, so I feel like in the first few years i'm just going to have to be resourceful.

However, you're ovbiously further down the road than I am and already used to a certain standard, so what you are saying makes sense to me (at least, for you). So long as you set it up so you can at least vote in the free state, you'll still be an asset, even if you can't do the campaigning that others will be.

[ZuG]

Hey Joe,
    I've already compiled a file of the candidate stages, and population broken down by age group, as projected for 2015 and 2025.

Now what I want to do with that info, is figure out the percentage of voters voting today, hopefully broken down by age group, and then use those numbers to project who'll be voting 15/25 years down the road. If you want my data, drop me a line at ozugo@NOSPAMyahoo.com (remove the NOSPAM, of course).

It seems stupid to me to even be considering data from today... by the time we get there, things population will will have changed dramatically, especially in the east.

[craft_6]

Maybe income inequality is mostly a result of economic dynamism or urbanization.  However, we already have variables measuring those things.....  Economic theory suggests as well that in more unequal societies the median voter will be more in favor of income redistribution than in more equal societies.  However, this theory is complicated by the fact that the income inequality figures presented above are post-redistribution, that is, after taxes and transfers.... So we have to remember not to look at those figures in isolation, but as part of a whole state comparison matrix.

That makes sense to me -- all of the data we have accumulated need to be considered in the context of the other data for the ten states.  Also, the income inequality figures given make more sense when we remember that they are post-redistribution.

[ZionCurtain]

This is from the National Governors Association. Provides some interesting info on the states budgets. Seems as Delaware has the most state employees by far. Wyoming seems to be running the tightest ship budget wise.

http://www.nga.org/cda/files/NOV2002FISCALSURVEY.pdf

[Kelton]

This is from the National Governors Association. Provides some interesting info on the states budgets. Seems as Delaware has the most state employees by far. Wyoming seems to be running the tightest ship budget wise.

http://www.nga.org/cda/files/NOV2002FISCALSURVEY.pdf

I spent over 4 hours trying to analyze the state budgets for comparison purposes and I got lost with all of the different 'emergency' and 'surplus' accounts that different states have.  It looks as if each state has learned some of the obfuscation techniques that Enron learned from the U.S. Congress.  Even states with balanced-budget constitutions still retain various slush funds.

My early analysis showed Wyoming being far less than excellent; but that was before I threw my hands up and quit after trying to rectify all of the differences between accounting practices, (this even after taking various accounting classes in college and a couple of years experience as a bookeeper).

I think I may have got too caught up in some of the details and I missed something obvious somewhere in the report.  I could finish doing this comparison but I don't have the time to finish it according to the way I started. Any ideas anyone? Z.C.?

[cathleeninsc]

Whoever invented fund accounting ought to be shot.

Cathleen in SC

uh-oh I just advocated violence.

[wilaygarn]

Maybe I mentioned it on this thread before but I can't remember. There is a web site called www.cafrman.com where they compare the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports of the various States and contend that there is massive misuse of tax money, to the extent that they are almost keeping two sets of books. One to show investors and the other to show the taxpayers.  A feller named Walter Burien has also done a lot along these lines.

I'm afraid that I'm no good at all with finances and my eyes glaze over early on; but I'm prepared to think the worse about any government one could name

[Kelton]

In consideration of the political climate of our candidate states, we should examine what messages have appealed to voters and how much the people allow their representatives to get away with.  One measure of this is how the representatives vote, while just basing judgements on only a few votes would be quite subjective, overall trends may be useful.

Here is one installment of how U.S. representatives in our ten states voted in the last session in key decisions.  

According to FAIR (affiliated with the famously outspoken paleoconservative group, John Birch Society)
http://www.trimonline.org/bulletin/select_state.htm

Here they are, as I broke them down according to congressional district:
ME01 . . . 5 out of 8 votes pro- constitution.
ME02 . . . 5 / 8"                                         ".
ND(1). . . 5 / 8
DE01 . . . 4 / 8
ID01. . . 4 /8
 ID02 . . . 2 / 8    
AK(1) . .  3 / 8
WY(1) . .  3 / 8
MT01 . . . 3 / 8
SD(1) . . . 3 / 8
VT(1) . . .  3 / 8
NH01 . . . 2 / 8
NH02 . . . 2 / 8

Interesting to note that Bernie Sanders, the socialist sided with the constitution more than some Republicans who claim to uphold the constitution in this last round.  
Also, none of our 10 states had any of the star pro-constitution voters and our discarded Hawaii and Rhode Island fared better than most here.  But it also points out how subjective this can be on just one set of votes.

If you want to get a copy of the database I made to build this list, e-mail me.  It is in Quattro Pro (Word Perfect Office, 2001 ver.)

[Caliban]

I think public opinion on drug re-legalization is an important indicator.
Check out

<http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4420>

and

<http://www.marijuanainfo.org>

[Kelton]

Only three of our candidate states presented on the NORML website had statewide polls taken, Maine, South Dakota, and Vermont.

Nationwide opinion polls showed 60% - 85% of people across the country supporting some form of legalization of marijuana. Recent polls since 1999 from Gallup and Pew Research Center show 73% of people "support allowing" or "would vote" for medical marijuana.

At perhaps 12% below the nationwide polls, 61 percent of Mainiards, Mainiacs, or Maine residents supported "legalizing marijuana for medical use under a doctor's supervision" in 1999.

In Vermont, 76 percent of respondents "support changing the law to allow people with cancer, AIDS and other serious illnesses to use and grow their own marijuana for medical purposes, if they have approval of their physicians." Date: February 2002

And most encouraging, in South Dakota, 81 percent of respondents favored "a change in South Dakota law so that seriously ill people, with a doctor's approval, can use medical marijuana legally." Date: January 2001.

The "Free-State" of Maryland, which borders our Delaware had 55% of respondents willing to consider to support a pro-marijuana candidate.

In Minnesota, bordering our North Dakota, 64% of residents favored "protecting patients" in 1999, which is a different question than supporting a candidate and almost seems to say that 36% actually favor arresting marijuana users, nevermind the drug dealers, doesn't it? More than a third of Minnesotans seem to favor just arresting and jailing all the medical marijuana users --is that something I can infer from this poll?  Probably not, best to read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

In Colorado, bordering our Wyoming,  67 percent of respondents supported "legalizing marijuana for medical use under a doctor's supervision".

[Kelton]

Here is some info that relates to the DMV in each state:

When you become a resident of your new state, remember to get a new driver's license and register any vehicles you may have.  

Here is some trivia I gathered by going to each state's DMV site, finding out the maximum time before you must transfer your old operator's license to the new state to drive on  public roads within the state as you become a new resident,  followed by the total cost of fees to surrender your old license and take the minimum test for a basic, non-restricted non-commercial driver or operator license:
in alphabetical order,
Alaska, 90 days, pay $20
Delaware, 60 days, pay $12.50
Idaho, 90 days, pay $24.50
Montana, 120 days, pay $32 (lasts eight years)
New Hampshire, no formal requirement until after residency is established, unknown? (one unofficial source stated 30 days), pay $32
North Dakota, 60 days, pay $15
South Dakota, 30 days, (law is unclear), pay $8
Vermont, 6 months, pay $20
Wyoming, Must obtain drivers license upon becoming resident, no apparent specification of time limit, must pay $20
Maine, upon becoming resident, $40  



For beginner drivers, those restricted beginner's or learner's permits may be valid in-state from another state:

1. States that freely accept learner's permits from other states as valid and under basic terms of issuing state:
Delaware, Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana

2. States that freely accept learner's permits from other states but only on terms of state law.
Idaho, Alaska, Maine(also accepts Canadian provinces),

3. South Dakota will accept permits from states that accept South Dakota permits (reciprocity).  

4. Will not accept out- of- state beginner's permits
New Hampshire, Vermont

And lastly, relating cars and guns, according to the website packing.org, they have determined what states have "gun-friendly peaceable journey laws":
(According to packing.org)
Yes: AK, ID, WY, MT, VT,

No: SD, DE, ME, ND, NH


I am still compiling some info on window-tinting laws and vehicle inspection laws, coming soon.