How is the Economy?

[Guest Scott]

4 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Well you can start with proposition 47 passed in 2014.

The measure required misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for the following crimes:

Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950
Grand theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950
Receiving stolen property, where the value of the property does not exceed $950
Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950
Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950
Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950
Personal use of most illegal drugs

In SF if your store is the victim of shoplifting the cops won't even try to get there in a timely manner. Why would they? there is no one to arrest and even if the caught the person it's a misdemeanor anyway, they write a ticket or hold them for a day and they are on their way.  Drug use in the street, yup. I see it daily. The criminal justice system is so over run that they do not enforce these "petty" crimes. So what is the result? Rampant homelessness and drug usage.

Ok, fair enough.  That's why I phrased it in the form of a question.   

[Guest Scott]

5 hours ago, Mores said:

So, @Scott, you wanna know why CA makes more money than LA?  As far as purchase power, they don't.

No, I think we already established that California is extremely expensive.   California is an extreme example.  I wouldn't want to live in either California or Lousiana (or Texas either).  

What about the "average" blue state vs the "average" red state or overall blue states vs. red states?   That would be much more meaningful.  

[Guest Mores]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

No, I think we already established that California is extremely expensive.   California is an extreme example.  I wouldn't want to live in either California or Lousiana (or Texas either).  

What about the "average" blue state vs the "average" red state or overall blue states vs. red states?   That would be much more meaningful.  

OK. I'll work on it.

[Guest Mores]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

No, I think we already established that California is extremely expensive.   California is an extreme example.  I wouldn't want to live in either California or Lousiana (or Texas either).  

What about the "average" blue state vs the "average" red state or overall blue states vs. red states?   That would be much more meaningful.  

OK, so surprise, surprise, all the averages were . . .  average!!!

• Alaska was the only conservative state that had a cost of living index greater than 100%, but that is an obvious exception.  IOW, all the conservative states had low cost of living indexes. And Alaska actually has negative income tax.  The highest were Utah and Texas @ 96.775%
• Conversely, of course, those above 100% were liberal or swing states.  Actually, Virginia was the only state that could be considered swing which had an index above 100%.
• Picking states near 100% left very few to look at.

The highest scores among those near the average (the way I calculated it, the higher number means more PP:  High = good) were for Texas and Utah which were around 113.
Nearly as high, YOU'll be happy to know was Colorado @ 106.  This was partially due to the low property tax.  But that could change on a dime with the slew of socialist policies coming your way.

The closest to 100% CLI was Oregon, a deep blue state.  It turned out to have a score of 91.6.

The closest to the CLI as Utah and Texas was Pennsylvania.  Score: 98.1

Illinois was next closest: Score: 96.8  And this was as high as it was due to poor housing dominating the state.

So, overall, blue loses.  Red wins.

EDIT: WOW!  I just decided to do Alaska for fun.  It had CLI of 108.4%.  But it had a score of 107!!!  That's better than Colorado!  CRAZY!!
Without the negative income tax, it was just about the same.  But with the negative income tax, it was over.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Mores

[Guest Scott]

6 hours ago, Mores said:

OK, so surprise, surprise, all the averages were . . .  average!!!

• Alaska was the only conservative state that had a cost of living index greater than 100%, but that is an obvious exception.  IOW, all the conservative states had low cost of living indexes. And Alaska actually has negative income tax.  The highest were Utah and Texas @ 96.775%
• Conversely, of course, those above 100% were liberal or swing states.  Actually, Virginia was the only state that could be considered swing which had an index above 100%.
• Picking states near 100% left very few to look at.

The highest scores among those near the average (the way I calculated it, the higher number means more PP:  High = good) were for Texas and Utah which were around 113.
Nearly as high, YOU'll be happy to know was Colorado @ 106.  This was partially due to the low property tax.  But that could change on a dime with the slew of socialist policies coming your way.

The closest to 100% CLI was Oregon, a deep blue state.  It turned out to have a score of 91.6.

The closest to the CLI as Utah and Texas was Pennsylvania.  Score: 98.1

Illinois was next closest: Score: 96.8  And this was as high as it was due to poor housing dominating the state.

So, overall, blue loses.  Red wins.

EDIT: WOW!  I just decided to do Alaska for fun.  It had CLI of 108.4%.  But it had a score of 107!!!  That's better than Colorado!  CRAZY!!
Without the negative income tax, it was just about the same.  But with the negative income tax, it was over.

How are you comparing wages to CLI to come up with the score?  Wages are (on average) higher in the blue states, but the cost of living is higher too.

It must also be mentioned that even in the red states, most of the money is coming from the bluest counties.  Would you agree with this?  

Anyway, as far as Texas goes, if wages and cost of living goes, it would be the ideal place to live (though property taxes are high).  I have been offered several jobs in Texas for about double the money and housing is actually cheaper there.  Unfortunately, I'd be miserable living there so it wouldn't work out.

I have a prediction concerning Utah though, and especially the Salt Lake Valley.  I can see housing cost exceeding those of Denver or a lot of other places in upcoming decades.  While many cities have room to spread out, land in the Salt Lake metro is limited due to being surrounded by mountains and the Great Salt Lake.  Available land is disappearing fast.  There's still quite a bit ofbland available, but that's going to run out.

 

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, Scott said:

How are you comparing wages to CLI to come up with the score?  Wages are (on average) higher in the blue states, but the cost of living is higher too.

It must also be mentioned that even in the red states, most of the money is coming from the bluest counties.  Would you agree with this?  

I'm not sure.  Because... California used to be deep red not too long ago.  So, I guess it depends on how you look at "blue" vs "red" in context and what narrative you're trying to prove out.  It seems like first the income rises which then attracts population growth, then it turns deep blue.  I don't have real data to support this thought pattern.  I'm just basing it from the number of red counties to blue counties and the political and economic history of a county like LA.

 

Quote

Anyway, as far as Texas goes, if wages and cost of living goes, it would be the ideal place to live (though property taxes are high).  I have been offered several jobs in Texas for about double the money and housing is actually cheaper there.  Unfortunately, I'd be miserable living there so it wouldn't work out.

Texas is a GIANT state.  It has something for everybody.  You want snow, go north.  You want hurricanes, go south.  You want liberal progressive big city go Dallas/Fort Worth.  Conservative big city go Amarillo.  Something in the middle big city, go Houston.  You want liberal small college town, go Austin.  You want conservative small town go Hereford.  You want a city where you don't have to speak English go Brownsville.  You wanna continue living in Denver but move to Texas, there's Denver Texas.  You wanna move to China but stay in the US, go China Texas, population 1,200.  

 

[Guest Scott]

45 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Texas is a GIANT state.  It has something for everybody.

No it doesn't.   

For me, the #1 factor in choosing a place to live is access to lots of public lands.    So far this year I have hiked or climbed on 91 days and have climbed 43 mountains, which means I am behind on what I usually do (last year I hiked or climbed on 198 days and climbed 113 mountains).  Most of our leisure time is spent hiking, climbing, etc.  

Texas has very little public land.   The only sizable areas containing public lands in Texas are Big Bend and Guadalupe National Parks, which are small enough (especially in comparison to the rest of the state) that you would run out of things to do after a few weeks.   While those parks are nice, they aren't enough to keep you busy for that long.   

Next biggest might be Big Thicket, but that's a super tiny place and you are near civilization the whole time there.

The #2 factor for me is to live outside a huge city.  Yes, you can do that in Texas.  

For me, perhaps the #3 factor in choosing a place to live is access to snow and or ice and or at least cool weather in the summer time.  Right now, it is into the 90's during the day, but I can be in the snow in minutes by heading for the mountains.  I can promise you that there is no access to snow or cool weather in Texas during the summertime, even at the highest elevations.   

So, while Texas might be nice for some people, I would hate living there.  If I really had to maybe I could barely tolerate a location such as Dell City.   That would be it though adn there aren't many jobs in Dell City.

Anyway, have been to Texas many, many times, usually on business or passing through.   It's not for me.  The only time I have been and would go voluntarily is to Guadalupe or Big Bend National Parks.   Those are neat places and I'd go back there.  I may go to Big Bend this winter. 

Hueco Tanks would be neat too, but the red tape is too annoying as to make the trip worthwhile.  

 

Quote

You wanna continue living in Denver but move to Texas, there's Denver Texas. 

For the record, I can't stand Denver.   Living there would be hell (for me).   Other than perhaps Fisher Mesa and Pawnee Buttes, the entire Colorado east of I-25 is awful (in my opinion).    The good part of Colorado is west of I-25 and a long way from Denver.  

Edited June 14, 2019 by Scott

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

No it doesn't.   

For me, the #1 factor in choosing a place to live is access to lots of public lands.    So far this year I have hiked or climbed on 91 days and have climbed 43 mountains, which means I am behind on what I usually do (last year I hiked or climbed on 198 days and climbed 113 mountains).  Most of our leisure time is spent hiking, climbing, etc.  

Texas has very little public land.   The only sizable areas containing public lands in Texas are Big Bend and Guadalupe National Parks, which are small enough (especially in comparison to the rest of the state) that you would run out of things to do after a few weeks.   While those parks are nice, they aren't enough to keep you busy for that long.   

Next biggest might be Big Thicket, but that's a super tiny place and you are near civilization the whole time there.

The #2 factor for me is to live outside a huge city.  Yes, you can do that in Texas.  

For me, perhaps the #3 factor in choosing a place to live is access to snow and or ice and or at least cool weather in the summer time.  Right now, it is into the 90's during the day, but I can be in the snow in minutes by heading for the mountains.  I can promise you that there is no access to snow or cool weather in Texas during the summertime, even at the highest elevations.   

So, while Texas might be nice for some people, I would hate living there.  If I really had to maybe I could barely tolerate a location such as Dell City.   That would be it though adn there aren't many jobs in Dell City.

Anyway, have been to Texas many, many times, usually on business or passing through.   It's not for me.  The only time I have been and would go voluntarily is to Guadalupe or Big Bend National Parks.   Those are neat places and I'd go back there.  I may go to Big Bend this winter. 

Hueco Tanks would be neat too, but the red tape is too annoying as to make the trip worthwhile.  

 

For the record, I can't stand Denver.   Living there would be hell (for me).   Other than perhaps Fisher Mesa and Pawnee Buttes, the entire Colorado east of I-25 is awful (in my opinion).    The good part of Colorado is west of I-25 and a long way from Denver.  

I just might have found the unicorn that would hate being in my beloved country, the Philippines!  I am sad. 

 

 

[Guest Mores]

17 hours ago, Scott said:

How are you comparing wages to CLI to come up with the score?  Wages are (on average) higher in the blue states, but the cost of living is higher too.

It must also be mentioned that even in the red states, most of the money is coming from the bluest counties.  Would you agree with this?  

Anyway, as far as Texas goes, if wages and cost of living goes, it would be the ideal place to live (though property taxes are high).  I have been offered several jobs in Texas for about double the money and housing is actually cheaper there.  Unfortunately, I'd be miserable living there so it wouldn't work out.

I have a prediction concerning Utah though, and especially the Salt Lake Valley.  I can see housing cost exceeding those of Denver or a lot of other places in upcoming decades.  While many cities have room to spread out, land in the Salt Lake metro is limited due to being surrounded by mountains and the Great Salt Lake.  Available land is disappearing fast.  There's still quite a bit ofbland available, but that's going to run out.

The CLI was the average of the four categories that anatess provided.

The "score" was based on all the data I had collected for each state as indicated in the previous post when I compared CA to LA.  I left the actual spreadsheet elsewhere, so I forget the actual equation used.  But it was basically a ratio of the CLI vs the remaining cash in hand from salary after taxes.  The pattern seemed to indicate that all the states with high incomes tended to have higher taxes.  And it turns out that with rare exceptions (like Colorado -- which used to be a red state, then purple, now blue) most of the blue states showing high incomes had that advantage wiped out by taxes and cost of living factors.  My theory is that CO has low taxes because there is still a strong Red streak in CO, even though there is a majority blue population.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Mores

[Guest Scott]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I just might have found the unicorn that would hate being in my beloved country, the Philippines!  I am sad. 

I would love to visit the Phillipes.   I just wouldn't want to live there permanently (I don't want to be in the heat 24/7/365!), but I'd really like to visit.

Here are some of the places high on my list:

Highest on the list are the Kobayan Valley, Mummy Caves, Volcan Mayon, Mount Pulag, and canyoning in Cebu.

I like to visit other cultures too.   

Same goes for Texas.   I actually like and would still like to visit Guadalupe National Park and Big Bend.   I may go next winter.   I just wouldn't want to live in Texas permantly.  Of course, Texas would be great for people with different taste.

As for me I like slot canyons, big mountains (Texas does have respectable mountains; just not as many), lots of variety, wilderness, and lots of public land to roam.  I'm not a city person and I don't like staying home and need places to roam and wander.  

For me, the place to be is somewhere outside the big cities, but somewhere in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.  I could probably tolerate the Black Hills of South Dakota or Maine as well.   Everywhere else is just a place to visit. 

The worst place I ever lived was Chicago.  Yuck.   I didn't have a choice though; that was my parents.  The best place I lived was probably Fruita Colorado. I like Jackson Wyoming too, but didn't get to live there too long, plus it was too far from the slot canyons and it was a long drive to escape the brutal winters.  Utah is my favorite state to wander.   My least favorite to visit is Indiana and Iowa, but as said I like things like mountains, interesting scenery, and public lands to wander.   Florida is flat too, but at least they have the Everglades and it's a good jumping off point for the Caribbean.   

Edited June 14, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

The pattern seemed to indicate that all the states with high incomes tended to have higher taxes.

In general this is true. 

Rural states with a lot of oil and gas also have low taxes since they get a lot of money from those industries.

Quote

And it turns out that with rare exceptions (like Colorado -- which used to be a red state, then purple, now blue) most of the blue states showing high incomes had that advantage wiped out by taxes and cost of living factors.  My theory is that CO has low taxes because there is still a strong Red streak in CO, even though there is a majority blue population.

There are other factors as well.

Utah is the supposedly the most conservative state, but taxes are at least as high as those in Colorado (we moved from Utah to Colorado).

Utah also has a lot of kids to educate (not that kids are a bad thing) and has no lottery.   Both those hurt the state as far as taxes go.  From my experience, Colorado definitely has (overall) nicer roads and rest areas and a better education system, even though the taxes seem similar.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but Colorado also earns tens of millions in marijuana tax revenue.  

It's also better to look at all taxes.  Places like Texas nail you hard on property tax, though they have lower rates on other taxes.   Our friends just moved to Midland and were shocked by the property taxes there.  

As far as Colorado property taxes go, the low rates are somewhat misleading.  The rates might be lower, but the home prices are higher than in most of the nation.   Supposedly we have the 3rd lowest property tax rate in the nation, but by dollar amount, we are only 21st lowest.

Some counties and towns in Colorado have really dumb property and sales tax laws too.  For example, we just moved from Moffat County.  In Moffat County, you aren't taxed on buying a car in a neighboring county.  This hurt the county because a lot of people would simply drive to the next county (Routt County) to buy a car.

Anyway, back to the topic, California might be an exception, but most (not all) of the blue states have a pretty high standard of living.   Some of the red states, especially in the South don't (by US standards at least; by world standards any state in the US is ultra rich).

It's a lot more than politics to.   Big cities tend to be blue.   Rural areas tend to be red (ski resort towns being a big exception).   City jobs overall pay more, but housing cost are generally higher (rural housing costs are usually only really high in resort areas).  

 

 

[Guest Mores]

12 hours ago, Scott said:

In general this is true. 

Rural states with a lot of oil and gas also have low taxes since they get a lot of money from those industries.

There are other factors as well.

Utah is the supposedly the most conservative state, but taxes are at least as high as those in Colorado (we moved from Utah to Colorado).

Utah also has a lot of kids to educate (not that kids are a bad thing) and has no lottery.   Both those hurt the state as far as taxes go.  From my experience, Colorado definitely has (overall) nicer roads and rest areas and a better education system, even though the taxes seem similar.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but Colorado also earns tens of millions in marijuana tax revenue.  

It's also better to look at all taxes.  Places like Texas nail you hard on property tax, though they have lower rates on other taxes.   Our friends just moved to Midland and were shocked by the property taxes there.  

As far as Colorado property taxes go, the low rates are somewhat misleading.  The rates might be lower, but the home prices are higher than in most of the nation.   Supposedly we have the 3rd lowest property tax rate in the nation, but by dollar amount, we are only 21st lowest.

Some counties and towns in Colorado have really dumb property and sales tax laws too.  For example, we just moved from Moffat County.  In Moffat County, you aren't taxed on buying a car in a neighboring county.  This hurt the county because a lot of people would simply drive to the next county (Routt County) to buy a car.

Anyway, back to the topic, California might be an exception, but most (not all) of the blue states have a pretty high standard of living.   Some of the red states, especially in the South don't (by US standards at least; by world standards any state in the US is ultra rich).

It's a lot more than politics to.   Big cities tend to be blue.   Rural areas tend to be red (ski resort towns being a big exception).   City jobs overall pay more, but housing cost are generally higher (rural housing costs are usually only really high in resort areas).  

I guess you didn't get it the first time, but I included property tax in the calculation as well as sales tax.

I'm not sure what your point was with the rest of your post.

This side thread that you started was about the claim that people in red states have lower income than blue states.  And my rebuttal was that after taxes and CLI is included, no they don't.

You seem to be grasping at straws to justify high taxes or costly regulations which raise the cost of living while producing little to no actual benefits.

You make only a half point on your standard of living argument.  Just because the government mandated certain amenities does not mean you actually benefit from them.

[Guest Scott]

14 hours ago, Mores said:

I guess you didn't get it the first time, but I included property tax in the calculation as well as sales tax.

Gotcha.

14 hours ago, Mores said:

I'm not sure what your point was with the rest of your post.

Discussion only.  I also compared Utah and Colorado since we lived in both of those states longer than anyone else.   To me it doesn't seem that taxes are lower in Utah than Colorado, which is interesting (I listed reasons why though).

14 hours ago, Mores said:

This side thread that you started was about the claim that people in red states have lower income than blue states.  And my rebuttal was that after taxes and CLI is included, no they don't.

I still haven't seen your whole list.  You only say that red wins and blue loses.   What was your average for blue vs red.

Almost all the data I see says that most of the states with the lowest standards of living are red.  See here for example:

https://www.wonderslist.com/10-us-states-worst-standard-living/

http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/standard-of-living

Obviously I'd take the above sources with a grain of salt, so I'm asking for your averages.

Quality of life and standard of living are different, so many of the blue states don't do well in this regard.   Take this for example:

http://fortune.com/2018/02/28/states-best-worst-quality-of-life/

So, I was aking for your data.

I can see why you say the standard of living is higher in Texas than California.   I don't disagree.    What about the other blue states such as Oregon, New Hampshire, Vermont, Colorado, Maine, etc.? How do they compare with other red states?  Just curious.

14 hours ago, Mores said:

You seem to be grasping at straws to justify high taxes or costly regulations which raise the cost of living while producing little to no actual benefits.

I'm not for waste.   City, county, state, and federal governments all spend a lot of money on stupid things.  I am not for that.  I work as a consultant on both government and private projects and there are plenty of costly regulations that should be done away with.  A lot of them are really frustrating.  If you really want to discuss some of them, that would be good too, but a bit off topic.   

I am for things like educating children and providing children with health care.  I am for a clean environment and good infrastructure as well.   As mentioned, I'm not for waste.  
 

14 hours ago, Mores said:

You make only a half point on your standard of living argument.  Just because the government mandated certain amenities does not mean you actually benefit from them.

As far as I'm concerned everyone benifits from a population that is educated, healthy, and has a healthy environment and good infrastructure.  Other than those though, spending doesn't improve the standard of living.  

[Guest Mores]

I feel like you're getting off topic.  So, I'm going to restrict my response to those items which I believe have a direct relationship to the topic.  I'll try to ignore everything else.

On 6/15/2019 at 10:43 PM, Scott said:

To me it doesn't seem that taxes are lower in Utah than Colorado, which is interesting (I listed reasons why though).

I didn't say taxes were lower in Utah than Colorado.  I specifically pointed out that Colorado (having reasonable taxes) is a rarity among blue states.  This is because it used to be a red state until recently.  And the Dem leaders are just now getting enough statewide power to start making changes to the tax system.  So, watch and see the taxes in your state go up in the next 10 years.

One thing about Colorado is that the property tax is doubly low (for now).  One, the statutory tax rate is among the lowest in the country.  AND the practice in Colorado is to actually assess the property as much lower than it is actually worth.  As more progressive regulations take hold, you'll find that the counties will raise their assessments while keeping the rate the same.  And they'd be perfectly justified in doing so.  And they will also raise the rate to be near the median rate across the country.  So, your property taxes over the next 10 years will go up a lot.

Quote

I still haven't seen your whole list.  You only say that red wins and blue loses.   What was your average for blue vs red.

I never offered it.  Do you realize how much calculation is involved?  I showed the extreme cases and the few in the middle.  That was what we were discussing.  I don't have the time nor the desire to do all the calculations to prove what I already know to be right, and what you'll deny even if the evidence is shoved into your face.

Quote

I can see why you say the standard of living is higher in Texas than California.   I don't disagree.    What about the other blue states such as Oregon, New Hampshire, Vermont, Colorado, Maine, etc.? How do they compare with other red states?  Just curious.

I already acknowledged the standard of living is on your side.  But I only saw it as half a point.  The reason is that some things that you consider "standard of living" cost a lot more for the amount of purported benefit.  Many things really have no meaningful benefit.

EXAMPLE:

California REQUIRES street lamps in every subdivision at such a spacing with so much illumination, etc.  All highways are required to be lit up a LOT.  Texas has no such requirement.  All those tax dollars that CA requires for highways and HOA fees for subdivisions offer this "benefit".  And I'm not denying that it's a benefit.  It is.  But it's a question of cost/benefits ratios.  Most of the time it's not worth the money.

Most roads in CA are of a higher quality than those in Texas.  But the roads in Texas are sufficient for the needs.  Our economy works well.  Our transportation of goods is fine.  Do we really need to spend more on upkeep on a road that was just paved last year?  Sometimes, too much maintenance means slower roads, causing LOWER levels of service overall.

Quote

As far as I'm concerned everyone benifits from a population that is educated, healthy, and has a healthy environment and good infrastructure.  Other than those though, spending doesn't improve the standard of living.  

EDUCATION:

• Who says Texas is not educated? 
• Louisiana has better education than the numbers would indicate.  You can go to pretty much any school in the state and get a decent education.  You can still graduate and go to LSU or any other university in the nation.  More on that below with "point of diminishing returns".
• The overall numbers are low in some red states because they are using criteria that don't tell the whole story.  Louisiana has fewer college degrees because some people just don't WANT to go to college.  Do you know how many people go into the trades to make MORE money than their college educated counterparts?  A licensed electrician makes more than your UC Berkley grad with a master's in women's studies.

ENVIRONMENT:

• All states have environmental laws.
• All states must abide by federal environmental laws and regulations.
• Many additional requirements by CA, for instance, are both costly and useless.  Others, while they make sense, don't really affect people on a daily level.

So, just what additional environmental benefit do you see that really matters to the average person in the US? 

• More dung on the streets of San Francisco?
• More rodents threatening the return of the plague to Los Angeles, Detroit, and Chicago?
• Loss of farms because of water use restrictions in the valleys of California?
• Rolling blackouts because of restrictions on power development in the state?

 --- I believe I've addressed an example with infrastructure above.

POINT OF DIMINISHING RETURNS:

I believe most of these so called benefits are really only an economic version of virtue signalling.  That is, sure you can point to some purported benefit and claim some superiority.  But when it comes down to brass tacks, there really isn't anything we get out of it that we even notice on a daily basis.  They do nothing to make us feel like we have a better life.

Building codes in CA are extremely onerous.  Beyond that, the bureaucratic process of permitting anything in California is a nightmare.  Many homes there "look prettier" than Texas homes.  But as far as safety and utility, the Texas homes are just as good.  But they're a HECK of a lot less expensive.  I can get a 3000 sf home that any middle class person would be happy to live in for $200,000 in a decent area of town.  In CA?  A similar home with "prettier" finishes and environmental features added (which virtually no one actually thinks about a year after they've moved in) costs $600,000. 

If I was educated in CA schools or LA schools, I could just as easily have gotten into whatever school I wanted as long as I CHOSE to work just as hard in either system.  Sure there are some topics that I might get a bit more out of in CA than I would have in LA.  But all that would have ZERO effect on my college entrance.  And 10 years after graduation, 90% of the students forget all that info anyway.  So, what is the real difference?

Some blue states also have a skewed statistic on education.  Blue states have more universities.  Many of them stay for masters and doctoral degrees.  They are counted as part of the statistic of those who have degrees.  But they're students.  They're not actually contributing anything as a result of having their degrees.  And many of them become unemployed or have a dead end job after graduation because their degree was useless.  So, what exactly was the benefit to their "standard of living"?

We also have a skewed statistic because of illegal immigration in border states (predominantly red).

And a degree alone means nothing.  AOC has a B.S. in International Relations and Economics from Boston University (cum laude).  'nuff said.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Mores

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

I didn't say taxes were lower in Utah than Colorado.
 

I know.  I was the one that said that.   In my exerience, the taxes are roughly equal, but we get more out of it than Utah, or so it seems.   

Quote

So, watch and see the taxes in your state go up in the next 10 years.

Quote

So, your property taxes over the next 10 years will go up a lot.

 

We'll have to wait and see on these ones.   I do know that there are plans for things like all day kindergarten, which will increase costs.   Same with oil and gas regulations.

I'd still like to see more money put into infrastructure though.   Nationwide, a lot of roads need work.   

Quote

I never offered it.  Do you realize how much calculation is involved?  I showed the extreme cases and the few in the middle. 

An average blue state vs. red state would be intersting for sure.

Quote

I don't have the time nor the desire to do all the calculations to prove what I already know to be right, and what you'll deny even if the evidence is shoved into your face.

I have not denied or argued any of your calculations.  I agree with the ones you have presented so far, but it would be interesting to compare other states.

Compared to the "average" person on this forum, I may lean more liberal on certain issues (education, environment, and infrastructure), but I'd be considered a conservative in California.  I'm not out to prove that blue states are better; I was just curious about your data.

Besides, I probably have the best of both worlds.   I live in a blue state, but in a red area.    Since my company is out of Denver, but I live in Grand Junction, I get blue state wages and red state housing costs.    (It is still true I could make more moving to the big city, but it isn't appealing to me)

Quote

Most roads in CA are of a higher quality than those in Texas. 

Maybe.    They may be stronger and more durable, but some of the California roads don't carry traffic well because they were underdesigned for the amount of population explosion that they have seen.  

Even with equal regulation and building quality, roads in California would still cost a lot more than the ones in Texas.   California has a lot more mountains and a lot more earthquakes as well.   

Anyway, I work in highway engineering.    

A lot of money can be saved with upfront spending rather than bandaids.    In Colorado (and probably every other state), they usually only do small construction projects, which are really inefficent cost wise.     Bigger projects cost less per mile.   A lot less.   A lot of money could be saved by building roads right in the first place.  This problem is not unique to blue or red states.   

Let me give an example of how money could be saved by building bigger projects, even in smaller towns.

I worked on two bridges near Kremmling Colorado, a small mountain town.   Both were on highways.    The cost of each bridge was about $3.5 million.   One bridge was done one year and one was done two years later.  I suggested combining the bridges (only a few miles apart) into a single project with the same construction company doing both bridges, one after another (so both bridges wouldn't be shut down at the same time).  I was shot down and was told that the money for the other bridge wouldn't be available for two more years so they had to be done as seperate projects.

The things is that mobilization costs for either bridge were $500,000.    Doing them as one project would have saved $500,000 in mobilization cost right off the bat.

Off topic perhaps, but this is a problem that creates a lot of waste.    

Quote

Do you know how many people go into the trades to make MORE money than their college educated counterparts?  A licensed electrician makes more than your UC Berkley grad with a master's in women's studies.

Yes, I know.   I work in construction and before that I worked in mining.   When I worked at the mine, a lot of the truck drivers were making more than me (close to $50 an hour for some of them).  On construction projects, a lot of the specialized workers get paid more than I do.  

It still pays to have an education.

The town I just moved from is dying.    Almost all of the economy is tied to coal, which is a declining industry.   There are a lot of people, mostly uneducated that are used to driving a truck (or operating other equipment) for $40 to $50 an hour.   Since the union makes it hard for them to get fired, at least half of them do as minimal work as possible.  A lot of them dropped out of high school because they (rightfully) figured that the mine would pay more than most jobs that required a college degree.   What happened when the mine shuts down.   I can promise that all these uneducated workers used to making $40-$50 an hour for driving a truck aren't going to find similar jobs that pay that much with no education required.   

Quote

So, just what additional environmental benefit do you see that really matters to the average person in the US? 

Air quality.    This affects everyone.   I already know that a lot of blue states have serious air quality problems, but this is a real problem in a lot of areas, both blue and red states.

I'm just guessing that we'd disagree on cost to benifit ratios on air quality, but I do think that air quality is a problem in many areas and it should be addressed more than it is.

I also think that we should preserve the remaining wildlands as well, but I'm not sure where you stand on this. 

Quote

Building codes in CA are extremely onerous.

I don't disagree.   I think we both agree about California when it comes to building costs, codes, costs, etc.    There's a lot more than that that drives up prices though.  

Quote

In CA?  A similar home with "prettier" finishes and environmental features added (which virtually no one actually thinks about a year after they've moved in) costs $600,000. 

In the big cities, it would cost a lot more than that.   

Quote

And 10 years after graduation, 90% of the students forget all that info anyway. 

Yes, that is a problem and valid point.   It shouldn't be like that though.    

Also, presumably we agree that a lot of classes are unnecessary.  

Colleges that are supported by tax payer money shouldn't be offering worthless or nearly worthless degrees either.  

This country needs more engineers, school teachers,  and yes skilled trade workers.

Degrees such as liberal arts, communications, fashion design are mostly a waste of money.  

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Mores]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I know.  I was the one that said that.   In my exerience, the taxes are roughly equal, but we get more out of it than Utah, or so it seems.   

Roads in Utah are better than the roads in Colorado.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

An average blue state vs. red state would be intersting for sure.

When you asked for an "average state" I responded with those near the national average.  So, I gave you what you asked for (Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah).  And you're simply ignoring it?  Am I missing something?

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Even with equal regulation and building quality, roads in California would still cost a lot more than the ones in Texas.   California has a lot more mountains and a lot more earthquakes as well.

Mountains would impact the cost of roads.  Homes should not be more costly.  The hurricanes in TX have similar affects as earthquakes in CA.  When I'm calculating costs for projects, the actual tonnage of steel or wood are very much the same per square foot.  But the cost for labor and materials are much different.  A lot of it is taxes that are hidden in layers of supply chain, employment, procedures, and permitting.  And the regulations required to ship are more stringent in CA than TX, increasing the cost.  Shipping is also impacted by BOE taxes on fuel.

It really is a LOT more about regulation and tax than you realize.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

It still pays to have an education.

I'll partially go along with this based on my definition of education.  I still believe that the government run education we get in public schools is not substantively better than not.

And high school graduation is a practical requirement.  So, your example of high school dropouts is not a valid argument.  Too many societal factors come into play when a person has no high school diploma.  But the actual grades don't matter.  Just the piece of paper.

And higher education doesn't really matter much.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Air quality.    This affects everyone.   I already know that a lot of blue states have serious air quality problems, but this is a real problem in a lot of areas, both blue and red states.

As I asked before, what is so different about blue states that you included "environment" in your list of "higher standard of living" among blue states?  You responded with "air quality" and then proceeded to acknowledge that this is a problem in both red and blue states.  So, why state that as your answer to what differences there are?

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'm just guessing that we'd disagree on cost to benifit ratios on air quality, but I do think that air quality is a problem in many areas and it should be addressed more than it is.

I have no idea.  I've asked you what you're talking about.  And you haven't answered.  What is a substantive difference between states?  I gave four examples of CA bungling it.

My take on cost-to-benefits ratio is that you have to justify the cost with a resulting benefit.  What is the benefit and what is the cost.  What I see is

• Many environmental laws that make all the sense in the world.  But these are pretty much applied in all states.  So, no real differences. Example: No toxic waste dumping.
• Some regulations cause things to cost more money and make doing things more difficult without actually producing any known or provable benefit.  Example: Cap n' Trade.
• Some regulations may tout some minor benefit by doubling the cost of something (just an example).  I just don't see these as worth it. Example: Mandated catalytic converter.

So, I need you to be specific about what you see as a benefit in a blue state.  You're an engineer, give me the technical, I'll give you the financial.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I also think that we should preserve the remaining wildlands as well, but I'm not sure where you stand on this. 

Here's where I stand:  Which ones and how much?  Do you realize how much of the US is still undeveloped?  95.5%.  So, to say we need to preserve ALL remaining wildlands is quite the blanket statement.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't disagree.   I think we both agree about California when it comes to building costs, codes, costs, etc.    There's a lot more than that that drives up prices though.  

Yes, taxes and regulations.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

In the big cities, it would cost a lot more than that.   

Yes.  And there is no reason to justify that other than government regulations that provide no real benefit.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, that is a problem and valid point.   It shouldn't be like that though.

I agree.  But that underscores the fact that "better education" isn't necessarily a real social benefit on its own -- at least not in the manner of the statistics you shared.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Also, presumably we agree that a lot of classes are unnecessary.  

Yes, and I believe blue states are bigger offenders of that than red states.  But they still claim a "higher standard of education" because of these unnecessary additions.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Colleges that are supported by tax payer money shouldn't be offering worthless or nearly worthless degrees either.  

But they do.  So, that again underscores how government provides a "benefit" that they can check the box on, but is essentially useless.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

This country needs more engineers, school teachers,  and yes skilled trade workers.

No arguments there.  I actually would argue teachers since I'm a homeschool advocate.  But I'll forbear since that's based on a tangent topic that I don't want to get into right now.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Degrees such as liberal arts, communications, fashion design are mostly a waste of money.  

We agree.  I do believe these areas of study are very important.  But as a degree that you have to pay exorbitant tuition for?  NO!!! Go to the library, the bookstore, U of Youtube, etc.  You can get a much better quality of education in those areas for a LOT less money.

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Mores said:

Roads in Utah are better than the roads in Colorado.

I live minutes from the state line (Utah/Colorado) and don't agree.  Colorado roads (at least highways) are generally better.   Colorado is better with snow removal and there seem to be more rest areas as well.

Out of curiosity, why do you think Utah roads are better?   Maybe we just visit different areas.

Edit:   Now that I think of it, area you speaking of city roads rather than highways?       I do agree there.    Utah's city streets are overall much better than those in Colorado.  Denver roads are a clusterfudge (is that the proper LDS term?).    So are a lot of roads in other Colorado cities.   The roads are set up extremely poorly.

Many cities in Utah are set up logically in sensible grid pattern.    When it comes to city streets, Utah has some of the best in the nation for this reason.   Places like Denver were set up by miners, who if they even bothered with any logical set up, set up roads downtown parallell to the rivers and then later a latitude based grid was set up on the outskirts.   It's a real mess.  

Quote

When you asked for an "average state" I responded with those near the national average.  So, I gave you what you asked for (Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah).  And you're simply ignoring it?  Am I missing something?

Fair enough, if those are only states you are comparing.  It would be nice if there were more states to compare, but I understand if it is time consuming.  

Quote

Mountains would impact the cost of roads.  Homes should not be more costly.  The hurricanes in TX have similar affects as earthquakes in CA.  When I'm calculating costs for projects, the actual tonnage of steel or wood are very much the same per square foot.  But the cost for labor and materials are much different.  A lot of it is taxes that are hidden in layers of supply chain, employment, procedures, and permitting.  And the regulations required to ship are more stringent in CA than TX, increasing the cost.  Shipping is also impacted by BOE taxes on fuel.

It really is a LOT more about regulation and tax than you realize.

I don't disagree, but in California at least, land is also extremely expensive, even without building cost.     Supply and demand is also a huge factor.   California has beautiful scenery and a lot of the state has an idea climate.    A lot of people want to live there.   

You seem to be hung up on California though and seem to think that I want to justify what California is doing.   I do not.  

Quote

I'll partially go along with this based on my definition of education.  I still believe that the government run education we get in public schools is not substantively better than not.

That may very well be true, but I believe that for children at least (and assume that you do too), that they should have an education regardless of their parent's economic status.  I'm guessing that we don't disagree.  

Quote

As I asked before, what is so different about blue states that you included "environment" in your list of "higher standard of living" among blue states?  You responded with "air quality" and then proceeded to acknowledge that this is a problem in both red and blue states.  So, why state that as your answer to what differences there are?

In my opinion, air quality needs to be tackled on national level, not only a state level.  Which states are more likely to support that?   Blue or red?  Which states are more likely to mandate clean energy sources?  Vehicle emmisions?  Of course there are exceptions, I am speaking generally.   

The thing about air quality is that it can't just be done on a state level.  Air pollution flows from one state to another.   I am currently working (though I'm off this week) in a place called Elk Springs.    It is in Colorado, but almost all of the air pollution comes from Utah.

Also, I already know that California has a huge air pollution problem if you were going to bring that up.  Geography plays a part, just as it does in places like Utah.    

Quote

I have no idea.  I've asked you what you're talking about.  And you haven't answered.  What is a substantive difference between states?  I gave four examples of CA bungling it.

Lets start simple.  Here's a simple example.  Oil fields in Colorado, for example, are generally cleaner than those in Utah because of the methane leak restrictions.   That is a difference between the two states and a good example.  

Quote

Some regulations may tout some minor benefit by doubling the cost of something (just an example).  I just don't see these as worth it. Example: Mandated catalytic converter.

I strongly disagree.   Why do you think mandated catalytic converters aren't worth the cost?  They are one of the cheaper ways to reduce harmful pollutants. 

Do you really think that catalytic converters have little benefit or aren't doing any good?  

Quote

Here's where I stand:  Which ones and how much?  Do you realize how much of the US is still undeveloped?  95.5%.  So, to say we need to preserve ALL remaining wildlands is quite the blanket statement.

I'm speaking mostly of roadless or nearly roadless areas on public lands, rather than just under-developed areas.  It wouldn't be practical to protect all roadless areas, but more of them need protections.    Since Texas has so little public land, it wouldn't be as interesting for you I guess, but if you want I can provide many specific examples.   Additional roadless areas in the Uinta Mountains of Utah, for example, need more protection.   

Quote

Yes, and I believe blue states are bigger offenders of that than red states.  But they still claim a "higher standard of education" because of these unnecessary additions.

This may be true; I don't know.

We seem to agree on a lot when it comes to education.  

I do believe that education is an investment rather than a liability.   Hopefully you do too.

Quote

But they do.  So, that again underscores how government provides a "benefit" that they can check the box on, but is essentially useless.

I'd say that I'd rather see more money go to say reducing class sizes in elementary schools rather than offering more college degrees that offer little in the form of employment opportunities.   

Also, college degrees should be more affordable than they are now.  I'm not blaming lack of funding either; costs have gone up with greater funding; more so than can be justified. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Scott

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

Also, college degrees should be more affordable than they are now.

Sure, but that would require that professors and college administrators cut their salaries. That ain't gonna happen. In fact, I find it incredibly fascinating/hilarious/sad when professors and college deans rant about income inequality when they usually make 300,000$ a year plus and work 12 hours a week.

But if you ask them to cut their salaries and make college more affordable...crickets. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by MormonGator

[Guest Mores]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I live minutes from the state line (Utah/Colorado) and don't agree.  Colorado roads (at least highways) are generally better.   Colorado is better with snow removal and there seem to be more rest areas as well.
Out of curiosity, why do you think Utah roads are better?   Maybe we just visit different areas.

Perhaps.  I have relatives in Utah.  I drive through Colorado with each trip.  I'll admit that round the mountain areas (near the border) there are problems with Utah roads.  But take downtown Denver vs Downtown SLC or take CO Springs vs. Provo/Orem area and the Utah streets have less alligator cracking, fewer potholes, better curbs and driveways.  Manholes are more flush with pavement.  Drainage is better during heavy rains.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Edit:   Now that I think of it, area you speaking of city roads rather than highways?       I do agree there.    Utah's city streets are overall much better than those in Colorado.  Denver roads are a clusterfudge (is that the proper LDS term?).    So are a lot of roads in other Colorado cities.   The roads are set up extremely poorly.

Highways are a matter of federal funding.  So, it's not really fair to compare states where federal funding is the determination.  But off the top of my head, I haven't noticed much difference in the maintenance of highways between the two states.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't disagree, but in California at least, land is also extremely expensive, even without building cost.     Supply and demand is also a huge factor.   California has beautiful scenery and a lot of the state has an idea climate.    A lot of people want to live there. 

If you looked at the map, you'll see that CA has among the highest quantities of completely undeveloped land.  So, there really is no excuse for this.  The supply is much higher than demand when considering land alone.  It's the regulations.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

You seem to be hung up on California though and seem to think that I want to justify what California is doing.   I do not.

Well, I have more experience with the finances and taxes of CA than other liberal states.  So, that's where I'm going for examples. 

Additionally, I have more experience with Texas finances and taxes than most other states.  So, the best comparison in terms of size, economic development, infrastructure, population, resources, etc. would be CA.

You have to understand that whenever there is a hybrid system (i.e. a clear red/blue state with mostly moderate tax & regulatory policies) there are going to be ambiguous data points.  So, when you make a blanket statement like,"Why are red states poorer than blue states" which states are you going to look at for comparison?  When taking all  economic factors into account, CA and TX provide the clearest apples-to-apples comparison between conservative and liberal policies being the determining factor.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

That may very well be true, but I believe that for children at least (and assume that you do too), that they should have an education regardless of their parent's economic status.  I'm guessing that we don't disagree.

I don't see anything in what I said that would say otherwise. But this is obviously about homeschooling, which is a tangent.  So... end of line... If you want to start another thread about homeschooling (I think I did in the past) then I'll be happy to go to that thread and talk about it.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

In my opinion, air quality needs to be tackled on national level, not only a state level.  Which states are more likely to support that?   Blue or red?  Which states are more likely to mandate clean energy sources?  Vehicle emmisions?  Of course there are exceptions, I am speaking generally.   

The thing about air quality is that it can't just be done on a state level.  Air pollution flows from one state to another.   I am currently working (though I'm off this week) in a place called Elk Springs.    It is in Colorado, but almost all of the air pollution comes from Utah.

Assuming this is so (and I'm not certain it is) why, then do you bring this up as a difference between states?  You're defeating your own argument.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Also, I already know that California has a huge air pollution problem if you were going to bring that up.  Geography plays a part, just as it does in places like Utah.    

No, I wasn't.  I was simply asking WHAT the difference was.  But I keep getting from you that there is no difference.  So, if there is no difference, then please answer the original question.  What environmental benefits do you see in blue states that are better than red states?

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Lets start simple.   Oil fields in Colorado, for example, are generally cleaner than those in Utah because of the methane leak restrictions.   That is a difference between the two states and a good example.

It doesn't seem to be making a difference.

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/hap/

If anything, Utah's geography should make it worse.  Add to that your point about methane restrictions, it should be a LOT worse.  Instead, it's about the same.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I disagree.   Why do you think mandated catalytic converters aren't worth the cost?  They are one of the cheaper ways to reduce harmful pollutants. 

Not so.  Today's engine technology is such that the benefit of the catalytic converter is outweighed by the cost.

• Today we can make engines today that have about the same emissions as a standard care with a cat-con.  The cost to upgrade would be about the same as the cat-con.
• The new technology would maintain that benefit indefinitely.
• A cat-con is only good for one year.  After the first year the usefulness (for air quality) begins to degrade.  After five or six years, the cat-con is worse than having no muffler at all.  It actually hurts.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'm speaking mostly of roadless or nearly roadless areas on public lands, rather than just under-developed areas.  It wouldn't be practical to protect all roadless areas, but more of them need protections.    Since Texas has so little public land, it wouldn't be as interesting for you I guess, but if you want I can provide many specific examples.   Additional roadless areas in the Uinta Mountains of Utah, for example, need more protection.   

Completely roadless areas are about 20% to 25% of the US.  Other areas that have roads, but nothing else makes up another 20% to 30% (depending on who you ask).  Then there are the areas with roads and extremely sparse buildings or utilities, etc.  That makes up the rest.  I can't get dependable information on where any of these numbers take into account farmland.  I can't imagine that the 95% number doesn't include farmland.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

This may be true; I don't know.

We seem to agree on a lot when it comes to education.  

OK. Good.  But again I'm wondering, why you believe this is a benefit in favor of blue states.  It seems this isn't really an advantage at all.

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I do believe that education is an investment rather than a liability.   Hopefully you do too.

I'd say that I'd rather see more money go to say reducing class sizes in elementary schools rather than offering more college degrees that offer little in the form of employment opportunities.   

Also, college degrees should be more affordable than they are now.  I'm not blaming lack of funding either; costs have gone up with greater funding; more so than can be justified. 

Well, now we're going more philosophical.  And, yes, we probably agree on a lot of things (don't believe that's wasted on me).  But we're talking about the financial differences between states vis-a-vis standard of living.

[Guest MormonGator]

@Mores and @Scott-everyone thinks their state has the worst roads, the worst traffic, etc. 

[Guest Mores]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Mores and @Scott-everyone thinks their state has the worst roads, the worst traffic, etc. 

No, we have the best roads, but the worst traffic.

Kidding.  I've been to many states and I believe nothing is worse than NYC as far as traffic.  As far as quality of roads themselves???  Colorado is not as good as others. But they are not the worst either.  Louisiana and Mississippi have pretty bad road conditions.  Then downtown Phoenix is also pretty bad.  But Scottsdale and Mesa areas are much better.

I've never been to Florida (or I might have for a day when I was young).  But I imagine with swamps and water table, etc. your roads can't be too good.

I have a friend in Florida who asked us to vacation at their home.  I may take them up on it.  I'll see then.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Mores

[Vort]

Washington has the worst 250-foot Douglas firs across the road after a storm. I know, Florida wants to say that IT has the worst 250-foot Doug firs across the road after a storm, but they're just wrong.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Vort

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Mores said:

No, we have the best roads, but the worst traffic.

Kidding.  I've been to many states and I believe nothing is worse than NYC as far as traffic.  As far as quality of roads themselves???  Colorado is not as good as others. But they are not the worst either.  Louisiana and Mississippi have pretty bad road conditions.  Then downtown Phoenix is also pretty bad.  But Scottsdale and Mesa areas are much better.

I have too. In my early 20's I was so into road trips that I actually had a "South of the Border" bumper sticker on my car. In my experience the worst traffic is Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia with NYC being number two, Atlanta number 3. The worst traffic jam of my life, far and away, was in Northern Virginia. It took about THREE HOURS to drive 54 miles. DC-Fredricksburg. Horrific! 

[Guest Mores]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I have too. In my early 20's I was so into road trips that I actually had a "South of the Border" bumper sticker on my car. In my experience the worst traffic is Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia with NYC being number two, Atlanta number 3. The worst traffic jam of my life, far and away, was in Northern Virginia. It took about THREE HOURS to drive 54 miles. DC-Fredricksburg. Horrific! 

Oh yeah, DC was pretty bad. I forgot about that.  Wait!  I remember I went there a second time and it was only moderately slow.  I wonder if it was better because I came around Thanksgiving when people were mostly gone for the holidays.

I visited Baltimore a while back.  But I was on foot.  So, I'm not sure if I got a good feel for the traffic.  Roads were ok.  I was in Atlanta once, but don't remember it.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

Oh yeah, DC was pretty bad. I forgot about that.  Wait!  I remember I went there a second time and it was only moderately slow.  I wonder if it was better because I came around Thanksgiving when people were mostly gone for the holidays.

I visited Baltimore a while back.  But I was on foot.  So, I'm not sure if I got a good feel for the traffic.  Roads were ok.  I was in Atlanta once, but don't remember it.

Southern Connecticut- to Richmond VA is basically a parking lot. After Richmond on 95, the road opens up like Moses parting the Red Sea. Even now, after twenty years of driving up that way, I feel so much relief when I get to the NC-VA border!