I just finished reading a well-written article in The New Republic entitled "Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala." It discusses all the government-provided benefits in blue states and the lack of these in red states, all the ways blue states take care of the less fortunate, while the red states do not. The article admits taxes are higher in the blue states, the bluest of which is probably Massachusetts.
As I read this I kept wondering why author Jonathan Cohn forgot to mention that people were migrating from the blue states to the red states? Blue states are redistributive, they tax the earners (plus their employers) and spend those taxes on the non-earners.
Red states are less redistributive than blue states. The result is that employers (and their employees) are migrating to red states whereas non-earners are migrating to blue states.
For example, blue state California has roughly one eighth of the U.S. population but one third of U.S. welfare recipients, much more than its share. Needless to say, CA is broke.
The comfortably employed receive relatively little in the way of benefits from a blue state, but pay plenty in taxes. Such folk end up better off in a red state where they can keep more of their earnings.
I wonder if Scandinavians are migrating to Guatemala or maybe Costa Rica?
