4 ms·
I'm unsure of what this is measuring. Is it wealth? Is it income? Also, it's unclear it measures what it seeks to measure. Imagine a (poor) rural area and a (r
by yuliyp 9y ago
I'm unsure of what this is measuring. Is it wealth? Is it income?
Also, it's unclear it measures what it seeks to measure. Imagine a (poor) rural area and a (rich) urban area. Let's assume there's 0 net migration, but 100 people move in each direction every year. This looks like a migration of wealth given the methodology shown, but it's actually noise.
Thus the point the author seems to be driving "look how bad California is at having pro-wealth policies" may be flawed. Any wealthy area is going to look redder than any poor area (unless there's also a net migration of people too).
Reading the rest of the site it's clear he's just trying to push an agenda, though. He's not asking critical questions, just using words like "unimpeachable".
- petre 9y agoIt measures capital flowing from the high tax (CA, NY) to the low tax states (TX, FL, WA).
- Osiris 9y agoThat may be one factor but certainly only one of many. Look at the mid-west. Kansas is a very low tax state and yet they are seeing capital fleeing the state.
- asveikau 9y agoI clicked on California and it gave me a per-county view, and it seems like a bunch of counties (which pay the same California taxes) are green. I clicked San Francisco county and it seems like it's gaining money from other high tax areas (Santa Clara, New York, Chicago, DC, and Boston, in that order) and it's losing money to other, more suburban Bay Area counties. I don't see any low tax state mentioned in that view. As I click through on other states I'm familiar with or have lived in, the trend I'm seeing is that populated areas are all red. That makes me think about the comment here about retirements or regional income differences. There is some population-based skewing here.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]