The 10 States With the Most Low Wage Jobs (They're all Red States LOL.)

[Lostlover]

President Obama should use the European example on austerity as a response the GOP's economic policy. But he should also remind us what type of dump red states are. This is the ultimate sign of failed policies. Red states have been red since Kennedy decided to let African Americans attend school with whites. In the 60 years since, these states have gotten nothing.

The 10 States and 10 Jobs With the Most Low-Wage Workers - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

Interesting read.

Please GOP supporters, please don't say that it is purely a coincidence that red states make up all 10 states with the most low wage jobs.

 

[jackoroe]

So your "argument" is intended to support a continuation in the profligate spending being engaged in by both parties? If we don't continue pissing away $1,300,000,000,000 a year that we borrow from the Chinese, the whole country will look like Mississippi! You run with that one!

 

[evanrick]

why is spending only an issue with republicans when a democrat is president? sorry, cant have it both ways as republicans voted 9 times to raise the debt ceiling while bush was president.

they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and the graph speaks for itself, republican dominate areas where the voters are dumb and poor.

 

[Benvolio]

Not so fast. 8 of your states are also among the states with the lowest cost of living.Cost of Living 4th Quarter 2011
The point is that looking at wages alone does not tell you much. A low wage job in a rural state will buy you a better life than one in a big eastern city. Anyone want to compare the apartment one can get for $500 a month in Manhattan with one in Oklahoma City?
And the states with the lowest unemployment are Republican states.http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

 

[CowboyBob]

These are the jobs the job creators brag about creating. Minimum wage jobs with no benefits at Wal*Mart and fast food joints.

 

[Benvolio]

which Republican policies in these states are causing them to be rural and poor?

Now you are blaming the Republicans for causing RURAL states to be RURAL? Have you then no shame.

Try to think. You most know that in a recession the low skill, low wage jobs are among the first to go. In a state with high employment, you will naturally find many in low wage jobs. BUT in those Democrat states with lots of people out of work there will be fewer in jobs an thus fewer in low wage jobs. Duh. Lostlover's chart is in large part a showing of HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT in Democrat states. Maybe if you didn't hate employers so much, there would be more jobs. In Republican, employer-friendly states there is less pressure to send low-wage jobs to India.

 

[thewiz]

Working with local governments, those states usually have the worst school systems, lowest public wages (not always bad), highest use of public services, lowest college graduation rates (I know, snobs), highest illiteracy rates, etc. I worked with several companies over my career that moved to those states to take advantage of the lower wages they could pay only to find their quality suffered and workers required extensive training that leveled the playing field rather quickly. Problem with many rate comparisons is the "hidden economy" caused by many workers hiding income and not paying taxes....or transferring it off shore if they are wealthy.

My husband and I would be high income in most of these states or even Michigan where I am from. In D c, we are very much average.

 

[maxpowr9]

I think the problem with the GOP in the low-income states is the you kick the legs off the stool that is government handouts such as food stamps and medicaid (which coincidentally, they hate) and you will see the poverty rate rise even higher. Again, some people really do vote against their own best interest which is sad.

 

[bankside]

Now you are blaming the Republicans for causing RURAL states to be RURAL? Have you then no shame.

Try to think. You most know that in a recession the low skill, low wage jobs are among the first to go. In a state with high employment, you will naturally find many in low wage jobs. BUT in those Democrat states with lots of people out of work there will be fewer in jobs an thus fewer in low wage jobs. Duh. Lostlover's chart is in large part a showing of HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT in Democrat states. Maybe if you didn't hate employers so much, there would be more jobs. In Republican, employer-friendly states there is less pressure to send low-wage jobs to India.

No; sigh.

He was calling out a hasty association and asking anyone who dares to demonstrate a correlation between a specific republican policy and rural poverty.

 

[bankside]

thanks

I didn't mean that as a baiting question, it just seems to me like the Southern states have been poor and rural for longer than the Republican party has existed and I myself am not entirely sure why they were never industrialized the same way that the Northeast and Midwestern states were (and if/which Republican policies are to blame for that)

Yes. Have you ever seen a motion sensor light which is aimed wrong and dialled up too high? It trips for anything. I think your post got caught up by that kind of over-tuned motion sensor.


Anway, I can't demonstrate causation, but it does seem reasonable to me that the same inept thinking which kerbs economic development could also elect people who steer a country in the wrong direction. And I note that while the names of the parties elected by these regions has changed over the years, so have the party platforms.

 

[Benvolio]

thanks

I didn't mean that as a baiting question, it just seems to me like the Southern states have been poor and rural for longer than the Republican party has existed and I myself am not entirely sure why they were never industrialized the same way that the Northeast and Midwestern states were (and if/which Republican policies are to blame for that)

Sorry if I misinterpreted,but it did seem to me that you were blaming us Republicans, I think the economic differences are exaggerated, but historically, the east and west coasts recieve imports and send exports which is part of the explanation of increased economic activity. Climates with cold and hot seasons, such as the northeast as well as Europe, seem to have more activity as people struggle to survive in winter, while those in warmer climates year round have less pressure to survive and the summer heat discourages hard work. Since the coming of air conditioning, the economies in the southand southwest have changed a great deal. It is not a coincidence that cities like Las Vegas And Phoenix have expanded since air conditioning. It is all a work in progress.

 

[Kulindahr]

LL, it doesn't matter what model Obama tries to use, because the House Republicans won't allow anything to get done that might actually help the country. They've demonstrated that all they're interested in in passing ideologically pure bills that have no chance of going anywhere, not in governing. Obama could climb Mount Sinai and come back flanked by angels, carrying an economic program written on stone tablets by God Himself, and the Republicans wouldn't support it.


The only way we're going to get actual economic sense in Congress is to act to end the two party system, so the parasites of the two-faced whore pretending to be "Democrats" and ""Republicans" can be booted in the ass and sent on their way.

 

[JayHawk]

The only major problem I see with your logic is that it politicizes the issue and does not reflect the actual cost of living in Oklahoma, Tennessee and Mississippi for instance. I lived in in two of the three and live right up the street from Oklahoma now. My dollar goes three times as far as it does on the coast. There is a reason I bought six houses in Tennessee. Instead of one house in Connecticut. I understand I make far less than minimum wage but you can make a modest living in those places on minimum wage. For a variety of reasons both good and bad it is impossible to live on a low income in any major (million plus) city.

 

[bankside]

I don't buy the cost of living argument. A person who pays 1.1 million for a 900 square foot run-of-the-mill post-war bungalow in Vancouver has the option to buy 10 homes in rural Whereeversville. Or they could buy one home and live off the proceeds of the sale. The reverse is not true.

You can't say oh, it all works out because the cost of living is different. The homeowner in the high property value region has economic power not available to the homeowner in the low-cost region.

 

[JayHawk]

Right but what you get paid in each area is very different based on what you need to live. If the culmination of your life is the capacity to perform menial task then you should not expect riches. You get out of life what you put in. I do buy the cost of living argument. I can go to Costa Rica and live like a multi-millionaire. The Costa Ricans do not feel they are oppressed or otherwise unsatisfied with life.

Not every one on earth gets to live in the first world because there are not enough resources. That does not mean poverty is the only other option. I hire people to work for me or rather for my company these days. I will take one poor farm kid who knows how to work over ten inner city kids who know how to fucking complain about work and not accomplish anything. Same level of poverty. Different outcomes in life when offered opportunity.

 

[palemale]

which Republican policies in these states are causing them to be rural and poor?

All except Montana are Right to Work (for less) states. I imagine the low rate of unionization in these states has a lot to do with their poverty.

 

[Kulindahr]

All except Montana are Right to Work (for less) states. I imagine the low rate of unionization in these states has a lot to do with their poverty.

I can't understand how "Right to Work" is considered constitutional, unless it allows unions but allows some to opt out, so if the union wins a raise of fifty cents an hour, the non-union people are out of luck.

 

[JayHawk]

Kuli right to work allows unions. However the benefits and ability to NOT pay for a union is there as well. As a young apprentice in Ohio I had to pay the union or find another job in another industry. THAT is not constitutional. Forced entry into a group of people just to have the ability to work. That is where the phrase "Right to work" comes from in the slogans. I am not entirely anti union. However they have the following that they do these days ONLY because employees in some states have no choice. I think a union made up of people who actually want to be involved would make a more powerful block in some cases and then attract other workers in the similar trades. I work in a giant non union as it were. We collectively have rights but they are minimalist. SO we have formed organizations that lobby congress to make law that helps our folks. Not a union in sight yet we seem to have found many of the same protections and benefits.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli right to work allows unions. However the benefits and ability to NOT pay for a union is there as well. As a young apprentice in Ohio I had to pay the union or find another job in another industry. THAT is not constitutional. Forced entry into a group of people just to have the ability to work. That is where the phrase "Right to work" comes from in the slogans. I am not entirely anti union. However they have the following that they do these days ONLY because employees in some states have no choice. I think a union made up of people who actually want to be involved would make a more powerful block in some cases and then attract other workers in the similar trades. I work in a giant non union as it were. We collectively have rights but they are minimalist. SO we have formed organizations that lobby congress to make law that helps our folks. Not a union in sight yet we seem to have found many of the same protections and benefits.

"Right to work" means different things in different places. There were two different "right to work" campaigns in Oregon while I was in high school, and they were definitely different. One would merely have done away with having to pay union dues, the other would have forbidden formation of a union at some store unless the vote was unanimous. The one that blew through when I was in Indiana was a lot more complex than either of those.

 

[palemale]

Kuli right to work allows unions. However the benefits and ability to NOT pay for a union is there as well. As a young apprentice in Ohio I had to pay the union or find another job in another industry. THAT is not constitutional. Forced entry into a group of people just to have the ability to work. That is where the phrase "Right to work" comes from in the slogans. I am not entirely anti union. However they have the following that they do these days ONLY because employees in some states have no choice. I think a union made up of people who actually want to be involved would make a more powerful block in some cases and then attract other workers in the similar trades. I work in a giant non union as it were. We collectively have rights but they are minimalist. SO we have formed organizations that lobby congress to make law that helps our folks. Not a union in sight yet we seem to have found many of the same protections and benefits.

No one is forced to join a union anywhere in the US. Even in states that permit union shop agreements, employees have the option not to join the union. They only have to pay a fee to the union for the cost of administering the collective bargaining agreement. They don't have to pay costs associated with political contributions or other non-contract administration costs. By contrast, in right-to-work (for less) states, unions have to represent members and non-members equally. So, if you are not a member of the union, never pay a penny in dues, the union still has to defend you if you get fired, including having a union representative represent you in grievance meetings, file arbitrations and pay for a lawyer and the cost of arbitration.