The Most Fiscally Unsound States in the US

[oldfart]

Interesting;

Very well. I get it. you are insulted that the study found blue states as fiscally unsound. Excellent! Now will you be so kind as to find another study that disagrees with this one? They come out every so often and the worst states rarely change.

What are you talking about? I'm just reading the measurements of the study so I understand them.

The very first sentence in the abstract says;



The second sentence of the abstract is

I create the cash, budget, long-run, and service-level solvency indices using
fiscal year 2012 data to measure the dimensions of fiscal condition.

That is pretty much what I picked up reading the study for a better understanding. She's got, "cash solvency", "budget solvency", "long-run solvency" and "service-level solvency" as her basic measures.

Three indicators comprise the cash solvency index: the cash, quick, and current ratios.
Two financial indicators make up the budget solvency index: operating ratio and the surplus (or deficit) per capita.
Three indicators measure long-run solvency: net asset ratio, longterm liability ratio, and long-term liabilities per capita.
Three measures also compose the service-level solvency index: tax per capita, revenue per capita, and expense per capita

I'm not close to deciding if I like them or not.

Nowhere have I said shit about what states are what. I suspect that you are simply projecting.

In the statistical community these kind of disclaimers are used for a "non-study study". By acknowledging up front that your methodology is somewhat arbitrary, you are immunized from being called out on that point. It becomes a thought experiment, not an attempt at proof. If the author were attempting to prove something, there would follow a discussion justifying the methodology. By accepted norm, these thought experiments are suitable for fluff pieces in popular print, but not for professional publication.

Now if the OP wants to have a discussion on measuring fiscal solvency of state governments, I'm up to that. It has to start with the methodology though.

 

[william the wie]

I understand your liking for comparable comps OF but beyond pointing out that IL and CA would have been in receivership long ago if involuntary state bankruptcy were legal. NYC, Boston and Baltimore drive their respective states, along with Houston, which does not drive its state, keep cropping up as highly likely involuntary municipal bankruptcies. And the coal decision by Obama's EPA for WV comparable data is deliberately avoided.

 

[itfitzme]

An assessment based upon what you posted and an accurate one at that. You did not post them so as to study them. You could have done that on your own. No, you want to challenge the findings. Why post the above at all if your not challenging the findings? You wanted to add to the op? I don't think so.

So your decision to post, speak, ... communicate is driven by personal apriori biases. Okay, I get that. The OP was to present your biased position

I do what is refered to as "critical thinking" and "conversing". I don't have to have a previous bias to think.

Your OP didn't burrow down the study. Did you follow the links and pull ep the study yourself?

I picked out a solid set of statements from the paper that summarize it. And, as it turns out, they are exactly how the author summarized her own study. I just picked out the ones in the body that exemplify the shorter abstract.

Personally, I'm not sure how one measures a state's "fiscal condition". Governments aren't simply households or bisinesses. They are kinda unique. They depend on a functioning economy to fund the services they provide to ensure a functioning economy. For example, no highways, no transportation, no economy, no funding for highways. Privately owned toll roads never really took off for some reason.

The author has eleven measures in four catagories.

I can, though, be certain that if you can't read a few statements from the study, that you pointed to, without getting your panties all in a bunch, you've got no hope of being objective.

I did post a partisan OP. Did I hide this fact? After reviewing many of these over the years I see a common trend. No matter which study you pull up you will find the same top 10 states +- one or two with another blue state. I did see the study and the cnbc article was not where I originally got the information. Any way you have it, by anyone's standard the most fiscally unsound states are usually the same.

What you did is become immediately "defensive". What you did was, if I recall correctly, immediately scream "liberal". That you are a subjectively biased partisan hack doesn't necessitate that every post you make is partison.

There has never been a definition of "every waking moment" to defining general behavior. A thief is still a thief even two days later when he didn't steal something. Alchoholics don't drink all the time. Child and spouse abusers don't have to be abusive every day to be classified as an abusive personality.

You made it obvious that you are biased in your reply. How hard is this to get?

"I didn't [blank] last week." Doesn't mean anything.

 

[Luissa]

The Most Fiscally Unsound States in the US



Before Checking out which states are the most fiscally unsound (HERE) I encourage you to study these maps.



2012 election

The worst states are



New Jersey

Connecticut

Illinois

Massachusetts

California

New York

Maryland

Hawaii

Pennsylvania

West Virginia



The most fiscally sound states are



Alaska

South Dakota

North Dakota

Nebraska

Wyoming

Florida

Ohio

Tennessee

Montana

Alabama





See a trend?

If Alabama is so fiscally sound why do they have such a high poverty rate?


Sent from my iPhone using no lube, maximizing the butt hurt in right wingers

 

[Listening]

The Most Fiscally Unsound States in the US



Before Checking out which states are the most fiscally unsound (HERE) I encourage you to study these maps.



2012 election

The worst states are



New Jersey

Connecticut

Illinois

Massachusetts

California

New York

Maryland

Hawaii

Pennsylvania

West Virginia



The most fiscally sound states are



Alaska

South Dakota

North Dakota

Nebraska

Wyoming

Florida

Ohio

Tennessee

Montana

Alabama





See a trend?

If Alabama is so fiscally sound why do they have such a high poverty rate?


Sent from my iPhone using no lube, maximizing the butt hurt in right wingers

It is possible to have poverty and be fiscally sound.

Or did you miss that point ?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If Alabama is so fiscally sound why do they have such a high poverty rate?

Which has what to do with fiscal solvency, exactly?

And to answer your question, they have a higher "poverty" rate because they have a higher population of minorities than most other states and they tend to be on the lower end of the economic scale.

 

[Publius1787]

So your decision to post, speak, ... communicate is driven by personal apriori biases. Okay, I get that. The OP was to present your biased position

I do what is refered to as "critical thinking" and "conversing". I don't have to have a previous bias to think.

Your OP didn't burrow down the study. Did you follow the links and pull ep the study yourself?

I picked out a solid set of statements from the paper that summarize it. And, as it turns out, they are exactly how the author summarized her own study. I just picked out the ones in the body that exemplify the shorter abstract.

Personally, I'm not sure how one measures a state's "fiscal condition". Governments aren't simply households or bisinesses. They are kinda unique. They depend on a functioning economy to fund the services they provide to ensure a functioning economy. For example, no highways, no transportation, no economy, no funding for highways. Privately owned toll roads never really took off for some reason.

The author has eleven measures in four catagories.

I can, though, be certain that if you can't read a few statements from the study, that you pointed to, without getting your panties all in a bunch, you've got no hope of being objective.

I did post a partisan OP. Did I hide this fact? After reviewing many of these over the years I see a common trend. No matter which study you pull up you will find the same top 10 states +- one or two with another blue state. I did see the study and the cnbc article was not where I originally got the information. Any way you have it, by anyone's standard the most fiscally unsound states are usually the same.

What you did is become immediately "defensive". What you did was, if I recall correctly, immediately scream "liberal". That you are a subjectively biased partisan hack doesn't necessitate that every post you make is partison.

There has never been a definition of "every waking moment" to defining general behavior. A thief is still a thief even two days later when he didn't steal something. Alchoholics don't drink all the time. Child and spouse abusers don't have to be abusive every day to be classified as an abusive personality.

You made it obvious that you are biased in your reply. How hard is this to get?

"I didn't [blank] last week." Doesn't mean anything.

I though I admitted to posting a partisan op? Am I missing something here? And this study does not detract from similar studies done.

 

[william the wie]

Publius creative accounting means that even the best analysis is only going to catch 8 out of the 10 worst states. 8 states going belly up by 2016 due to the ancillary effects of ACA is the way to bet but it may not happen due to Obama tweaks designed to prevent GOP landslides this year and 2016.

 

[itfitzme]

The Most Fiscally Unsound States in the US



Before Checking out which states are the most fiscally unsound (HERE) I encourage you to study these maps.



2012 election

The worst states are



New Jersey

Connecticut

Illinois

Massachusetts

California

New York

Maryland

Hawaii

Pennsylvania

West Virginia



The most fiscally sound states are



Alaska

South Dakota

North Dakota

Nebraska

Wyoming

Florida

Ohio

Tennessee

Montana

Alabama





See a trend?

If Alabama is so fiscally sound why do they have such a high poverty rate?


Sent from my iPhone using no lube, maximizing the butt hurt in right wingers

Thanks, I was wondering about that.

Problem with the posted measure is that, simultaneously, "blue" states account for 2/3 of total US RGDP and consistently have a higher per capita and per employment GDP.

The there is the Fed tax to revenue issue. The simple fact is the the "blue" states have a higher federal tax contribution because they have higher GSP. So, of course the pay out more than receive.

A problem with the op measue is that if an entity has consistently higher output, debt isn't considered that significant. It is called levergage.

Problem is that there are unresolved considerations such as the fact that the variables are correlated with population density; voting patterns and business/economic variables.

All of it may simply be a matter of population density. Politics is simply another dependent variable. So the whole "red vs blue" is bullshit.

 

[itfitzme]

The Most Fiscally Unsound States in the US



Before Checking out which states are the most fiscally unsound (HERE) I encourage you to study these maps.



2012 election

The worst states are



New Jersey

Connecticut

Illinois

Massachusetts

California

New York

Maryland

Hawaii

Pennsylvania

West Virginia



The most fiscally sound states are



Alaska

South Dakota

North Dakota

Nebraska

Wyoming

Florida

Ohio

Tennessee

Montana

Alabama





See a trend?

If Alabama is so fiscally sound why do they have such a high poverty rate?


Sent from my iPhone using no lube, maximizing the butt hurt in right wingers

It is possible to have poverty and be fiscally sound.

Or did you miss that point ?

The "fiscally sound" measure is bs. Apparently, there is no agreement on what it is.

So you're point is bs.

It is possible to have BS and poverty, sure.

 

[itfitzme]

I did post a partisan OP. Did I hide this fact? After reviewing many of these over the years I see a common trend. No matter which study you pull up you will find the same top 10 states +- one or two with another blue state. I did see the study and the cnbc article was not where I originally got the information. Any way you have it, by anyone's standard the most fiscally unsound states are usually the same.

What you did is become immediately "defensive". What you did was, if I recall correctly, immediately scream "liberal". That you are a subjectively biased partisan hack doesn't necessitate that every post you make is partison.

There has never been a definition of "every waking moment" to defining general behavior. A thief is still a thief even two days later when he didn't steal something. Alchoholics don't drink all the time. Child and spouse abusers don't have to be abusive every day to be classified as an abusive personality.

You made it obvious that you are biased in your reply. How hard is this to get?

"I didn't [blank] last week." Doesn't mean anything.

I though I admitted to posting a partisan op? Am I missing something here? And this study does not detract from similar studies done.

Either way, doesn't change what you seem unable to grasp.

Liars accuse everyone of being a liar. Alchoholics beleive everyone is using. Partisan hacks believe everyone is biased. Admitted or in denial, what I call "anti-liberals" believe everyone is biases and partisan.

Yeah, I do believe you are missing something.

There are no other valid studies that make your point.

You just can't tell what an objective study is. You think any study that doesn't confirm you a prior belief is biased.

How do I know? Because you don't read the studies.

 

[Mudflap]

[
Thanks, I was wondering about that.

Problem with the posted measure is that, simultaneously, "blue" states account for 2/3 of total US RGDP and consistently have a higher per capita and per employment GDP.

The there is the Fed tax to revenue issue. The simple fact is the the "blue" states have a higher federal tax contribution because they have higher GSP. So, of course the pay out more than receive.

A problem with the op measue is that if an entity has consistently higher output, debt isn't considered that significant. It is called levergage.

Problem is that there are unresolved considerations such as the fact that the variables are correlated with population density; voting patterns and business/economic variables.

All of it may simply be a matter of population density. Politics is simply another dependent variable. So the whole "red vs blue" is bullshit.

That's where I was headed while reading through the thread.

 

[william the wie]

I have to agree the U-haul index and various other indices of migration are much more reliable indicators. Unhappily for your case itfitzme they consistently indicate the same thing as the two maps as does census data i. e. massive tax and regulatory flight from blue states.

 

[Listening]

If Alabama is so fiscally sound why do they have such a high poverty rate?


Sent from my iPhone using no lube, maximizing the butt hurt in right wingers

It is possible to have poverty and be fiscally sound.

Or did you miss that point ?

The "fiscally sound" measure is bs. Apparently, there is no agreement on what it is.

So you're point is bs.

It is possible to have BS and poverty, sure.

So you are saying a state can't have poverty and be fiscally sound ?

 

[Luissa]

The Most Fiscally Unsound States in the US







Before Checking out which states are the most fiscally unsound (HERE) I encourage you to study these maps.







2012 election

The worst states are







New Jersey



Connecticut



Illinois



Massachusetts



California



New York



Maryland



Hawaii



Pennsylvania



West Virginia







The most fiscally sound states are







Alaska



South Dakota



North Dakota



Nebraska



Wyoming



Florida



Ohio



Tennessee



Montana



Alabama











See a trend?

If Alabama is so fiscally sound why do they have such a high poverty rate?





Sent from my iPhone using no lube, maximizing the butt hurt in right wingers

It is possible to have poverty and be fiscally sound.



Or did you miss that point ?

No I didn't.

What's the point then? When your citizens are dirt poor but hey we were fiscally sound. It just doesn't matter then, sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using no lube, maximizing the butt hurt in right wingers

 

[oldfart]

I understand your liking for comparable comps OF but beyond pointing out that IL and CA would have been in receivership long ago if involuntary state bankruptcy were legal. NYC, Boston and Baltimore drive their respective states, along with Houston, which does not drive its state, keep cropping up as highly likely involuntary municipal bankruptcies. And the coal decision by Obama's EPA for WV comparable data is deliberately avoided.

The map that would have the highest correlation to state fiscal responsibility (by the definition being used here), I think, would be the map of states that receive the most net income from the federal government. I'm sure you have seen that map. It's easier to be a fiscally responsible low-tax state when you get subsidized by the federal government. If this were called welfare, many posters here would be in arms, but that is what the highway program allocation formula, agriculture program payments, and a host of similar programs do.

 

[william the wie]

I understand your liking for comparable comps OF but beyond pointing out that IL and CA would have been in receivership long ago if involuntary state bankruptcy were legal. NYC, Boston and Baltimore drive their respective states, along with Houston, which does not drive its state, keep cropping up as highly likely involuntary municipal bankruptcies. And the coal decision by Obama's EPA for WV comparable data is deliberately avoided.

The map that would have the highest correlation to state fiscal responsibility (by the definition being used here), I think, would be the map of states that receive the most net income from the federal government. I'm sure you have seen that map. It's easier to be a fiscally responsible low-tax state when you get subsidized by the federal government. If this were called welfare, many posters here would be in arms, but that is what the highway program allocation formula, agriculture program payments, and a host of similar programs do.

True and a lot of migration boils down to finding an area where the money you get can pay for a survivable place to rent. However since the meltdown most estimates seem to gravitate to three times the value added for the low tax states vs. high tax states.

When the ECB is calling lower energy prices a deflationary threat and China has mis and mal investment of roughly 50% of GDP going back @ 35 years and compounding each year I would call the blue state condition highly fragile even without ACA ancillary costs. So, if banking jobs, especially investment banking jobs, keep migrating from NYC to SLC that will cause dislocation in the Washington-Boston corridor. I suspect the result will be an extended whimper rather than a bang but it will still hurt.

 

[Listening]

No I didn't.

What's the point then? When your citizens are dirt poor but hey we were fiscally sound. It just doesn't matter then, sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using no lube, maximizing the butt hurt in right wingers

That isn't the issue. It does matter if you live in the state and are not in poverty. Who knows but that some people may voluntarily chose to be there.

So, it is possible to have both.

 

[william the wie]

What is happening is that the mistake of thinking of the US as a unitary state is catching up with the country. It also recently caught up with the labour party in Australia. Gilliard forgot that the senate was two-thirds people who didn't represent the Sydney-Melbourne corridor.

 

[Listening]

The 10 most fiscally irresponsible states | americanmonetaryassociation.org

Here was something else......

1. California ($336,169)
2. Hawaii ($321,258)
3. Maryland ($263,524)
4. New Jersey ($257,462)
5. Washington ($243,758)
6. Massachusetts ($242,111)
7. Virginia ($239,186)
8. Connecticut ($229,684)
9. Colorado ($219,899)
10. Nevada ($218,010)