The Real Value Of $100 By State

[vt]

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/real-value-100-each-state

[dcarrigg]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

It's overweighting real estate values.

Nobody in New England will ever actually believe that $100 goes further in RI than NH.

Because it's obviously untrue.

Although overweighting real estate values is a convenient way to punish more urban states in a ranking system if one were to be pushing some weird ideological agenda...

But I'd like to see a map like this that didn't weigh real estate quite so hard. Usually in most states there are cheap towns and expensive towns.

[vt]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

Like real estate values in Detroit and Cleveland?

[dcarrigg]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

I said urban VT, not post-urban.

[vt]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

If we ever get TECI the midwest will come back.

[dcarrigg]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

Can a city come back from losing 2/3 of its population in 50 years without an invasion?

I'm not sure of any time in history that one's happened before...but someone here might be able to think of an example...

[lektrode]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

It's overweighting real estate values.

Nobody in New England will ever actually believe that $100 goes further in RI than NH.

nor would anybody in HI actually believe that 93bux in NH = worth 85 in 'hawaii dollars'
since its more like 50, never mind considering housing prices (and THEN ya get into stuff like sales and income taxes)

altho property taxes are 'somewhat lower' - or were, anyway....

but guess none of this is surprising?

The states where $100 is worth the least are the District of Columbia ($84.60), Hawaii ($85.32), New York ($86.66), New Jersey ($87.64), and California ($88.57)

but hey! at least (most of) these places have 'somewhat higher' incomes (altho not nearly enough to offset the $85.32 'price of paradise' despite - or rather in-spite - of the typical/common condition of needing 2-3jobs to make the 'average' income)

but not wanting to get all 'wierd and ideological' - there's always the usual suspects/apologists refrain that is all too easy to fall back on:

its the "transportation costs" of shipping nearly everything 2200nm out into the middle of nowhere?

uh huh...

[lektrode]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

O&BTW - was just wondren if you guys (dc & vt) were just missin me??

;)

[dcarrigg]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

O&BTW - was just wondren if you guys (dc & vt) were just missin me??

;)

This thread was like a s'mores without the marshmallow, lek. I knew you'd be here soon enough.

But seriously, you know the NH/RI thing's true. In NH you get a 20 year old house on three acres and pay a bit more. In RI you get a 120 year old house on zero point three acres and pay a tiny bit less. That doesn't mean your dollar goes further. And then every shop you pop into is more expensive in RI than NH.

The raw fact of the matter is the real estate math don't work out equal. If you assume every square foot equals every other than fine. But if you give any rational person the choice between 500 sqft in Waikoloa HI or 500 sqft in Fayette MS, it's not exactly an apples to apples, dollar to dollar comparison...

So it goes. But the Tax Foundation does have a weird history of putting MS on top and MA on the bottom. Just like liberal foundations have a weird history of doing the opposite. When I see a map that doesn't look red/blue right off the top, I know I have some interesting data that might teach me something. When I see a map that looks just like the last presidential map, I know it's got a 90% chance of being a load of bullox.

[lektrode]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

This thread was like a s'mores without the marshmallow, lek. I knew you'd be here soon enough.

HOOOOO HAAAAAAA!!!
heheheheh...

Ohhhhh, YEAH!

thanks dc... (i think... or hope anyway ;)

you DO have a way with words/phrases, SIR! (and the proof the nuns did a fabulous job with you)

But seriously, you know the NH/RI thing's true.

yep - would have to agree (with the vast majority of what you type and appreciate your effort/time to share it with us)

In NH you get a 20 year old house on three acres and pay a bit more. In RI you get a 120 year old house on zero point three acres and pay a tiny bit less. That doesn't mean your dollar goes further. And then every shop you pop into is more expensive in RI than NH.

yep - or maybe - up in the north country anyway - just a 1/4ac, with a 50yo house - for likely about the same?
with the diff being less public sector deadweight (pensions, welfare and/or crony-construction bond interest) to pay for ?

The raw fact of the matter is the real estate math don't work out equal. If you assume every square foot equals every other than fine. But if you give any rational person the choice between 500 sqft in Waikoloa HI or 500 sqft in Fayette MS, it's not exactly an apples to apples, dollar to dollar comparison...

well.... not saying i disagree here, but lets just say it might be a diff in the color/flavor of the apple...
with my anecdotal obs being along the lines of, say - this:

back in the mid60's - when my ole man had grown tired of the summer camping scene (moms idea, after they burnt-out on heading south down rte3 with the rest of the BOS herd to the cape ;) and winter weekends in an old farmhouse with the ski types they/we were rooming with in them days - and it was a real-live and working farm: pigs-n-chickens, corn, potatos or sugarbeets, raspberries and various viney-squashy stuff - with most of it and eggs sold out front in the summertime) -

and just as THEIR herd started to.... uhhh... mushroom (ultimately to 5 of us 'animals' as we were somewhat affectionately referred to as) - he/they bought a 1/4ac for 500bux (and upcountry NH was likely lots cheaper than RI in them days?) and had a 'custom chalet' put up for another 10grand - now granted, a 24x24 (on the main deck, with full but unfin basement and a 'loft' upstairs) wasnt much to brag about - even in them days - and compared to whats now 'typical' in that area - never mind down by winnipesaukee - was downright tiny - even tho today they'd call it 1700sqft - which would be an 'outbuilding/garage' by the standards of whats being sold out west these daze (that isnt a condo/clusterf__k development, read: NO HOA fees)

but lets for the sake of discussion compare that to what i learned from one of my old/dearly-departed customers in HNL - who was the wife and biz partner of the guy who built most all of one of the more-pricey 'burbs on the east side - and she told me that back in the mid60's that they were building/selling houses (incl the lot) for "15-20 grand or so" - today these same houses - and a bunch of them are LITERALLY the same house (read: not much more than interior re-decorating done since) and they are selling - when they DO turnover - for something in the range of 600(abs min) to 800grand and UP (like waaaaay UP)

while my ole mans chalet fetched 115k the last time it sold (in the late 90's) - with the more recently-built houses in the same development running more like 300k (not sure whats happnin there these daze, but from the reports i've been getting, likely not that much more)

and just to add a bit more perspective on 'state/dollar value' - consider another place i'm sort of familiar with - just fer grins - that would be vail, CO - who's original developer just happens to be from my ole stomping ground in NH - and as 'legend has it' or as it was told to me by one who knew him personally - offered 1/4ac lots in what would ultimately become vail base village - to some of the motel operators back in his hometown - for 1000bux ???

just imagine.... for about the price of a 1/4ac of NH dirt, one could've had a 1/4ac of vail....
and i actually know a guy who's father in law took him up on it - who decided he didnt want to be 'right downtown', so bought 'out in the burbs' - which is now right next door to the lions head gondola ? (believe it, or not - sure as hell dont matter to me ;)

meanwhile over in waikoloa, whats mostly available are condo/clusterf__k units (with HOA fees, that escalate, like FOREVER - so does one ever actually OWN it ? - quite unlike NH or RI for that matter, which settled this stuff goin on 400 years ago - right?)

and generally speaking - even the option to actually OWN the dirt is a recent development, as most of hawaii was lease-hold land - and the history of which is quite, to say the least... uhhhhh... controversial

so yeah - its NOT an apple to apple compare - at least as far as owning a house - but where the REAL DIFF tween the states and the 'non-value of the dollar' gets felt?

is with stuff like the cost of raising a kid, where theres just a teeny-weeny lil difference tween say MS and HI (or NY, NJ, CA, IL - or RI for that matter, which we've already discussed prev and all of em = my 'fave color states'
to uhhhh.... rail-on about... and on and on and ON... ;)

So it goes. But the Tax Foundation does have a weird history of putting MS on top and MA on the bottom. Just like liberal foundations have a weird history of doing the opposite. When I see a map that doesn't look red/blue right off the top, I know I have some interesting data that might teach me something. When I see a map that looks just like the last presidential map, I know it's got a 90% chance of being a load of bullox.

maybe so dc, maybe so - but while there's no US state i'd describe as 'paradise' these daze, not anymore - even NH looking like it will succumb to the madness of out-of-control spending (mostly 'for the schools/children') while SOME of em, still do or at least TRY to give the taxpayer MOST of what We, The People - aka: The Rest of US, who ARENT lapping up the gravy-train at the .gov/crony hog-troff - ARE PAYING FOR.

and that my obs is - while having lived in the places that i've spent enough time in to see/learn how they 'get things done' - or rather - DONT get nearly as much done as they are charging The Rest of US for - are - genl'y speaking...
the blue states - which, not incidently - happen to be where a dollar is 'worth something less' ?

so... just wondren how you experience this?

[dcarrigg]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

so... just wondren how you experience this?

My experience is that things are different everywhere. The old family farmhouse out in upstate NY between Binghamton and Elmira has some dirt cheap living. The land's dirt cheap. You can pick up a 20 year old 4,000+ sqft house on 12 acres with a view on the edge of town for $300k. Drive a couple hours down the road to NYC, and you're looking at a run-down closet for that price.

So NY looks expensive on this map. But that's because NYC is an 800 lb gorilla in the stats.

Then again, NY state taxes are high enough.

But you can drive a few miles south, cross into PA, and income/property taxes typically drop a lot, but you'll get something similar for a similar price.

But in NY things are split. 4% sales for upstate, 8.75% for city. Just like PA. 6% in the sticks. 8% in Philly.

I suppose my point here is just that if you took NY and cut NYC/Long Island out, you'd have two different things. And upstate wouldn't look so bad on how far $100 will take you. But look at this map, and you don't see it.

Density. Density is what's going on here. If there's a subway, you've got density. And if there's a subway, you've got a pile of new bills to pay to keep her running.

But what stuff costs and what real estate costs are two different things.

If they made this same map and just said "How many sqft a dollar would buy you by state," I think everyone'd go, "Yup. NYC, SF, LA, Bos-Wash - these are the expensive places to buy/rent sqft of space."

But they didn't. They made a map that weights real estate heavily. Then they said, "What will $100 buy you?"

I'd rather see a map of what $100 buys you excluding real estate.

That'd be an interesting map. And it might come out sort of the same way. But I bet the mountain west might look a bit uglier - at least my experience out there was that things were not particularly cheap - and that somebody needs to tell them iced coffee isn't some fancy-pants desert drink you serve in 6oz cups for $3.

Having been around the block a few times, I'd guess that you'd see the midwest or the plains take the cake on purchasing power minus real estate. But I don't rightfully know. I've never seen that map.

All I'm saying is that there's a good bit of red in every blue state and a good bit of blue in every red state. When maps fall out neatly like this into red/blue piles, I go, "Okay, what's up with the data."

And I know already that red/blue split correlates pretty damn well with population density.

So I figured that the map might be doing something like that. And I dug into it, and it was.

Maybe this cartoon really drives home my frustration with partisan think tank maps like this...

[sutro]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

Can a city come back from losing 2/3 of its population in 50 years without an invasion?

I'm not sure of any time in history that one's happened before...but someone here might be able to think of an example...

Well Rome did, eventually......

[lektrode]

Re: The Real Value Of $100 By State

as per usual dc - you have a knack for putting things in perspective (that even an uneducated guy like me can appreciate)

Maybe this cartoon really drives home my frustration with partisan think tank maps like this...

yep - and eye definitely appreciate your keeping the discussion framed in good humor

thanks for the comeback, big guy.