Online you’ll come across people linking to studies showing that blue counties and blue states have a higher per capita GDP than others.
The per capita GDP of cities is artificially high because people commute to work there from outside the city limits, and from outside the county limits. Some cities, such as Chicago, get commuters from red states each morning. The productivity of these commuters is counted in the location they work in, not the location they live in.
Trump states have a higher standard of living than Hillary states because the difference in cost of living is greater than the difference in per capita personal income according to US BEA data. The lower incomes mean they pay less income tax, so it’s not surprising that red states pay less to the feds than they get back. https://www.quora.com/If-the-red-states-and-the-blue-states-were-separated-into-two-countries-which-country-would-be-more-successful-Why/answer/Chris-Rhodes-65
Another thing you’ll see online is the claim that red states are “dependent” on the federal government. But the federal subsidy is small, even for Mississippi, compared to total state GDP. Yes, a federation of red states would have slightly less federal spending on bureaucrats writing studies and issuing edicts, and less federal welfare spending. Is that a bad thing? The representatives these states sent to DC didn’t vote for socialism in the first place. What makes them think we’ll stay in the Union for its socialism?
The big picture is that red state economies will boom because they will use conservative principles to unshackle the economy and attract entrepreneurs.
Learn more here: