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?
Some websites try to calculate how much a state gives and gets from the feds. The idea is that a state is a “taker” if it gets more from the feds than it gives, but that’s missing some important context. The average state is a “taker” as long as the feds are spending more than they’re taking in. The feds are doing a ton of deficit spending (borrowing) now. But the states will have to pay back those loans, so the important thing is to compare how a state does compared to the US average.
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:
Update: There are so many things that could be said about this topic. Most of the leading men who caused a city to become great were probably conservative. In terms of infrastructure etc, California became great when it was a red state. But great cities attract an influx of moochers. Cities attract families who can’t afford a car. Subsidized housing is in cities. Yes, cities have a higher cost of living if you want to own a house, but some neighborhoods have such high crime that the cost of housing is cheap.
Blue states have higher costs of living across the whole state as compared to red states, because of regulation and taxes. The higher cost of living doesn’t necessarily push out moocher families, because the taxpayer-funded wealth transfers are better in blue states. But this cost of living does push out working class families, and companies that rely on cheap labor. If red states were a separate country, the immigration laws would prevent the constant stream of working class families from blue state to red state. This would cause working class wages in red states to start to rise, so there would be fewer companies moving in for the minimum wage jobs.
The benefits of conservative economic policies is obscured by this population transfer between blue state and red state (not to mention federal policies that are bad for every state).