States, money and parties

Each August, the Tax Foundation publishes a listing of states organized by “The Real Value of $100 in Each State.” Compiling Bureau of Economic Analysis data, it ranks the states, and Arkansas has perennially been one of the best “lowprice” places in the Union.

This year, notably, Arkansas claimed the top spot. A $100 bill in the Natural State buys $117.23 in local goods and services compared to the national purchasing power average.

The remainder of the top five lower-than-average price states, in order, are Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky and West Virginia.

At the other end of the scale, $100 buys the least in Hawaii (only $84.67 worth of stuff), New York, the District of Columbia, California and New Jersey.

There’s a definite data correlation between household income (based on 2018 numbers, the latest available) and real-value buying power, which the Tax Foundation openly acknowledges. For instance, the real value of $100 in Arkansas is about 35% greater than it is in California, and the median income in Arkansas ($47,062) is 37% lower than California’s ($75,277).

The median is only a statistical line, however. Expanding the analysis, Business Insider published a “Living Wage” scale of states in July to demonstrate the transformative effect geography can have on paychecks. BI’s metrics combined Bureau of Labor Statistics data and residential real estate listing averages for each state to determine the amount necessary to “live comfortably” in each state.

In that analysis, the comfortable living wage for Arkansas climbs to $59,641 (second lowest in the nation), while California’s — with its astronomical home prices — leaps to $99,971 (second highest).

Moreover, Census data show that nearly four out of 10 Golden State households earn $100,000 or more. In Arkansas only 18.7% of households are at that level, and fewer than three in 10 earn $75,000.

The midway mark for the two states is telling: Half of California households top $75,000 in income, and half of all Arkansas households don’t reach $50,000. Bottom line: Far more Arkansans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, which limits ability to save, invest and weather financial downturns.

In any election year, overlaying various economic comparison maps with previous electoral coloring can prove insightful. In 2020, it rises toward revelatory.

Based on votes in the 2016 presidential election, the states at either edge of the Real Value of $100 spectrum line up as expected: All of the five lowest-price states are red, all of the five high-priced are blue. Expanding to the top 10 on each end, the outlier among high-price states is ninth-highest Alaska, which went Republican. On the low-price side, the red ranks reign till New Mexico, at number 17, which went Democrat.

Historically, the Democratic Party has pronounced itself as representing the “working class,” and painted Republicans as the party of the rich and moneyed interests. But working men and women count the pennies in their paychecks, not the dollars in their investment accounts. They are paid by the hour, often for work they accomplish through physical activity.

Working people have to be at work to do their jobs. That’s why their exasperation and desperation levels escalated at a faster rate over things like shutdowns and stay-at-home orders. Generally, richer people have more job flexibility in terms of working from home, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

More than 60% of the top quartile of income earners can stay home and still do their jobs, but less than 10% of those on the lower one-fourth of the income scale have the same luxury.

The Real Value of $100 matters more to people with fewer dollars, but the most concentrated Democratic voting blocs today are in the highest-price states. Following the moneyed interests leads to places like California, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, which have become so reliably blue that they’re essentially one-party enclaves.

On the U.S. Census household income map, darker shades of green indicate higher-income states. The deepest hues congregate along the coasts in the west and northeast — precisely mirroring the bluest electoral states. Its isolated verdant blotches — in Colorado, Minnesota and Illinois — also emulate the lone Democratic states contrasting against the red saturation of the electoral map’s flyover center.

Few counties in the U.S. have six-figure per capita income averages, and four of the richest were essentially uncontested races for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

New York County, home of Manhattan, has a stratospheric per capita income of $193,940 — nearly four times the national average of $53,820, according to Federal Reserve Economic Data. On the West Coast, a trio of ultra-rich adjoining counties in California — Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo — have per capita incomes of $134,275, $130,696 and $126,392.

Clinton’s margin of victory in those wealthiest of wealthy counties was 77%, 63%, 75% and 57%.

After the 2018 midterm elections, the richest 15% of House districts were represented by 56 Democrats and only 10 Republicans.

Working-class voters aren’t loudmouthed protester types. In the only voice that matters, they cast ballots quietly. They’re shaping up to be the big question mark for the fall. The party that wins them nationwide likely wins.