• hh93
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    The main question is imho what’s the cause - are they they worst to live in because of their politics? Or do people there vote populists because they are so unhappy with their lives

    • @CobblerScholar
      link
      141 year ago

      The American South has been reeling since the years following the Civil War. The economic strength of the Southern States was so tied up in agricultural slavery. When that system was dismantled it left a big hole in the fabric of those states socially, economically, politically. All of that resentment never went away it just changed forms over the years and turned into law and public policy. It’s easy to forget that the Civil War was not that long ago, not in terms of human social development in any case.

      • Zorque
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        It doesn’t help that we elected qn apologist who decided to welcome them back with open arms not so long after the Civil War. Instead of adapting to the situation they were in, post-war, they ended up sucking on the feds that while they got equal representation as the non-slave states.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          That’s not what happened. Johnson became president when Lincoln was assassinated and at that time the president and VP didn’t run on a single ticket and instead the VP slot went to the presidential runner-up, who, of course, was from the opposition. So we didn’t really elect Johnson; we elected Lincoln, but John Wilkes Booth happened and he fucked us for generations.

          • Zorque
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            Hmm, for some reason I thought it happened much later. Apologies!

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              Well the guy we elected after Johnson was Grant, and while he was an outstanding General, he was nowhere near as capable in the presidency where his authority, while great, was very different in kind from that of a military commander.

              There’s an argument to the effect that Grant was largely an absentee president who preferred to spend his days drinking as opposed to actually being the chief executive.

              I’m not a historian and don’t know enough about his presidency to have a strong opinion on it, but there’s no question that the policies that Johnson put in place, that allowed reconstruction to go so badly off the rails, weren’t competently addressed by the Grant administration, so in that respect your original point is not entirely incorrect.

              He also badly botched, mostly through a lack of attention, Indian affairs with regard to the powerful plains tribes. It was probably inevitable that said tribes would eventually be subjugated, but it certainly could and should have been handled more humanely.

    • @reversebananimals
      link
      91 year ago

      The article explicitly states one of the evaluation criteria is as follows:

      So we consider inclusiveness in state laws by measuring protections against discrimination, as well as voting rights.

      I’m guessing this is what led to the outcome the post title is highlighting.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -41 year ago

      They’re listed as the worst because this is basically just a political hit piece. They’ve defined the criteria for “best” to align with policy the democrats push and Republicans don’t. It’s hardly anything except a list of states that democrats agree with (or in the case of the bottom 10, don’t agree with)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s in their own methodology:

          https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/15/how-we-are-choosing-americas-top-states-for-business-in-2023.html

          We look at inclusiveness in state laws, including protections against discrimination of all kinds

          And with surveys showing a sizeable percentage of women considering reproductive rights in deciding where they are willing to live and work, we factor abortion laws into this category as well.

          That category is the 4th highest weighted category in their methodology, 0.4% behind “Economy”. So basically if abortion isn’t legal or if “gender affirming healthcare” isn’t legal, you lose in the 4th largest category and will be down the bottom.

          Look at the list and their “weaknesses”

          10: Inclusiveness, Reproductive Rights

          9: Crime, Inclusiveness, Reproductive Rights, Health Care

          8: Inclusiveness, Crime, Voting Rights

          7: Childcare, Inclusiveness

          6: Voting Rights, Reproductive Rights, Crime

          5 & 4: Voting Rights, Worker Protections, Inclusiveness, Health / Health, Worker Protections, Inclusiveness, Crime, Voting Rights

          3: Child Care, Crime, Reproductive Rights

          2: Reproductive Rights, Health, Voting Rights

          1: Reproductive Rights, Health, Voting Rights, Worker Protections, Inclusiveness

          Literally every single one of them is inclusiveness and/or reproductive rights, ie. Gender Affirming Care and Abortion.

          They even go so far as to pretty obviously say this is why they are the bottom 10 - on every one of them they list only their Life, Health & Inclusion Score. Nothing about the Economy score, the Infrastructure score, or the Workforce score. Nothing about cost of business score, business friendliness score, or Education score - just “Life, Health, and Inclusion Score” as if that’s the only thing that matters.

          Also - what is an “OANN show”?

          • @Ensign_Crab
            link
            21 year ago

            That category is the 4th highest weighted category in their methodology, 0.4% behind “Economy”. So basically if abortion isn’t legal or if “gender affirming healthcare” isn’t legal, you lose in the 4th largest category and will be down the bottom.

            Where it fucking belongs.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Who cares if there are no jobs, schools, technology or services or infrastructure as long as you can get abortions and gender affirming care, right?

              • @Ensign_Crab
                link
                11 year ago

                Who cares if there are no jobs, schools, technology or services or infrastructure

                Well, as long as the state is bigoted enough, you don’t seem to care about education, services, or infrastructure. Republican efforts to undermine education by undermining public schools in favor of vouchers for christian schools that teach creationism, miseducating students about the country’s history and banning books under the guise of “stopping woke” put the lie to your bogus handwringing about education. Services? At least one of those states didn’t even pass the medicaid expansion because they were happy to watch poor people suffer than accept money from a program championed by a black president. Infrastructure? Texas has a shitty failing power grid because the alternative involves accepting national standards that might have kept the damned grid from freezing over.

                Don’t pretend to care about any of those things. Your sole criterion for a good state is if the state government makes sure “those people” know their place.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  banning books under the guise of “stopping woke”

                  Pre-teens should not be given books talking about anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, and telling them that if they like stereotypical girl things they’re probably a girl trapped in a boys body. I’m sorry but anyone that thinks that’s fine probably belongs on a watch list.

                  What “place” do you think I want “those people” to know?

                  Btw I’m not American and I don’t live in America. Don’t ever want to either. I’m just interested in politics all over the world and aren’t afraid of voicing my opinion.

                  • @Ensign_Crab
                    link
                    21 year ago

                    I was actually talking about US history books and how they deal with the civil rights movement, but your unfounded anti-trans moral panic has already been well established.

                    Btw I’m not American and I don’t live in America.

                    Good. I’m glad you’re not in a position to vote.