The following is subjective and not necessarily true on PRS's part:
The ALEC ratings are interesting.
The best states are those with the lowest minimum wages. (Bad for workers.)
That would depend on the cost of living. If the state's cost of living were lower, then a lower wage might result in more disposable income for a worker than one with higher wages living in a high cost of living state.
As an example, if you had a worker making $10 an hour in a state where renting a decent apartment costs, say, $800 a month versus a worker making $20 a hour in a state where that same apartment costs $2000 a month, the lower wage worker ends up with more disposable income.
The best states are the ones with the least progressive income taxes. (Bad for the lower income earners.)
Many of the "best" states don't have a state income tax. Others with non-progressive taxes have rates that are very low compared to loser states with high income tax rates. Some states, like Washington where there is no state income tax make up for it with onerous sales taxes which are far worse for low income earners.
The best states are the ones with the lowest employer benefits for workers. (Bad for workers.)
Isn't that between workers and employers to decide, not the state?
The best states are the ones that don't have an inheritance tax. (Great for the rich. Bad for everyone else.)
That's good for
everyone. What right does the state have to take all your stuff just because you died? Isn't it fairer that it goes to your offspring and family for them to build on? Why should the state get a penny of that when you already paid taxes on it. It's like taxing income twice.
Basically, all ALEC does is look at what is good for the rich and fails to account for how the people living in the state are actually doing compared to other states.
Or, ALEC doesn't see Socialism and confiscation of wealth by government as a good thing which neither are.
But the story also says this
A switch to remote work during the pandemic helped drive the population movement, as people previously tethered to office spaces in urban centers were able to seek out more space and a lower cost of living.
Why shouldn't they? Getting away from higher taxes, onerous intrusive government, and problems like crime are things most people would try and do.
The interesting thing is where that growth is and where the people are coming from.
Californians moving to Maricopa county in Arizona. Looks like Arizona is going to get a lot bluer.
You can hope, but it doesn't look good right now for that to be happening.
Then it will be interesting to see what happens in the next 2 years. Moving to a state that hates women, will likely result in all those people fleeing Texas and Florida to head back to the blue states. Money isn't the biggest driver for most people.
Which state(s) hate women? If you are judging that on the abortion issue alone, you are a complete idiot.
