Move to a state where people aren’t upset about the election result?

by philg

In response to “How was your weekend?” my neighbors here in Massachusetts are responding with “sad”. Why sad? They’re in mourning for Hillary Clinton’s loss, which they feel personally. Massachusetts residents were already down at #30 (out of 50) in this state-by-state happiness ranking. As the smartest people on the planet we tend to take it personally when we’re not consulted by those in power down in New York and D.C. I don’t see King Donald the First calling up Harvard professors to ask for advice. Thus it is going to be a dark and moody 4-8 years.

Why not move to a state that ranked higher to begin with and one where we don’t think Hillary’s loss will sadden people, either because (a) the majority of voters in that state supported Trump, or (b) voters in that state don’t expect to have substantial influence in a country of 325 million.

Number 1 on the list is Hawaii, which voted for Hillary but is so far from D.C. it is tough to imagine folks there feeling responsible for what the Trumpenfuhrer does.

Number 2 is Alaska, which voted for Trump and where global warming may not be feared. Bonus: no income tax. Double bonus: permanent fund dividend (more of which you’ll get to keep under Trump’s proposed lower federal income tax rates).

Number 3 is Montana, another Trump state. Colorado is #4 and the vote was narrowly divided. Perhaps stay away from Boulder and people will be in a good mood?

Wyoming has no state income tax, supported Trump, and was #5 in happiness prior to the election. Texas and Florida have no state income tax, rank #11 and #12, and voted for Trump.

What do folks think? If the post-election malaise will be prolonged for Hillary Clinton supporters, why not move away from it to a state that ranked higher in happiness to begin with? Why choose to live around the grumpy?

[Be sure to check Real World Divorce before moving! The alimony and child support plaintiff who gets $10 million in Massachusetts would be entitled to $400,000 in Texas. The custody plaintiff entitled to sole custody (“winner parent” status) in New York would be forced into shared 50/50 parenting in Alaska.]

6 thoughts on “Move to a state where people aren’t upset about the election result?”

  1. Happiness surveys and rankings are all total garbage. There are all those lists that put scandanavian countries at the top; well if you dig in to the reality those places have amazingly high rates of SSRI depression drug consumption.

  2. Moving from one state to another likely won’t help you unless you also change careers to one where your co-workers are more likely to lean R (e.g. from academia to law enforcement) and/or also actively decide to cultivate a completely different set of friends. Really, just move out to a rural part of Massachusetts. I’m here in Trump-supporting Texas and most of my friends and other contacts are just as bummed by his election as anybody in your social network, but I’m in Harris County (Houston) which is pretty blue overall.

    Alaska might be your best bet since a pilot can make a living up there. Another alternative might be flying helicopters offshore for the oil and gas business down here (even in Houston almost everybody who works in O&G is conservative as hell) but you might have to wait for oil prices to come back up…and hope Trump can follow through on his promise to end the ban on offshore activities.

  3. I’m from Massachusetts and the only thing that makes me sad is that so many of my fellow citizens, voted for the corrupt Hillary Clinton. What is wrong with the people in this state?

  4. Al: I don’t think it is hard to understand why people in Massachusetts voted for Hillary. Most of them were voting their checkbooks. We have big healthcare and pharma industries and the Democrats are willing to spend an ever-larger percentage of GDP on health care and pharma. We have a big higher education industry and the Democrats are willing to commit more funds to higher education through, e.g., subsidized student loans. We have a lot of government workers who are prospering under the status quo and are not receptive to a candidate promising a smaller government (i.e., fewer government workers with smaller paychecks). Our state and local governments spend a higher percentage of GDP than do the corresponding governments in Texas or New Hampshire, but, thanks to state/local taxes being deductible from federal, we are able to get people in Texas and New Hampshire to foot some of the bill for our state/local government.

  5. >thanks to state/local taxes being deductible
    >from federal, we are able to get people in Texas
    >and New Hampshire to foot some of the
    >bill for our state/local government.

    I think MA receives significantly less Federal spending than TX per dollar of tax paid suggesting that MA is actually subsidizing the Texan’s low state taxes. The best data I could find is old though:

    http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005

Comments are closed.