They're moving to California, the state with the least work requirements and most handouts. See my previous post above.
dude you really need to live up to your handle, at least sometimes. Federal policy trumps all. Welfare recipients will receive it regardless of where they live, obamacare regardless of where they live, 99 weeks unemployment regardless of where they live, SS regardless of where they live, and on and on. Those are mostly DEM policies. In my hypothetical why would someone living off the system stay in the red states where these things wouldn't exist or would be much more limited? even if they chose to stay, they wouldn't be able to perpetually live off the system, would they? In absolute terms I bet most people receiving govt assistance already live in blue states. edit: they beat me to it.
What you say is true, but it's more complex than that. The federal government sets a baseline and states can't pay less or make getting benefits more difficult than what the feds require. However, the states can make it easier and pay more benefits if they pay the difference out of their own state taxpayers' pockets -- which is what California does. That's why California has almost three times the number of welfare recipients per capita as compared to the national average. More goodies here because of state policy that's more lenient and more generous than the federal baseline. Of course, California taxpayers get stuck with the bill.
We both are correct why people don't move is a cognitive bias in behavioral finance that makes people over value what they have by 2x as much as they would be willing to pay. example. A coffee mug is for sale they won't buy it for 5$ but if you then give it to them then they want 10$ to part with it. I forget the name of the bias but it makes what you have appear more valuable so the benefits of cali must be overwhelming in order to get people to move.
I get what you're saying.. i forgot the name of the program but the fed govt has an allowance for each state basically. I didn't realize Cali was that bad though. I would like to point out that I don't mind a defined social safety net, BUT I think it should by left up to each state and there should be NO federal safety net, in accordance with the Constitution and the people that wrote it. That means no federal entitlements, no federal welfare, nothing. The fed govt needs to step out of this role as lender of last resort. If a state gets in over its head it must go through bankruptcy and restructure. US taxpayers aren't the bailout mechanism for foolish policies and programs.