In fact, there is not a southern city or state among the top 10 on either Forbes' list. The study uses 12 categories, including 401(k) plan participation, household income, net worth, pension or other retirement plan participation and savings propensity to gauge savings' ratings of various communities.
Oh, and both lists are populated by locations in mostly blue, generally Democratic strongholds. Does that mean that progressives are wiser long-term money managers than conservatives?
Actually, both lists seem to be dominated by places with lots of money. On the state list, only Michigan and Wisconsin are below US average per capita income; the number one state, Connecticut, boasts 137 percent of US PCI. Needless to say, southern states tend to be poor. On the city list, number one is Los Alamos, followed by San Jose and Fairfield County, CT--none of them exactly lunch-bucket towns. San Francisco is No. 5, and Barnstable, MA [Cape Cod] is 6th. Some apparent blue-collar places such as Torrington, CT and Holland-Grand Haven, MI also make the list. But Tennesseans tend to be on the poor side, and have well-known debt problems. Does that mean progressives are better long-term money managers than conservatives? I doubt it; Republican voters tend to be better off than Democratic voters, and it remains easier to save if you've got more to save. Ever heard of the ecological fallacy? You've committed it.
ReplyDelete