Full Per-State Breakdown
Below is a detailed breakdown for all 50 states based on 2022 data. States are classified as red or blue using the 2024 presidential election outcomes (Trump-won states = red; Harris-won states = blue). The table includes:
• Population: July 1, 2022 Census estimate.
• Per Capita Welfare: Nominal public welfare expenditures per person (from the provided data).
• Total Welfare: State’s total public welfare expenditures (in millions of dollars) = Population × Per Capita.
• Poverty Rate: Percentage of population below the poverty line (from 2022 ACS data).
• COL Index: Cost of living index (national average = 100; higher = more expensive; proxied from recent MERIC/C2ER data, as 2022-specific indices show minimal year-over-year variance).
States are sorted alphabetically.
The table is broken up into several parts for easier display on the forum.
Table Part 1: Alabama to Georgia
Table Part 2: Hawaii to Maryland
Table Part 3: Massachusetts to New Jersey
Table Part 4: New Mexico to South Carolina
Table 5: South Dakota to Wyoming
Population-Weighted Averages and Comparisons
These metrics aggregate data across red states (31 states, total pop. ~200 million) vs. blue states (19 states, total pop. ~141 million). All figures are for 2022 public welfare expenditures.
Total Welfare Expenditures:
• Red states: ~$460.2 billion
• Blue states: ~$461.0 billion
• Comparison: Nearly equal in aggregate, despite red states having ~42% more population. Blue states spend more intensively per person.
Population-Weighted Average Per Capita Welfare (overall nominal per-person spending across the group):
• Red states: $2,299
• Blue states: $3,271
• Comparison: Blue states spent ~42% more per capita on average, reflecting policy differences, urban density, or program emphasis.
Comparison Adjusted for Poverty Rates (welfare expenditures per poor person = total expenditures ÷ total poor population):
• Red states: $16,944 per poor person (total poor: ~27.2 million)
• Blue states: $28,155 per poor person (total poor: ~16.4 million)
• Comparison: Blue states allocated ~66% more welfare dollars per poor resident, potentially due to higher baseline needs, more comprehensive programs, or lower overall poverty rates (weighted avg. poverty: ~13.6% red vs. ~11.6% blue).
Comparison Adjusted for Cost of Living (population-weighted real per capita welfare, adjusted to national-average dollars; higher COL reduces real value):
• Red states: $2,429 (effective purchasing power)
• Blue states: $2,711 (effective purchasing power)
• Comparison: After adjustment, blue states still spent ~12% more per capita in real terms, but the gap narrows significantly due to higher average COL in blue states (~108 vs. ~94 in red states). This suggests red states’ lower nominal spending buys more due to cheaper living costs.
—–
Sources
1. Public Welfare State Expenditures Per Capita in 2022
• Source: Rockefeller Institute of Government, based on U.S. Census Bureau data
• Provided by: Directly in the user’s initial message (the ranked list of 50 states with per capita figures)
• Used for: All per capita values, state rankings, red/blue classifications in top 20, sums, totals, averages, and per-state breakdowns
2. 2024 Presidential Election Results (for red/blue state classifications)
• Source: Official 2024 U.S. presidential election outcomes (Trump-won states = red / Republican-leaning; Harris-won states = blue / Democrat-leaning)
• Used for: Consistent red/blue labeling of all 50 states throughout the thread (31 red, 19 blue)
3. State Population Estimates
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Vintage 2022 Population Estimates (July 1, 2022 resident population)
• Used for: Calculating total welfare expenditures per state (population × per capita), aggregate red/blue totals, population-weighted averages, and poverty-adjusted figures
4. Poverty Rates
• Source: U.S. Census Bureau – American Community Survey (ACS) 2022 data (1-year estimates, percentage of population below the federal poverty line)
• Used for: Poverty rate column in per-state tables and poverty-adjusted welfare spending calculations (expenditures per poor person)
5. Cost of Living Index (COL Index)
• Source: MERIC (Missouri Economic Research and Information Center) / C2ER (Council for Community and Economic Research) cost of living data – recent indices used as proxy (national average = 100), with minimal year-to-year variance from 2022
• Used for: COL Index column in per-state tables and cost-of-living-adjusted (real) per capita welfare spending calculations
The Importance of Cost of Living and Policies to Address It
(goldwaterinstitute.org) – California is a costly place to live compared to most states. So are Massachusetts and New York. Retirees often pick up stakes and move to other states like Arizona and Florida, partly because of the warm winters, but also because the cost of living is relatively low compared to where they made their careers. Interstate cost of living differentials seem to be taken as a given, almost as as the different weather patterns of Oregon and Oklahoma. This study econometrically demonstrates that California is not a relatively costly place to live just because lots of people want to live there. It is a costly state due to state and local policies such as heavy-handed land-use regulation, occupational licensing, minimum wages, family and disability benefit labor regulations, and energy regulation. In other words, it is not that lots of people want to live in high-cost states and push up prices that the cost of living is high in those states. The cost of living is high because states adopt policies that make the states more costly places to do business, to buy property, and to obtain a given standard of living.
When states’ average personal incomes are adjusted for their cost of living, it radically changes the picture of which states are the most prosperous. Apparently prosperous California sinks below Mississippi. Oklahoma, middling in official statistics, rises to actually outrank Massachusetts. Texas ends up in the top 10. Apparently prosperous states that have high costs of living are shown not to be so prosperous after all, once you account for how little that can be purchased with those high incomes. And as it turns out, high-cost states tend to be “blue” in their voting patterns while low-cost states tend to be “red,” politically…
Also addressed in this paper is why state policymakers should do more to consider cost of living, and specific policies they can pursue to reduce it in their states. These include: 1) limiting land-use regulation, especially zoning, 2) reducing labor regulations, including occupational licensing, minimum wages, family leave, and disability benefit requirements, 3) passing right-to-work laws, 4) reducing startup and filing fees for businesses, and 5) reducing monopolistic regulation in electric energy.
Policy issues are often statistically investigated for how they impact GDP—either its growth over time, or its total—frequently with frustrating results. The analysis contained in this paper suggests that researchers have been missing something more fundamental: the cost of living…
Read more (with charts and graphs) here: