Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "Federal" CA poverty estimate is already on the diagram (the lighter blue bar indicator), the PPIC estimate (darker blue bar) takes into account a much more realistic COL factor for California than the Federal estimate. When you take actual housing cost (the biggest COL factor for California), more people are considered under the poverty line than the Federal estimate. The median income per individual in SF is $42,000, how many people making $42,000 could afford a 1 bedroom apartment in San Francisco? How many would even qualify under such competitive conditions? Hence, the PPIC study takes things like this into account with much more realistic numbers than the federal estimate.
The funny thing is housing cost are up 25% to 50% in California since 2011, so the PPIC estimate may even be currently low.
Remember the absolute poverty line as defined by the Federal Government is "the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."
For your edits:
The median income per capita in SF is ~$47,000, and the median household income is ~$74,000. Unemployment is down and the economy is recovering since 2011, so we have no idea how the PPIC would change if it analyzed current data.
The federal poverty measure, as I mention above, is woefully inadequate. While the goal is to measure your quoted definition of poverty, the data used to estimate poverty at the federal level cannot do so.
For your edits:
The median income per capita in SF is ~$47,000, and the median household income is ~$74,000. Unemployment is down and the economy is recovering since 2011, so we have no idea how the PPIC would change if it analyzed current data.
The federal poverty measure, as I mention above, is woefully inadequate. While the goal is to measure your quoted definition of poverty, the data used to estimate poverty at the federal level cannot do so.
Okay, now the median income is $47,000. That's about a 10% difference.
How much have housing cost risen since in SF 2011? Rents are up at least 25% (more for certain neighborhoods), and housing cost are up 25% to 50% in the City. Around the state, the rise in California housing is just as high. Is that $5,000 difference enough to cancel out the rise in housing cost? 2012 and 2013 both saw double digit rises in home values for metro areas of the state, we know the PPIC poverty level for California would more than likely get worse.
I'm not trying to argue for arguments sake, I just find any conclusion that blue states are somehow better than other states at handling poverty to be misleading, if not factually wrong (especially in California's case, the biggest Blue state of them all). San Francisco and Oakland are about as liberal at they come, yet the poverty level in each city is way above the national average, as is the economic inequality.
Last edited by ExeterMedia; 03-10-2014 at 12:34 PM..
It is mostly that older whites, reaching retirement, sell their houses to get the accumulated value increases over the last 40-50 years and then retire to some where much cheaper (and less desirable) so that they can use the difference to finance their retirement. The other issue is young couples without college degrees are generally leaving because they have been priced out. They just can't afford half a million for a house, as people with more money have bid up the prices, so they move to cheaper, less desirable areas where they actually can afford to buy a house. There is nothing wrong with that but they should be honest and admit they just can't compete with more successful people and that is the reason they are leaving. Instead most of them make up nonsense political claims to try to spare their egos instead of admitting the obvious truth; that they just aren't educated and successful enough to make it in the most desirable areas.
Several States have a higher cost of living than California: Alaska, New York, Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, and New Jersey. PPIC-esque graphs for those States would likely look even worse than California's did in 2011.
Alaska - Red State
New York - Clearly Blue
Connecticut - Clearly Blue
D.C - Blue
Hawaii - Blue
New Jersey - Blue
Do we really want to keep up this charade about Blue states? You literally just argued against that ridiculous conclusion unwitingly. Paging MrWillys?
Alaska - Red State
New York - Clearly Blue
Connecticut - Clearly Blue
D.C - Blue
Hawaii - Blue
New Jersey - Blue
Do we really want to keep up this charade about Blue states? You literally just argued against that ridiculous conclusion unwitingly. Paging MrWillys?
All you can get from that list, if you are honest, is that highly urbanized places (NY, CT, NJ) and highly isolated places (Alaska and Hawaii) tend to be more expensive. Urbanized places are more expensive due to supply and demand as they are dynamic places which attract a lot of people but also generate a lot of wealth via commerce and innovation while isolated places are expensive because most things have to be imported at great expense.
This isn't rocket science and your attempts to interject politics into much more basic and fundamental issues tells us more about yourself than anything else.
This isn't rocket science and your attempts to interject politics into much more basic and fundamental issues tells us more about yourself than anything else.
I didn't bring up the list, nor did I bring up the original political point that somehow Blue states are better at handling/reducing poverty. The fact that you're trying to attribute those talking points to me tells us more about your lack of reading comprehension than anything else. It's not rocket science, but you can't simply jump into a conversation without knowing how it started, and what the original talking points were, and how it evolved, that's not only being ignorant, but your conclusion is rude.
Quote:
All you can get from that list, if you are honest, is that highly urbanized places (NY, CT, NJ) and highly isolated places (Alaska and Hawaii) tend to be more expensive. Urbanized places are more expensive due to supply and demand as they are dynamic places which attract a lot of people but also generate a lot of wealth via commerce and innovation while isolated places are expensive because most things have to be imported at great expense.
I disagree. That's not "all" you can conclude from that list. While dense metro areas do have high housing cost, the original point brought up by MrWilly was a red vs blue question. The list tells us that the original conclusion was based on a faulty premise that we can now say has been satisfactorily disproved (to me at least). Like I said, before you jump blindly into a conversation, at least put enough effort to read how the conversation evolved before you lazily blanket the conversation with your personal insight.
Your deflections don't change the basic premise. You made a stupid comment about politics and now you are unwilling to own up to it. Again, that tells us more about you than anything else.
Okay, now the median income is $47,000. That's about a 10% difference.
How much have housing cost risen since in SF 2011? Rents are up at least 25% (more for certain neighborhoods), and housing cost are up 25% to 50% in the City. Around the state, the rise in California housing is just as high. Is that $5,000 difference enough to cancel out the rise in housing cost? 2012 and 2013 both saw double digit rises in home values for metro areas of the state, we know the PPIC poverty level for California would more than likely get worse.
I'm not trying to argue for arguments sake, I just find any conclusion that blue states are somehow better than other states at handling poverty to be misleading, if not factually wrong (especially in California's case, the biggest Blue state of them all). San Francisco and Oakland are about as liberal at they come, yet the poverty level in each city is way above the national average, as is the economic inequality.
I don't think we know the bold because of the economic growth and unemployment reduction of the intervening years.
I think we don't know which States are best at handling poverty because we have a poor measurement of poverty. If you use the only measure we have across all of the States, federal poverty level, then you have flawed results showing a mix of States by politics, although small Democratic States have the lowest poverty rates. We can't compare PPIC's data for California against federal poverty level in other States because it does not measure the same thing at all.
Also note that household income is probably a better measure to compare to cost of living, as households typically pool resources--that is $74,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExeterMedia
Alaska - Red State
New York - Clearly Blue
Connecticut - Clearly Blue
D.C - Blue
Hawaii - Blue
New Jersey - Blue
Do we really want to keep up this charade about Blue states? You literally just argued against that ridiculous conclusion unwitingly. Paging MrWillys?
My conclusion was that you can't compare California's PPIC poverty data against federal poverty level data in other States. I was not arguing that blue or red better handles poverty. I did point out that California's politics are irrelevant in the discussion of the post I was quoting.
If you want to argue blue and red economics, I would point out that California has the nation's biggest economy. I would also note that of the 10 biggest economies, 9 went for Obama in 2008 and 8 went for him in 2012.
Per capita, 9/10 (excluding D.C.) went to Obama both elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExeterMedia
I didn't bring up the list, nor did I bring up the original political point that somehow Blue states are better at handling/reducing poverty. The fact that you're trying to attribute those talking points to me tells us more about your lack of reading comprehension than anything else. It's not rocket science, but you can't simply jump into a conversation without knowing how it started, and what the original talking points were, and how it evolved, that's not only being ignorant, but your conclusion is rude.
I disagree. That's not "all" you can conclude from that list. While dense metro areas do have high housing cost, the original point brought up by MrWilly was a red vs blue question. The list tells us that the original conclusion was based on a faulty premise that we can now say has been satisfactorily disproved (to me at least). Like I said, before you jump blindly into a conversation, at least put enough effort to read how the conversation evolved before you lazily blanket the conversation with your personal insight.
I didn't bring up the list to make any sort of red state/blue state point. That was your contribution. I brought up the list in response to the PPIC data you brought up to make the erroneous point that California has the highest poverty level in the country. My list was an illustration of the point that we have no idea how California would stack up against the other 49 States on poverty rates using the PPIC methodology.
I brought up the list in response to the PPIC data you brought up to make the erroneous point that California has the highest poverty level in the country.
Where did I make the point that "California has the highest poverty level in the country"? GO ahead, take 20 minutes to look.
You won't find it because I never made that point and you're being very dishonest to imply that I did. Is that what you do when you have no point, you lie and distort what others have said to create one?
Quote:
If you want to argue blue and red economics, I would point out that California has the nation's biggest economy. I would also note that of the 10 biggest economies, 9 went for Obama in 2008 and 8 went for him in 2012.
What does economic output have to do with poverty rates again, which was MrWillys original talking point? You think big regional economies cannot have high poverty? Ha.
Quote:
I don't think we know the bold because of the economic growth and unemployment reduction of the intervening years.
Yes we do. We know exactly how much median wages have risen, and we know how much COL has risen. I'm telling you, the numbers don't improve. That has nothing to do with overall economic growth or unemployment. People can be employed in a job and still be under the poverty line. That has nothing to do with the PPIC measurement, the fact that you think it does shows that you have completely misunderstood what the PPIC was trying to measure.
Last edited by ExeterMedia; 03-10-2014 at 02:05 PM..
Where did I make the point that "California has the highest poverty level in the country"? GO ahead, take 20 minutes to look.
You won't find it because I never made that point and you're being very dishonest to imply that I did.
Excuse me for exaggerating. You said: "San Francisco and Oakland are about as liberal at they come, yet the poverty level in each city is way above the national average," in reliance on PPIC data. You also said:
"2012 and 2013 both saw double digit rises in home values for metro areas of the state, we know the PPIC poverty level for California would more than likely get worse.
I'm not trying to argue for arguments sake, I just find any conclusion that blue states are somehow better than other states at handling poverty to be misleading, if not factually wrong (especially in California's case, the biggest Blue state of them all)."
And:
"California has a poverty rate of 22% according to a study done by the Public Policy Institute of California," in response to a post about high red state poverty levels.
And:
"That's 8.1 million people under the poverty line in the state. That population alone could be the 13th largest state in the U.S. ."
And in response to a posting of poverty rates by State that showed California as #35:
"Yeah a list that doesn't take into account the actual COL for the state of California."
In sum, you have attempted to compare PPIC poverty data with federal data, which is flawed. In so doing, you have argued that California is worse than other States at handling poverty because its PPIC poverty rate is 22% (which, were it comparable to federal data, would be worst in the nation).
On review, I take back that I was exaggerating. I think your implications are quite clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExeterMedia
What does economic output have to do with poverty rates again, which was MrWillys original talking point?
Yes we do. We know exactly how much median wages have risen, and we know how much COL has risen. I'm telling you, the numbers don't improve. That has nothing to do with overall economic growth or unemployment. People can be employed in a job and still be under the poverty line. That has nothing to do with the PPIC measurement, the fact that you think it does show you have completely misunderstood what the PPIC was trying to measure.
Economic output is obviously connected to earnings and poverty, although the connection is more complicated than we can easily analyze. We don't know exactly how much the cost of living has risen, nor do we know how the rise in income is distributed, which makes a big difference for analysis of the poverty level. You have made a number of unsupported claims about rents and the price of real estate in "some neighborhoods" of San Francisco. California is a State of 39 million people, while San Francisco is home to only ~826,000 souls. It is the highest cost part of California and has the fastest increase in housing costs in the country, so I don't know how exactly you think that SF rents and real estate have such an outsized impact on poverty statewide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
GO ahead, take 20 minutes to look.
."
