Texas Umemployment Rate Now HIGHER than California (luxury, college)

[Unsettomati]

Yeah, but at least the median income is still $7,000 lower in Texas!

Oh, wait... people generally like higher incomes...

Median Annual Household Income

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

Yeah, but at least the median income is still $7,000 lower in Texas!

Oh, wait... people generally like higher incomes...

Median Annual Household Income

But TX also has a lower cost of living and one reason is the lack of a State Income Tax, so that $7,000.00 gap becomes a meaningless figure in reality. More money left in their pockets than in CA.

[Jamesdeen]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

One cannot use a word like "whites" when talking about people then claim it isn't about race. That's like talking about the health risks of too much salt and saying "it's not about sodium".

Don't use logic, man. It's confusing to people!

[Jamesdeen]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Statements like this and many wonder why some Californians want to secede LOL wow

By no means am I one that supports succession, but seriously that poster is such an obvious white nationalist it's not even funny.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by davidt1

I tried looking at the Texas forum for a recent thread boasting how much better they are than California. Couldn't find any. Here it seems every week there is a "California is doing better than Nebraska, Texas, Bangladesh, Mississippi, etc." thread.

When you're trying to maintain a fantasy, it helps if you have lots of cheerleaders and boosters and daily pep rallies to keep the troops motivated.

[taimaishu]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

No I just posted a picture of Trump because he's such a cool guy.

The ACTUAL truth is, the 5.0% and 4.9% are pretty normal levels of U3 unemployment. Both are good numbers historically if you take them at face value.

But California's U6 is 3rd highest in the country while Texas is a little high but about in the middle for the country.

U6 is a far more accurate indicator of actual employment health of a state because it takes into account those who want/need more hours to survive, but can't get those hours because the market isn't offering them. So waitresses who only got 2-3 shifts during a week, or someone who can only find 20 hours of work per week. e.g - California has far less jobs than Texas where those jobs are meeting that employee's hourly wage needs.

California in that regard has a long way to go to be healthy:



The reason this is important, and should be looked at by any discerning citizen is because high U6 tends to lead to high welfare claims as these part-time, under employed, workers tend to supplement their livelihood with state welfare benefits.

Guess which state in the Union has the highest amount of welfare claims?

But don't let me interrupt your guys "California rocks celebration", it's not my problem anyway.

Notice how the U6 unemployment increased from 2001-2009 and drop after 2009. lol I wonder why.



Also, CA's population on Food Stamp rate is only 11%. TX is 14%. The highest is Mississippi at 21%. That's pretty sad. 20% of your population on Food Stamps. Talk about FAILED State!

[James Bond 007]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

...

But California's U6 is 3rd highest in the country while Texas is a little high but about in the middle for the country.

U6 is a far more accurate indicator of actual employment health of a state because it takes into account those who want/need more hours to survive, but can't get those hours because the market isn't offering them. So waitresses who only got 2-3 shifts during a week, or someone who can only find 20 hours of work per week. e.g - California has far less jobs than Texas where those jobs are meeting that employee's hourly wage needs....

Probably the major reason for that is the higher cost of living in California. If you're a waitress doing 2-3 shifts a week, you might be able to get by in your typical Texas city. But in California it's probably going to be a bigger struggle, unless maybe you live in Fresno or Redding, so you're going to be wanting more work.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

Probably the major reason for that is the higher cost of living in California. If you're a waitress doing 2-3 shifts a week, you might be able to get by in your typical Texas city. But in California it's probably going to be a bigger struggle, unless maybe you live in Fresno or Redding, so you're going to be wanting more work.

The higher cost of living is generally the reason given. But there is an underlying reason and it is hitting Millennials hard with no real improvement in sight.

https://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-tps36-young-adulthood.html

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2017
The Changing Economics and Demographics of Young Adulthood From 1975 to 2016
April 19, 2017
Release Number: CB17-TPS.36

APRIL 19, 2017 —Today’s young adults look different from prior generations in almost every regard: how much education they have, their work experiences, when they start a family and even who they live with while growing up. A new U.S. Census Bureau report, The Changing Economics and Demographics of Young Adulthood: 1975–2016, looks at changes in young adulthood over the last 40 years. The report focuses on the education, economics and living arrangements of today's young adults and how their experiences differ in timing and degree from what young adults experienced in the 1970s.
Highlights:

• Most of today’s Americans believe that educational and economic accomplishments are extremely important milestones of adulthood. In contrast, marriage and parenthood rank low: over half of Americans believe that marrying and having children are not very important in order to become an adult.
• Young people are delaying marriage, but most still eventually tie the knot. In the 1970s, 8 in 10 people married by the time they turned 30. Today, not until the age of 45 have 8 in 10 people married.
• More young people today live in their parents’ home than in any other arrangement: 1 in 3 young people, or about 24 million 18- to 34-year olds, lived in their parents’ home in 2015.
• In 2005, the majority of young adults lived independently in their own household, which was the predominant living arrangement in 35 states. A decade later, by 2015, the number of states where the majority of young people lived independently fell to just six. Of the top five states where the most young adults lived independently in 2015, all were in Midwest and Plains states.
• More young men are falling to the bottom of the income ladder. In 1975, 25 percent of young men ages 25 to 34 had incomes of less than $30,000 per year. By 2016, that share rose to 41 percent of young men (incomes for both years are in 2015 dollars).
• Between 1975 and 2016, the share of young women who were homemakers fell from 43 percent to 14 percent of all women ages 25 to 34.

Of young people living in their parents’ home, 1 in 4 are idle, that is they neither go to school nor work. This figure represents about 2.2 million 25- to 34-year-olds. Among other characteristics, these young adults are more likely to have a child, so they may be caring for family, and over one quarter have a disability of some kind. "



It is not looking good for them.

[Joejoey]

0.1 is nothing

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Joejoey

0.1 is nothing

It is to those who are a part of the 0.1%.