U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2015, 11:04 AM
 
6,990 posts, read 14,120,062 times
Reputation: 4581

Advertisements

According to this article, when adjusted for cost of living, California is the poorest state in the country. Additionally, LA County is the poorest county in CA. Does that make LA County the poorest county in America? With a population of over 10 million and a poverty rate of 26.1%, the actual number of people living in LA County under the adjusted poverty line is 2,640,460. That's more than many states!

California's economy is booming, so why is it No. 1 in poverty? - LA Times
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2015, 11:15 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,273,942 times
Reputation: 9847
The article is stupid. LA is one of the richest places in the U.S. It's the second largest concentration of wealth in the U.S., and might even have the second largest concentration of wealth on the planet.

The reason this survey is stupid is "adjusted for cost of living". Desirable places cost more; that doesn't mean that people are poorer. It's the same currency everywhere in the U.S.; if home prices cost more that's a good thing, not a bad thing; it means people value the asset more.

Someone isn't poorer if they own Apple stock instead of KMart stock. That's the assumption baked into these theories.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 11:18 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post

The reason this survey is stupid is "adjusted for cost of living". Desirable places cost more; that doesn't mean that people are poorer. It's the same currency everywhere in the U.S.; if home prices cost more that's a good thing, not a bad thing; it means people value the asset more..
It means one has to spend more money to live there, paying (or renting) for an expensive asset costs money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Someone isn't poorer if they own Apple stock instead of KMart stock. That's the assumption baked into these theories.
That's a terrible analogy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 11:19 AM
 
6,990 posts, read 14,120,062 times
Reputation: 4581
But it shows the vast income inequality that LA has. It might have the second highest concentration of wealth, but it seems like it has THE highest concentration of poverty and there's not much in between. SF, San Jose, and NYC are as expensive, if not more so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 11:24 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
The article is stupid. LA is one of the richest places in the U.S. It's the second largest concentration of wealth in the U.S., and might even have the second largest concentration of wealth on the planet.
The article is on poverty, not concentration of wealth. Also at those incomes few own a home except in rural areas; may make more sense to look at rent prices. People have to pay to live somewhere, so I fail to see why adjusting for housing costs is stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 11:34 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,273,942 times
Reputation: 9847
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The article is one poverty, not concentration of wealth.
Technically this is right, but it's not accurate in real world terms. Technically the Hamptons and Manhattan could be called "poor" because they have a relatively high proportion of people below the poverty line. But that's a silly way of looking at relative wealth. A census tract in East Hampton could be poorer than a mobile home park in Kentucky, as long as you had domestics being counted in East Hampton, and as long as most people in the mobile home park had incomes right above the poverty line. A supercheap exurb in PA with 100k homes could be "richer" than the fanciest parts of Manhattan with $10 million homes, as long as the exurb has working families and the Manhattan neighborhoods have rent controlled retired elderly and/or income-based subsidized housing.

In the real world, "wealth" is where rich people live. If you built a subsidized housing project in Beverly Hills it could make Beverly Hills "poor" under your definition, except nothing changed except inclusion of subsidized housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
People have to pay to live somewhere, so I fail to see why adjusting for housing costs is stupid.
It's stupid because high housing costs make people rich, not poor. Most Americans own, so most Americans benefit from increases in housing costs.

Someone who bought in, say, Orange County, or Long Island, back in the 1970's has far greater gains on their housing than someone who bought in, say Michigan or Ohio. But, according to this study, my aunt who bought a home in Corona del Mar, CA for 150k in the 1970's, and it's now worth around 3 million, is "poor", while another family member that lives in Michigan who bought a home for 100k in the 1970's, and it's now worth 250k is "rich". Doesn't make sense.

High housing costs are a good thing for most. They make people richer, not poorer. The baby boomers cashing out on their paid-off homes in places like Westchester County are helping fuel the purchase of homes in urban areas in the next generation. That's, in part, why you have younger people making 70k buying million dollar 2 bedrooms in Brooklyn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 11:42 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Technically this is right, but it's not accurate in real world terms. Technically the Hamptons and Manhattan could be called "poor" because they have a relatively high proportion of people below the poverty line. But that's a silly way of looking at relative wealth.
Except the discussion of the article is on poverty not relative wealth; poverty is defined by the amount of poor people. The article is comparing the poverty rate, not relative wealth, did you read the article? It's not technical it's accurate to measure poverty by umm, poverty. Talking about relative wealth tells you nothing about poverty.

Quote:
It's stupid because high housing costs make people rich, not poor. Most Americans own, so most Americans benefit from increases in housing costs.
That's only a benefit if you already own a house.

Quote:
Someone who bought in, say, Orange County, or Long Island, back in the 1970's has far greater gains on their housing than someone who bought in, say Michigan or Ohio. But, according to this study, my aunt who bought a home in Corona del Mar, CA for 150k in the 1970's, and it's now worth around 3 million, is "poor", while another family member that lives in Michigan who bought a home for 100k in the 1970's, and it's now worth 250k is "rich". Doesn't make sense.
Neither of those people are poor, home values that high are irrelevant for those near the poverty line. In any case, that's not relevant to younger people who usually don't own a home yet.

Quote:
High housing costs are a good thing for most. They make people richer, not poorer. The baby boomers cashing out on their paid-off homes in places like Westchester County are helping fuel the purchase of homes in urban areas in the next generation. That's, in part, why you have younger people making 70k buying million dollar 2 bedrooms in Brooklyn.
Most old people. No household making 70k/year can afford a $1 million home. Any case, you seem to have gone an irrelevant tangent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 11:49 AM
 
6,990 posts, read 14,120,062 times
Reputation: 4581
The article points out cost of living + low wages. Much of the wealth in CA has been to the already rich. The poor have either not benefited or even seen their wages decline. Someone making $20k/yr in rural Mississippi will have MUCH lower housing costs than someone living off $20k/yr in Los Angeles. They most likely rent in LA and are not under rent control. The amount of money required to afford basic necessities in LA is much higher than the amount of money required to afford the basic necessities in other parts of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 12:14 PM
 
6,436 posts, read 9,972,323 times
Reputation: 8006
The liberal manifesto has finally come home to roast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Syracuse, New York
3,114 posts, read 2,530,087 times
Reputation: 2276
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
The article points out cost of living + low wages. Much of the wealth in CA has been to the already rich. The poor have either not benefited or even seen their wages decline. Someone making $20k/yr in rural Mississippi will have MUCH lower housing costs than someone living off $20k/yr in Los Angeles. They most likely rent in LA and are not under rent control. The amount of money required to afford basic necessities in LA is much higher than the amount of money required to afford the basic necessities in other parts of the country.
Can the person from Mississippi ever afford to move to California. Can the person from California afford to move to Mississippi? It would seem that the person from Mississippi is trapped in a bubble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top