California Ranks #1 in Personal Income Growth Among All 50 States(2008-2018) (Montclair: sales, real estate)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

What about the Supplemental poverty measure which actually takes into account housing/renting costs?

That's an adjusted figure that is simply a reflection of housing costs.

Which is why it's important for the state to do what it can and I support than 100%. Red states dont care, we do.

[18Montclair]

This is what Trump inherited:


Facts.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

That's an adjusted figure that is simply a reflection of housing costs.

Yes a much more accurate measure of actual cost of living, isn't that the more accurate number than the one you were trying to use which didn't include that adjustment?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

It's absolutely **laughable** the lengths tea party extremists will go to to deny the growth the occurred during the Obama administration.

Sorry haters but the numbers reveal a spectacular run during the presidency of 44.


Trump inherited this^

LOL

Employee mix is more important than "overall" employees. That's why I've posted numbers in different sectors (goods producing jobs, manufacturing, etc).

A big chunk of Obama's job growth was in government job growth. That's not exactly "economic growth" in the purest sense.



Obama was good at growing the government. Trump is good at growing the economy.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Yes a much more accurate measure of actual cost of living, isn't that the more accurate number than the one you were trying to use which didn't include that adjustment?

Yes but the official poverty rate is based on income, which is the proper measurement. Our problem is not making money, it's housing costs.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yes but the official poverty rate is based on income, which is the proper measurement.

No it's not. There is nothing proper or logical about it which is why the supplemental measure was created by the U.S Census Bureau in the first place.

Income is just a nominal number by itself, without much meaning. If someone makes $500 a month, but only spends $200 of their income to survive, they are in a much better economic position than someone who makes $1000 a month but has to spend $800 to survive. Yet the first person only makes half the numerical income. This reality isn't captured by the old poverty measure.

That's why the supplemental measure is more accurate in measuring actual poverty. Do you understand now?

[18Montclair]

Despite his huge announcements and exaggerations, even in manufacturing the growth, Trump is riding coattails of what was already happening...

The vast majority of the factory jobs have come in counties that were already adding factory employment before Mr. Trump took office. And a disproportionate share of the expansion was concentrated in prosperous areas like Silicon Valley and Houston.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/b...ring-jobs.html

His entire life is smoke and mirrors. He should have been a magician.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

No it's not. There is nothing proper or logical about it which is why the supplemental measure was created by the U.S Census Bureau in the first place.

Yawns. Poverty is based on income bro.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/2019-poverty-guidelines

And the supplemental rate is just that: supplemental.

Anything else?

[bobbymcG]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yawns. Poverty is based on income bro.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/2019-poverty-guidelines

I get you're trying to win an argument but any measure of income needs to be compared to expenses.

It's quite ignorant to think that a guideline meant to apply to 300M + population can accurately give you an idea of actual poverty. Income to expense ratio can vary drastically from house to house, street to street, county to county, state to state, country to country. To bring up the HHS poverty guideline as some sort of trump card is disingenuous.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by bobbymcG

I get you're trying to win an argument but any measure of income needs to be compared to expenses.

It's quite ignorant to think that a guideline meant to apply to 300M + population can accurately give you an idea of actual poverty. Income to expense ratio can vary drastically from house to house, street to street, county to county, state to state, country to country. To bring up the HHS poverty guideline as some sort of trump card is disingenuous.

No trump card at all buddy. The line has to be drawn somewhere. That's how these things work.

Furthermore, Californians climb out of poverty at a higher rate than the nation as a whole.

Calif. Study Finds Poor Kids More Upwardly Mobile

January 4, 2017 NICK CAHILL

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – California children born into low-income families have a greater chance of upward mobility compared to the national average, according to a new legislative analyst’s report...

https://www.courthousenews.com/calif...wardly-mobile/

Tea party trash love to criticize and demonize the poor and view them as a burden, but California, NOT TRUMP, is winning because we recognize that the poor are not a burden on society, but they are an opportunity to invest in the future, and the dividends reaped are a booming economy and huge state budget surpluses.