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.
What's the point of this thread? Why is finding out where the poorest states are so important? New York has a lower percentage of poor people than Florida. Ok, that's great, but it doesn't matter where they are, they are still poor. And the economic mobility argument: how many of those poor people actually are able to even find an opportunity to move upward in terms of class vs. the number that remain poor? The Northeast may have more economic mobility but the poor aren't the ones taking advantage of it due to their lack of access to the necessary resources.
So, according to you, India is richer than Switzerland? Afghanistan is richer than Monaco? After all, far more rich people in India and Afghanistan than in Switzerland or Monaco.
Obviously % play a role in determining relative wealth/poverty too. Monaco may have few rich numerically, but in terms of % is among the richest countries on earth. India may have many rich numerically, but is overall very poor.
Of course the NYC area will have more poor than Mississippi. There are over 24 million people in the NYC CSA. There are less than 3 million people living in MS. Even if MS is 100% poverty-stricken, one would assume the NYC area has more poor numerically.
According to this, Switzerland has 667,000 millionaires (and higher) and India has 182,000. So Switzerland beats India in absolute values as well. Switzerland also has 71 billionaires to India's 67.
The United States has almost half (46.4%) of the world's millionaires.
State A has 100 people below the poverty line. It has 900 people who are not.
State B has 99 people below the poverty line. It has 1 person who is not.
Would you say that State A is poorer than State B because it has more poor people (100 versus 99)? Of course not!
State A is obviously going to be much better off than State B because it can fund schools, roads, and parks based on the wealth of 90% of its residents.
State B could not afford much at all since only 1% of its residents has any wealth.
This is why State B would be considered poorer than State A even though it has fewer poor residents by number.
Obviously, these numbers are quite simplified, but it is a good illustration of how to compare entities of different size.
that isn't a realistic scenario at all.
there is no state that has a ratio of 99 people below the poverty line and only 1 above. the vast majority of people in any state are above the poverty line.
a realistic scenario is a state has 50,000 people below the poverty line, and another more populated state has 300,000 people below the poverty line but 100,000 more rich people than the less populated state.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,777 posts, read 15,786,780 times
Reputation: 10886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian
that isn't a realistic scenario at all.
there is no state that has a ratio of 99 people below the poverty line and only 1 above. the vast majority of people in any state are above the poverty line.
a realistic scenario is a state has 50,000 people below the poverty line, and another more populated state has 300,000 people below the poverty line but 100,000 more rich people than the less populated state.
Of course this example wasn't realistic. It was done as a very simple example to show why percentage has more meaning than raw number because sometimes when dealing with numbers in the hundreds of thousands, the logic is less clear. When comparing states that are vastly different in size, the larger state is going to beat out the much smaller state on almost every single metric. The very large state is almost always going to have more rich people, more poor people, more black people, more white people, more fat people, more thin people, more educated people, more uneducated people, etc. than the very small state. It doesn't mean the bigger state has a greater poverty problem, a greater wealth problem, a greater obesity problem, etc. It just means they are bigger, so almost every number is going to be bigger than the smaller state's numbers.
when people on here talk about how their state has more rich people, they omit the fact that it has more poor people as well.
my point is you can't dismiss the poverty by comparing to the number of rich people. It still a lot of poor people and thousands more than other states.
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.
