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.
Texas is doing so well, that's why it higher percentage of food stamp usage and uninsured. You guys cling to the supplemental poverty measure for dear life. Every other measure suggests Texas is the poorer state.
The median household income in California is $61,400, 10k higher than Texas. Housing is more expensive, but which piece of property do you think is more valuable? The one in CA or TX?
Would you rather have $60K in CA or $50K in TX? From a financial perspective, you would probably come out ahead in TX. From a welfare or quality of life perspective then CA would come out ahead.
Texas is doing so well, that's why it higher percentage of food stamp usage and uninsured.
The median household income in California is $61,400, 10k higher than Texas. Housing is more expensive, but which piece of property do you think is more valuable? The one in CA or TX?
According to the Census Bureau in 2012 the median household income was $57,020 for California and $51,926 for Texas, a difference of only $5,094. Nearly half of your $10k figure, so I'm not sure where you're getting your figures. As far as I know 2013 figures have not been released. Factor in taxes and it's almost even. Factor in cost of living and it's a complete landslide for Texas. The median household in Texas has far more purchasing power than the median household in California. That is reality whether you like it or not.
Which piece of property is more valuable? It depends on who's doing the valuation. Which one costs more? Usually the one in CA. Why someone would think that paying more for the same house is a good thing, however, is a mystery. Would you consider it a good thing if you had to pay twice as much for the same car as someone in Texas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
You guys cling to the supplemental poverty measure for dear life. Every other measure suggests Texas is the poorer state.
Yeah, there we go clinging to that whole reality thing.
You can pretend that a family of four earning $23,851 a year in San Fransisco or Sunnydale is not in poverty all you want, and according to traditional federal poverty guidelines, they aren't. Reality says otherwise.
According to the Census Bureau in 2012 the median household income was $57,020 for California and $51,926 for Texas, a difference of only $5,094. Nearly half of your $10k figure, so I'm not sure where you're getting your figures. As far as I know 2013 figures have not been released. Factor in taxes and it's almost even. Factor in cost of living and it's a complete landslide for Texas. The median household in Texas has far more purchasing power than the median household in California. That is reality whether you like it or not.
Which piece of property is more valuable? It depends on who's doing the valuation. Which one costs more? Usually the one in CA. Why someone would think that paying more for the same house is a good thing, however, is a mystery. Would you consider it a good thing if you had to pay twice as much for the same car as someone in Texas?
Yeah, there we go clinging to that whole reality thing.
You can pretend that a family of four earning $23,851 a year in San Fransisco or Sunnydale is not in poverty all you want, and according to traditional federal poverty guidelines, they aren't. Reality says otherwise.
And bear in mind that California is a much larger state than Texas, so relative to its size the difference is even wider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
2.9 million people? Forget Los Angeles, the San Diego region has more people. Utah is tiny by any metric. Sorry if I don't take its growth seriously.
Then I guess you don't take most of what occurs with global economic growth seriously, since the majority of this growth is happening in countries smaller than San Diego or Los Angeles. Your area being unusually heavily populated does not make Utah or North Dakota tiny.
Quote:
When you need a list of most obese
Every single red state in the most obese category is in the South; none of the 10 best-run states are represented. The difference between the South (which has always lagged even during the Solid South) and the rest of the red states is like night and day when it comes to quality of life, the economy, and management of state government. Utah, Wyoming, and the Dakotas as a group are currently deeper red at both the Presidential and state levels than any Southern state, and have been red states for longer than any Southern state.
Also, red Montana recently displaced (bluish-)purple Colorado as the least obese state.
Quote:
, least educated
A high school diploma is the fairest measure, since it is virtually required for a decent education and/or financial future anywhere in the country, as opposed to a college degree which is more expedient in some areas (such as big cities) of the country than others (i.e. obtaining one for the sake of a career rather than for the sake of education). The top 10 Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowedare Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, New Hampshire, Vermont, Alaska, Iowa, and Washington. 5 are red states, 3 are blue states, and 2 are bluish swing states. You could call it a tie, or perhaps a win for the red states since deep reds vastly outnumber deep blues.
By the same token, the bottom 12 (12 due to ties) are Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, North Carolina, Rhode Island, California, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, New Mexico, and Mississippi. 9 are red states and 3 are blue states (including California!). The red states win on this list too! The catch is that every single one of these red states are Southern red states. 2 of the 3 blue states here are Southwestern, making the Sun Belt as a group rather than red states or blue states as a group the true winner of the least educated contest.
Also, none of the least educated red states appeared in the top five best run states; the most educated red states were the ones that overlapped. These same states also have the highest SAT scores in the country, although this is certainly at least in part an artifact of less people taking the test; still, these states are not uneducated.
Quote:
, highest food stamp usage
The states with the highest food stamp use by percentage of population enrolled are South Carolina, Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Tennessee, Oregon, and Mississippi. 6 of the 10 are red states, and 4 are blue states, giving the edge to red states. Again, though, all of these are Southern red states, and none of the 10 best-run states appeared on the top 10 food stamp states. Southern red states rank well behind non-Southern red states on the best-run list; they are two different creatures.
Quote:
weakest opportunities for upward mobility
That one is too vague to answer, since there are a variety of ways to measure "opportunities for upward mobility", which give the edge to either group depending on which method is used. Well, every group of states except the South - the South is in bad shape no matter what metric you use.
The objections you raise apply almost exclusively to red states that also happen to be Southern states, and have no bearing on the five best-run states which all happen to be red states outside the South (as opposed to blue states outside the South such as California). As a group, non-Southern red states are the best-managed in the country, score well in quality of life metrics, and have strong, growing economies. You would do well to emulate them, particularly the states that are in the aforementioned upper echelon of management.
Red states in the South perform the worst in the country, whereas those outside the South perform the best in the country, a gap large enough to render any averaging of red states as a whole to be useless for gaining a true picture of what's happening, particularly when you consider that Southern states have always sported the worst performance in the country even when they were under one-party Democratic rule, and even during the times they were controlled by economic liberals (Huey Long comes to mind). Considering non-Southern red states separately allows us to better isolate being red from being Southern, and also is more relevant to policy in states that do not have Southern issues.
Also consider that the Plains states north of Oklahoma along with Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming have been red states since 1920; 1932, 1936, and 1964 being the only major exceptions. Compare that to the South only being a red region since 2000-2008 (in terms of voting Republican when a Democrat wins nationally).
Texas is outstanding in that it's right up there with the non-Southern red states in many metrics (not all but many) despite a huge chunk of it (East Texas) being in the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
You can pretend that a family of four earning $23,851 a year in San Fransisco or Sunnydale is not in poverty all you want, and according to traditional federal poverty guidelines, they aren't. Reality says otherwise.
To use an international example, $385 a month is enough for a nice Western-style serviced apartment in the heart of Bangkok, so a man from Bangkok might think that anyone in NYC can afford to rent a decent apartment, perhaps with luxurious accommodations being common, particularly with 6 times the average monthly salary...until they realize that average rent in NYC is 3 times more than in Bangkok. That same $385 a month will render you homeless or in impoverished surroundings very quickly in most of NYC. Poverty standards that do not take into account cost of living will either vastly underestimate how affluent Bangkok's people are or vastly overestimate how affluent NYC's people are.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Then I guess you don't take most of what occurs with global economic growth seriously, since the majority of this growth is happening in countries smaller than San Diego or Los Angeles. Your area being unusually heavily populated does not make Utah or North Dakota tiny.
Dude, North Dakota has 700,000 people. that means it is smaller than 77 metropolitan areas
According to the Census Bureau in 2012 the median household income was $57,020 for California and $51,926 for Texas, a difference of only $5,094. Nearly half of your $10k figure, so I'm not sure where you're getting your figures. As far as I know 2013 figures have not been released. Factor in taxes and it's almost even. Factor in cost of living and it's a complete landslide for Texas. The median household in Texas has far more purchasing power than the median household in California. That is reality whether you like it or not.
Which piece of property is more valuable? It depends on who's doing the valuation. Which one costs more? Usually the one in CA. Why someone would think that paying more for the same house is a good thing, however, is a mystery. Would you consider it a good thing if you had to pay twice as much for the same car as someone in Texas?
Yeah, there we go clinging to that whole reality thing.
You can pretend that a family of four earning $23,851 a year in San Fransisco or Sunnydale is not in poverty all you want, and according to traditional federal poverty guidelines, they aren't. Reality says otherwise.
The concept of "supply and demand" is a mystery? Seems pretty straight-forward to me.
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.
From a financial perspective, you would probably come out ahead in TX. From a welfare or quality of life perspective then CA would come out ahead.
