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.
I stopped reading there. How anyone could say this with a straight face and two Ivy League degrees is mind-boggling. Of course stats are generalizations, they're mathematical models that generalized data points of interest. It means you don't need to read $205,000,000 individual income reports to know the US per capita income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
No one "degraded" anyone. We're just citing Census data. Data have no bias; it's just data.
Here is a list of the poorest 100 counties in the U.S. They are basically 100% rural and 100% overwhelmingly for Trump.
Per capita income is meaningless unless compared with per capita living costs. BTW on statistics do you earn the per capita income? Do you pay per capita living costs? Just wondering...
if the per capita income is say $16k per annum and the per capita living expenses are say $8k then there's $8k disposable income. However if the per capita income is $100k, and the per capita living expense is $95k then there's only $5k disposable income. Someone who actually earns per capita income and spends per capita living expense has $3k more disposable income living in the $16k per capita area than the $100k per capita area, AND given living expenses are only $8k chances are that the $8k disposable income would go a lot further there than in the $100k area.
Now that's not to say this is the case, but it fits a model where living in a lower per capita income area can lead to greater prosperity than a higher per capita area. Income is not prosperity, it's naive to think it is. You have to examine a lot of factors to determine whether area A or B is more prosperous than just per capita income.
Your post whether intentionally or not applies well to both sides although it's the people that live in large urban areas that seem to have the biggest gripe and whine the loudest because they can't control elections the way they would like to.
I stopped reading there. How anyone could say this with a straight face and two Ivy League degrees is mind-boggling. Of course stats are generalizations, they're mathematical models that generalized data points of interest. It means you don't need to read $205,000,000 individual income reports to know the US per capita income.
Per capita income is meaningless unless compared with per capita living costs. BTW on statistics do you earn the per capita income? Do you pay per capita living costs? Just wondering...
if the per capita income is say $16k per annum and the per capita living expenses are say $8k then there's $8k disposable income. However if the per capita income is $100k, and the per capita living expense is $95k then there's only $5k disposable income. Someone who actually earns per capita income and spends per capita living expense has $3k more disposable income living in the $16k per capita area than the $100k per capita area, AND given living expenses are only $8k chances are that the $8k disposable income would go a lot further there than in the $100k area.
Now that's not to say this is the case, but it fits a model where living in a lower per capita income area can lead to greater prosperity than a higher per capita area. Income is not prosperity, it's naive to think it is. You have to examine a lot of factors to determine whether area A or B is more prosperous than just per capita income.
Ahh..some sense at last--Yes, prosperity depends on many things..not the least of which is perceived 'quality of life'....happier IS better!
One of the things I notice is the prevalence of stereotypes to describe both sides of the divide--cityits, trailer trash, Lib-tards, Trumpets and the like. Demonization and depersonalization are taking the place of empathy--to our detriment.
This divide is being exploited and perpetuated by the very elites that both sides rail against.
But with a country that's nearly 50/50 divided, small shifts among voter-cohorts can make definitive impact. That's also the reason for animosity against "spoiler candidates" (Libertarians, Greens, etc.) - siphoning off say 3% of the voters, but with that perhaps being enough to sway the overall election.
As we've noted ubiquitously, rural voters are not a monolithic block, and indeed, the very term "rural" covers broad context and circumstance. An auto-industry executive working in downtown Detroit, who commutes 90-minutes each way from a farm 50 miles from Detroit, is "rural" - as is his neighbor, who is a 5th-generation farmer - as is the other neighbor, who's a meth-head in a trailer.
But the above notwithstanding, rural people tend to be more conservative than urban ones. That, I think, is not a controversial statement. What is more controversial is why so many conservative voters were swayed to choose a candidate in 2016 who by most measures is neither conservative, nor aligned with their core cultural values.
Why did they vote for Trump? He acknowledged their concerns and spoke to them as people. Hillary talked down to them and called them deplorable.
Per capita income is meaningless unless compared with per capita living costs. BTW on statistics do you earn the per capita income? Do you pay per capita living costs? Just wondering...
Translation: I don't like the data that shows that rural areas are the poorest, so I'm going to rationalize the poverty by claiming that income data is irrelevant unless we take into account home price data.
Sorry, but no. Economists always compare within currencies. There is ZERO reason one cannot compare across jurisdictions using the US dollar. The fact that urban areas have higher home prices is indicative of greater wealth, obviously. Housing is the primary wealth vehicle in the U.S. You aren't "richer" if you live in a jurisdiction where homes are practically worthless, as in most of rural America.
Ah, the irony. Someone who doesn't understand the first thing about Census data lecturing others.
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. There are no "generalizations". These are distinct data points, aggregated. One can "generalize" from the data, but the data itself isn't a "generalization", it's peer reviewed fact.
But we all know the Trump cult has a BIG problem with reality and fact. Just look at this thread.
Your ignorance is outstanding.
Typical for a NY cityiot.
You're stepping on your wang at this point...
"My city is safer than your state" yet my towns crime rate is 1/10th of any County borough or island south and east of Dutchess...
Wanna talk Miami or Orlando fine you have a point. I don't live in either of those holes nor have any desire to. Ocala/Okeechobee is more my style. Right now I'm in tropical Poughkeepsie. Not a fan but can't complain.
You use crime stats to make your generalization that Florida has a higher crime rate and is automatically unsafe, no different than your kind who've moved down here and try to convince me they can rationalize their fear with statistics and that I too should be afraid in this thread.
I don't understand elections? Please. This means absolutely nothing and all of your wealthy, educated, NYC is the capital of the world theories have been debunked by a 1,000 people on here alone.
Just for a tip of the iceberg example, Long Island had over 100,000 people that voted for Trump alone.
OH and PA had tons of people in the suburbs that voted for Trump.
You claim rural people put Trump into power, then you agree with me and make the statement that the most rural states in the country didn't matter.
That's some serious expert Ivy league analysis you have let me tell you. I'm impressed.
There still wasn't enough rural voters in the battleground states to matter, it was the people in the suburbs and exurbs of cities that tipped the scales.
I generally categorize suburbs and exurbs as "rural" (I define rural as needing a car to do most errands - not a super precise definition, there are definitely exceptions on both ends, but broadly speaking). Maybe that's what others mean as well?
...I've been tempted to start a thread inviting people to make an honest effort to state -- in honest, fair and sincere manner -- what they believe that is different from what the other side believes. ...
Here is my attempt, copied from another thread:
1. I’d prefer to have a cadre of professional politicians in office; not “businessmen”, actors, or celebrities of various stripes,
2. No walls!
3. A robust and accommodating immigration program, with work-visas for temporary guest workers.
4. A comprehensive National Health Service.
5. A national apprenticeship program, aimed at young people who need assistance with employment/skills-development.
6. Credible path to citizenship for most “illegals”.
7. Strong international institutions, with international laws that supersede national ones, and international courts whose rulings are superior to the Supreme Court.
8. A more streamlined international system of banking, commerce and taxation, for freer flow of capital across national boarders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust
I generally categorize suburbs and exurbs as "rural" (I define rural as needing a car to do most errands - not a super precise definition, there are definitely exceptions on both ends, but broadly speaking). Maybe that's what others mean as well?
No. It is of course subjective, but I define "rural" to mean a situation were all four of the following conditions are met: (1) all residences are on multiple acres, and substantial portion of local land is zoned "agricultural";(2) being too far from a major city to receive over-the-air broadcast television (or internet access, other than satellite or perhaps cell-tower); (3) having no public utilities, except possibly electricity; and (4) the nearest retail establishment (even a gas station) would exhaust even an elite track-star to reach on foot.
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.
B-b-but OBAMA!
