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.
This is why the US Census Bureau has an SPM - Supplemental Poverty Measure - to adjust for the cost of living differences when measuring inflation.
At the end of the day, California leads the nation in poverty with 18.2% of its people living in poverty and a whopping 36.3% Californians living in or near poverty. California also leads the nation in that measure when adding in people near poverty.
A lot of people seem to act like California is a rich state, but it has the highest poverty rate adjusted for actual living costs, as any intelligent conversation would do.
States with the most poverty: (1) California, (2) Louisiana, (3) Florida, (4) Mississippi, (5) New York (6) Texas, (7) New Mexico, (8T) Hawaii & Nevada, (10) Georgia.
States with the least poverty: (1) Minnesota (2) Iowa, (3) Rhode Island, (4) Kansas, (5) Utah, (6) New Hampshire, (7) Idaho, (8) Montana, (9T) Missouri, Nebraska, & South Dakota.
Most of the poverty never goes away because we allow 100,000-150,000 uneducated illegals to enter monthly.
Most go into the states in the South that are on your list like TX, CA, FL. It's a battle that is impossible to win.
The stratospheric cost of living in CA doesn't help. The cutoff to qualify for San Francisco's affordable housing programs is something like $93k for a single household. That's considered 'low income'. I'd imagine the vast majority of e.g. teachers, police officers etc are in or near poverty.
Something's seriously wrong when Google employees are living out of a van across the road from their offices in Mountain View because a decent apartment would cost them half their monthly paycheck after tax.
Prosperity is based on prodigious production of surplus usable goods and services. . . Not on socialist "Tax and Bribe" wealth redistribution.
Areas that steadily lose their mass production facilities, are fated to decline.
California has a homeless problem, wildfire problem, electric problem, and water problem. California is run solely by the Democratic Party. You would think the residents of California would be willing to give the Republican Party a chance to see if they can rectify the state's problems, since the Democratic Party has been ineffective in doing so. At least, that is what a rational thinking adult would think.
Democrats, and those on the left in general, don't think rationally. They are not the sharpest tools in the shed.
What is the population? 40 million people. People living on the Santa Monica streets and beaches are a lot. And every where else. While some others are rich and have mansions on the Malibu heights. Like porn stars and celebrities showing off. They some how have made their way into these homes with or without income. So who's more stupid? Or smarter? Depends on what view you choose. Who is poor?
As I point out, the US Census adjusts for cost of living.
California increases their own cost of living by doing things like blocking new home projects.
And that's nonsense (I'm amazed you would believe something like that). And since you brought up San Francisco, let me give you a perspective to explain why it's wrong (I lived there for 50 years).
My neighbor up the block bought his house for $32,000 in the 1960s. He has no mortgage and pays very low property taxes thanks to Prop 13 (are you familiar with how Prop 13 works?). He clearly can afford to live for much less than most in San Francisco.
A friend lives in a rent controlled apartment. His rent is approximately 50% of the current market rate. He can afford to live for much less than most in San Francisco. There are quite a few rent controlled apartments and homes in San Francisco.
My wife and I purchased a home in 1994 for $280k (just outside San Francisco in San Mateo county). Our property taxes are currently a little over $6k. We could survive on that $117k listed in the link I posted and not be living like a low income family.
A neighbor recently purchased a home next door for $1.3 million. Their property tax will immediately be $13k (so twice as much as our home). Their impounded mortgage payment will exceed $6k a month. They will find it difficult to survive in what would be deemed a solid Middle Class income.
We have someone renting our home right now for $4k a month (we're just outside the city....many in the city go for $5k+). They will have a little easier time, but still be hard pressed to make a go of it.
Many people rent out rooms in San Francisco because a one bedroom apartment normally goes for $3k a month
San Francisco could turn Golden Gate Park into high rise condos and within the next 20 years, they would be overcapacity. Claiming it's just new home projects is naïve. There's not an excessive amount of area you can build on. It's a popular place to live so people flock to live there (despite your viewpoint based on politics).
It would be very foolish to think the Census could take into account all these nuances.
And that's nonsense (I'm amazed you would believe something like that). And since you brought up San Francisco, let me give you a perspective to explain why it's wrong (I lived there for 50 years).
My neighbor up the block bought his house for $32,000 in the 1960s. He has no mortgage and pays very low property taxes thanks to Prop 13 (are you familiar with how Prop 13 works?). He clearly can afford to live for much less than most in San Francisco.
A friend lives in a rent controlled apartment. His rent is approximately 50% of the current market rate. He can afford to live for much less than most in San Francisco. There are quite a few rent controlled apartments and homes in San Francisco.
My wife and I purchased a home in 1994 for $280k (just outside San Francisco in San Mateo county). Our property taxes are currently a little over $6k. We could survive on that $117k listed in the link I posted and not be living like a low income family.
A neighbor recently purchased a home next door for $1.3 million. Their property tax will immediately be $13k (so twice as much as our home). Their impounded mortgage payment will exceed $6k a month. They will find it difficult to survive in what would be deemed a solid Middle Class income.
We have someone renting our home right now for $4k a month (we're just outside the city....many in the city go for $5k+). They will have a little easier time, but still be hard pressed to make a go of it.
Many people rent out rooms in San Francisco because a one bedroom apartment normally goes for $3k a month
San Francisco could turn Golden Gate Park into high rise condos and within the next 20 years, they would be overcapacity. Claiming it's just new home projects is naïve. There's not an excessive amount of area you can build on. It's a popular place to live so people flock to live there (despite your viewpoint based on politics).
It would be very foolish to think the Census could take into account all these nuances.
Do you see what you're saying though? Talking about buying property decades ago so you get to oay lower taxes. Meanwhile guess who is having to make up for your lower property taxes? And what about the people who arent lucky enough to stay in a rented apartment in the area and have tk move somewhere else within the Bay? You're really only looking at this from your privileged point of view.
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.
