Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Same-Helicopter-1210 t1_jdwbomb wrote

Hmm what's going on with the cheddar states??

14

HotDangThoseMuffins t1_jdxq2vq wrote

Low cost of living, decent wages/jobs, beautiful land. Nevermind don't come here it's awful!

21

Old_Captain_9131 t1_jdwymor wrote

Oh this is nice. Is there an inverse correlation with the state's GDP, or average income? Seems that the rich states are the ones having high poverty rate.

12

FlyingSquirlez OP t1_jdx5i3g wrote

I did some quick data analysis because your comment made me curious, and it looks like there are only very weak correlations (R^2 < 0.2) between state GDP or average income and SPM values with low slope trendlines. I can see where the idea comes from, though, with many of the richest states also having high SPM. That said, there are notable exceptions (Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, etc.) to this, and you can see many of the poorest states also have high SPM values. All in all, it's a wash.

10

J_McJesky t1_jdxm5an wrote

Does the SPM take homelessness into account? If it has weighting for higher rates of unhoused individuals, the correlation could simply be with climate. CA and TX for example are wealthy, have higher than average homelessness, and have few days below freezing annually in their major population centers.

2

FlyingSquirlez OP t1_jdxqxhi wrote

The data comes from the Current Population Survey, which is sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. This is a household survey, so it only samples those with an address. This is a potential shortcoming of the survey, as states like Hawaii, New York, and California with homelessness rates of ~0.3% to ~0.5% may in fact get undercounted.

6

vindictivejazz t1_jdymzh3 wrote

Probably more cost of living than anything else. I’m comfortably upper middle class in the Midwest but my same salary would put me at or below the poverty line in NYC, DC, or San Fran. Which this measure accounts for

1

jmlinden7 t1_je0jjcc wrote

It roughly correlates to cost of living, but Hawaii and Washington (which have high cost of living) are still pretty low in this measure.

It's just a combination of cost of living and unadjusted poverty rate. Hawaii and Washington have very low unadjusted poverty rates. California has very high cost of living.

1

GeneralMe21 t1_jdvyh95 wrote

Mississippi not winning this battle?

11

FlyingSquirlez OP t1_jdw1e68 wrote

Mississippi has the highest official poverty rate, but when adjusted for cost of living it drops "all the way down" to fourth highest (including DC).

33

Urmambulant t1_jdz4lnk wrote

You have to love the tenacity by which MS holds on to their standards. They were low in 1850's, and by god, FOR god, they shall low remain!

1

FlyingSquirlez OP t1_jdvxyqi wrote

The SPM, first released in 2011 and produced with support from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many government programs that are designed to assist low-income families but are not included in the official poverty measure. The SPM also includes federal and state taxes and work and medical expenses. In addition, the SPM accounts for geographic variation in poverty thresholds, while the official poverty measure does not.

Census website that has the report data, including useful statistics such as official poverty measure by state, margins of error, and further information on how poverty data is collected in the census: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-277.html

The map was created using MapChart.

9

mastakhan t1_jdwgc2f wrote

Worth highlighting that because the SPM adjusts for geographical housing costs, high cost of living locations are naturally going to have much higher rates of poverty. Many people are being priced out of high cost of living areas (and is an important part of the picture), but also worth understanding that even people making well above the poverty line would be considered poor in this measure, even if they're not considered poor in the majority of the country.

22

jmlinden7 t1_jdwjilh wrote

Why would it matter if they're not considered poor in the majority of the country, when their income makes them poor where they actually live? If you tell someone making $40k in San Francisco that $40k isn't considered poor in Mississippi, that doesn't help the fact that they can't pay their bills every month

10

mastakhan t1_jdwk9nt wrote

I agree with you, and noted this as important in my comment above. I'm just adding context for understanding why the SPM differs from the official measure of poverty.

15

LakeSun t1_je0dt9t wrote

That's all true, but in California, the Pot is extremely strong. There's a horde of young people that don't have jobs and are begging on the street. It's as bad a heroin addiction. This pot gives you schizophrenia symptoms too. Plus the dealers are cutting their weed with fentanyl.

NJ just passed a law banning legal sale of overly potent weed. It's an epidemic.

"New Jersey will cap total dose per package at 100mg THC, and the edible in each package must be demarcated into 10mg THC portions."

Also, it seems to be happening in NY too.

−2

orchidloom t1_je3mvis wrote

Holy cow that's a lot of misinformation. No, weed does not give you schizophrenia symptoms. No, people are not putting fentanyl into weed. Are edible THC products too strong? Sure, I'll give you that. Most people without a tolerance do not need the high amount of THC in edibles, especially considering most people want to eat more than one bite of something.

2

LordBrandon t1_jdwzg50 wrote

It's hard to be homeless in the middle of a field in Montana.

9

Help_Glum t1_jdw4c6g wrote

I’ve never heard of the SPM, very interesting. Thanks, OP.

6

OwenLoveJoy t1_jdy4952 wrote

The Midwest plus some of the mountain states and upper New England looking good

6

splatomat t1_jdyvoyt wrote

That's probably because its far tougher to be homeless in Minnesota in January than California. It goes below freezing and then stays there 24 hours a day for weeks on end, sometimes. The outdoors just becomes lethal. Lots of people hop on trains or evacuate for winter and come back during more temperate months. Some people tough it out.

It's very hard to see people living in tents outside when its -20 degrees and not believe that our system is fucked to hell and back. Yet some manage to do just that.

3

OwenLoveJoy t1_jdzoas7 wrote

Homeless people make up a negligible share of those in poverty though. The big difference is that California has a huge poor migrant hispanic population and a high cost of living

3

al1ceinw0nderland t1_jdzok0t wrote

This survey doesn't account for homelessness, though. OP mentioned in another comment that only people with addresses were surveyed.

1

confusedapegenius t1_jdzvu6e wrote

I love that this captures local/state housing costs. That makes much more sense than leaving it out of context.

When extremely rich states like California have the highest poverty rates, it seems to highlight the failure of the real estate housing market in proving economically appropriate shelter for sizeable portions of the population. I would argue that non market housing is an appropriate remedy.

2

nine_of_swords t1_je1vxjv wrote

When you take error margins, it gets even more telling. Alabama has the highest margin of error (and by a decent margin, +/- 1.9%, next would be KY/AZ at 1.4). It's error range overlaps with the majority of the error ranges of other states. The only state it doesn't overlap with, where Alabama is the lower range, is California (DC, too, but that's not a state.).

1

PredictorX1 t1_je5206m wrote

I think it's interesting to see this violate the usual political leanings. Blue California and New York don't fare too well, but neither do deep south Louisiana, Mississippi or Florida. On the other hand leftward leaning Illinois, New Jersey and Massachusetts are middle-of-the-road.

2

FlyingSquirlez OP t1_je6xdrb wrote

I thought this was interesting too. The correlation between political leaning (Using 2020 presidential margin) and SPM is negligible - it basically just looks like a blob on a scatter chart.

2

BasicConsultancy t1_jdxa3ia wrote

I always thought of Califronia as a rich state with glamourous Holywood people. Same with New York with its wal street and rich investment bankers.

1

FlyingSquirlez OP t1_jdxaxd0 wrote

Well, you're not entirely wrong to think that. While these places are rich when taken as a whole or on average, there is a lot of poverty that exists too.

10

AnybodySeeMyKeys t1_jdybu18 wrote

Rich on the coasts. Inland? I'm from Alabama and drove through some parts of the Inland Empire where I thought I was cruising through Wilcox County.

3

Mr_Havin_penis t1_jdyn79q wrote

I can’t wait to hear all the Californians tell everyone why it’s not Californians fault.

1

confusedapegenius t1_jdzvehf wrote

This measure captures housing costs. They have gone up just about everywhere, but several highly populated areas in California are amongst the most expensive in the country. They also have very high gdp, of course.

So if it’s California’s (or anyone’s) “fault”, it’s because they didn’t build enough non-market housing. Which I would agree with.

2

RedditQueso t1_je8owmt wrote

Greedy ass California property owners are the leading cause of that deep red color.

1

maxwolfie t1_jdz6zv2 wrote

Wow, what’s going on with CA and NY?

0