Fletch wrote:
Did someone mention shitholes?
Guest wrote:California does not have the highest poverty rate, and I'm sorry I'm going to have to get all mathematical on you all again
There are various means of measuring poverty but the two most important are absolute poverty and relative poverty.
Absolute poverty is defined as a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services
Relative poverty is defined as the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. There are various measure but a good rough guide is the number of people below 60% of the median income for that state.
A median is not an average - for the stream of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 500 the average is 102, the median is 3.
California counts itself as having a high relative poverty rate because wages and salaries in California are relatively high and for the AVERAGE citizen, and even the slightly below average one, the lifestyle is comfortable and 60% of the median wage is much higher than the American average - about $10,000 higher - Texas is much closer to the average, in fact just a couple of hundred bucks below the national average, and then you get the shithole states like Mississippi that are as far below the national average as California is above.
So California has a higher relative poverty rate because the average standard of living is higher.
Math can be fun.
Maddog wrote:Guest wrote:California does not have the highest poverty rate, and I'm sorry I'm going to have to get all mathematical on you all again
There are various means of measuring poverty but the two most important are absolute poverty and relative poverty.
Absolute poverty is defined as a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services
Relative poverty is defined as the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. There are various measure but a good rough guide is the number of people below 60% of the median income for that state.
A median is not an average - for the stream of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 500 the average is 102, the median is 3.
California counts itself as having a high relative poverty rate because wages and salaries in California are relatively high and for the AVERAGE citizen, and even the slightly below average one, the lifestyle is comfortable and 60% of the median wage is much higher than the American average - about $10,000 higher - Texas is much closer to the average, in fact just a couple of hundred bucks below the national average, and then you get the shithole states like Mississippi that are as far below the national average as California is above.
So California has a higher relative poverty rate because the average standard of living is higher.
Math can be fun.
Yes, the standard of living or the cost of living is higher.
Actual income is irrelevant. That's why the US census bureau ranks California with the highest poverty rate, because after all, it's all relative to what your money can buy.
Guest wrote:Maddog wrote:Guest wrote:California does not have the highest poverty rate, and I'm sorry I'm going to have to get all mathematical on you all again
There are various means of measuring poverty but the two most important are absolute poverty and relative poverty.
Absolute poverty is defined as a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services
Relative poverty is defined as the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. There are various measure but a good rough guide is the number of people below 60% of the median income for that state.
A median is not an average - for the stream of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 500 the average is 102, the median is 3.
California counts itself as having a high relative poverty rate because wages and salaries in California are relatively high and for the AVERAGE citizen, and even the slightly below average one, the lifestyle is comfortable and 60% of the median wage is much higher than the American average - about $10,000 higher - Texas is much closer to the average, in fact just a couple of hundred bucks below the national average, and then you get the shithole states like Mississippi that are as far below the national average as California is above.
So California has a higher relative poverty rate because the average standard of living is higher.
Math can be fun.
Yes, the standard of living or the cost of living is higher.
Actual income is irrelevant. That's why the US census bureau ranks California with the highest poverty rate, because after all, it's all relative to what your money can buy.
When you don't understand something say so don't just pull something out of your ass.
There is an index for quality of life and whereas California doesn't come out on top it is far from the bottom
While we're having fun with graphics let's add this one
As you can see for every dollar in revenue the US worker generates he gets around 32 cents, the government gets 12 cents and the employers, usually big corporations get 44 cents. That's right if you add your cut and the government's cut of the revenue that YOU generate the corporations still get more.
Math can be informative as well as being fun
Guest wrote:Maddog wrote:Guest wrote:California does not have the highest poverty rate, and I'm sorry I'm going to have to get all mathematical on you all again
There are various means of measuring poverty but the two most important are absolute poverty and relative poverty.
Absolute poverty is defined as a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services
Relative poverty is defined as the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. There are various measure but a good rough guide is the number of people below 60% of the median income for that state.
A median is not an average - for the stream of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 500 the average is 102, the median is 3.
California counts itself as having a high relative poverty rate because wages and salaries in California are relatively high and for the AVERAGE citizen, and even the slightly below average one, the lifestyle is comfortable and 60% of the median wage is much higher than the American average - about $10,000 higher - Texas is much closer to the average, in fact just a couple of hundred bucks below the national average, and then you get the shithole states like Mississippi that are as far below the national average as California is above.
So California has a higher relative poverty rate because the average standard of living is higher.
Math can be fun.
Yes, the standard of living or the cost of living is higher.
Actual income is irrelevant. That's why the US census bureau ranks California with the highest poverty rate, because after all, it's all relative to what your money can buy.
When you don't understand something say so don't just pull something out of your ass.
There is an index for quality of life and whereas California doesn't come out on top it is far from the bottom
While we're having fun with graphics let's add this one
As you can see for every dollar in revenue the US worker generates he gets around 32 cents, the government gets 12 cents and the employers, usually big corporations get 44 cents. That's right if you add your cut and the government's cut of the revenue that YOU generate the corporations still get more.
Math can be informative as well as being fun
Guest wrote:Maddog wrote:Guest wrote:California does not have the highest poverty rate, and I'm sorry I'm going to have to get all mathematical on you all again
There are various means of measuring poverty but the two most important are absolute poverty and relative poverty.
Absolute poverty is defined as a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services
Relative poverty is defined as the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. There are various measure but a good rough guide is the number of people below 60% of the median income for that state.
A median is not an average - for the stream of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 500 the average is 102, the median is 3.
California counts itself as having a high relative poverty rate because wages and salaries in California are relatively high and for the AVERAGE citizen, and even the slightly below average one, the lifestyle is comfortable and 60% of the median wage is much higher than the American average - about $10,000 higher - Texas is much closer to the average, in fact just a couple of hundred bucks below the national average, and then you get the shithole states like Mississippi that are as far below the national average as California is above.
So California has a higher relative poverty rate because the average standard of living is higher.
Math can be fun.
Yes, the standard of living or the cost of living is higher.
Actual income is irrelevant. That's why the US census bureau ranks California with the highest poverty rate, because after all, it's all relative to what your money can buy.
When you don't understand something say so don't just pull something out of your ass.
There is an index for quality of life and whereas California doesn't come out on top it is far from the bottom
While we're having fun with graphics let's add this one
As you can see for every dollar in revenue the US worker generates he gets around 32 cents, the government gets 12 cents and the employers, usually big corporations get 44 cents. That's right if you add your cut and the government's cut of the revenue that YOU generate the corporations still get more.
Math can be informative as well as being fun
Fletch wrote:Guest, the images couldn't be copied over so I rummaged around that site and found the ones you wanted to show, saved them then uploaded as an attachment.
Maddog wrote:McAz wrote:Maddog wrote:Foreign policy yes, not the relative poverty level between states.
The domestic policy of the US is quite the topic amongst those not native to the purple mountains and amber waves of grain.
I favour your policy on marijuana - my interest wanes after that.
Well, you don't obsess like others.
Our Attorney General may be messing up that ganja policy. I have liked or been indifferent about most of Trump's picks, but Jeff Sessions is a disaster for civil libertarians.
Stooo wrote:Maddog wrote:McAz wrote:Maddog wrote:Foreign policy yes, not the relative poverty level between states.
The domestic policy of the US is quite the topic amongst those not native to the purple mountains and amber waves of grain.
I favour your policy on marijuana - my interest wanes after that.
Well, you don't obsess like others.
Our Attorney General may be messing up that ganja policy. I have liked or been indifferent about most of Trump's picks, but Jeff Sessions is a disaster for civil libertarians.
Is Government intrusion going to get worse under the increasingly authoritarian regime? Your Police are better armed that the National Guard who shot American kids in the sixties.
Guest wrote:Maddog wrote:Guest wrote:California does not have the highest poverty rate, and I'm sorry I'm going to have to get all mathematical on you all again
There are various means of measuring poverty but the two most important are absolute poverty and relative poverty.
Absolute poverty is defined as a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services
Relative poverty is defined as the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. There are various measure but a good rough guide is the number of people below 60% of the median income for that state.
A median is not an average - for the stream of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 500 the average is 102, the median is 3.
California counts itself as having a high relative poverty rate because wages and salaries in California are relatively high and for the AVERAGE citizen, and even the slightly below average one, the lifestyle is comfortable and 60% of the median wage is much higher than the American average - about $10,000 higher - Texas is much closer to the average, in fact just a couple of hundred bucks below the national average, and then you get the shithole states like Mississippi that are as far below the national average as California is above.
So California has a higher relative poverty rate because the average standard of living is higher.
Math can be fun.
Yes, the standard of living or the cost of living is higher.
Actual income is irrelevant. That's why the US census bureau ranks California with the highest poverty rate, because after all, it's all relative to what your money can buy.
When you don't understand something say so don't just pull something out of your ass.
There is an index for quality of life and whereas California doesn't come out on top it is far from the bottom
While we're having fun with graphics let's add this one
As you can see for every dollar in revenue the US worker generates he gets around 32 cents, the government gets 12 cents and the employers, usually big corporations get 44 cents. That's right if you add your cut and the government's cut of the revenue that YOU generate the corporations still get more.
Math can be informative as well as being fun
Maddog wrote:Guest wrote:Maddog wrote:Guest wrote:California does not have the highest poverty rate, and I'm sorry I'm going to have to get all mathematical on you all again
There are various means of measuring poverty but the two most important are absolute poverty and relative poverty.
Absolute poverty is defined as a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services
Relative poverty is defined as the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live. There are various measure but a good rough guide is the number of people below 60% of the median income for that state.
A median is not an average - for the stream of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 500 the average is 102, the median is 3.
California counts itself as having a high relative poverty rate because wages and salaries in California are relatively high and for the AVERAGE citizen, and even the slightly below average one, the lifestyle is comfortable and 60% of the median wage is much higher than the American average - about $10,000 higher - Texas is much closer to the average, in fact just a couple of hundred bucks below the national average, and then you get the shithole states like Mississippi that are as far below the national average as California is above.
So California has a higher relative poverty rate because the average standard of living is higher.
Math can be fun.
Yes, the standard of living or the cost of living is higher.
Actual income is irrelevant. That's why the US census bureau ranks California with the highest poverty rate, because after all, it's all relative to what your money can buy.
When you don't understand something say so don't just pull something out of your ass.
There is an index for quality of life and whereas California doesn't come out on top it is far from the bottom
While we're having fun with graphics let's add this one
As you can see for every dollar in revenue the US worker generates he gets around 32 cents, the government gets 12 cents and the employers, usually big corporations get 44 cents. That's right if you add your cut and the government's cut of the revenue that YOU generate the corporations still get more.
Math can be informative as well as being fun
Who mentioned quality of life?
I said cost of living.
I
McAz wrote:Maddog wrote:Once again, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation, according to a new U.S. Census Bureau report.
A little more than 1 in 5 Californians—20.4 percent—live in poverty. The national average is 14.7 percent according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure which accounts for regional cost-of-living differences, out-of-pocket medical expenses and other items, unlike the older Official Poverty Measure.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevor ... 86cf0d5fb1
The actual US Census report is available at this link if you don't like Forbes. If you don't like the US Census report because it doesn't jive with your bias, I don't know what to tell you.
I don't why you think Brits would have a bias about relative poverty rates in US. That aside, I am intrigued by the Forbes' comparison between Texas and California, especially with regard to their demographic. If Texas should have worse poverty, why doesn't it?
Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests