From Ryan McMaken at Mises.org:
Given the importance of the cost of living, it is very problematic that the official poverty rate totals for US states do not take costs into account.
When measuring poverty rates internationally, poverty is just defined as households that make 50 percent or 60 percent of the national median income. [...] It simply makes poverty a purely relative measure, so we end up with a situation where purchasing power for a median household in one country (say, Portugal) is actually lower than a poverty-level household in another country (say, the US).
The US official measure, on the other hand, attempts to get around this problem by defining the poverty rate as an actual dollar amount based on what a household can buy.
[...] The problem is this dollar amount is applied nationwide and then used to calculate poverty rates.
[...] Many have noticed certain regional trends here, and that has led to a myriad of articles claiming that so-called "red states" have higher poverty rates than the "blue states." In many cases, "red states" is really code for "low tax" or "free-market-ish" state. In other words, this map "proves" that low taxes and freer economies cause more poverty.
[...] If we adjust the states and poverty rates for the cost of living, however, the map looks a bit different [...]
In this case, the state with the highest poverty rate is California at 23 percent. Arizona and Florida are close behind with rates of 22 percent and 20 percent, respectively. New York has risen to sixth place with a poverty rate of 18 percent, while Mississippi has fallen to eighth place with a rate of 17 percent.
Here we see our bias-confirming assumptions no longer seem to apply since no correlation is apparent along the lines of the red-state/blue-state claims.
[...] Obviously, we have to look somewhere beyond our neat-and-nice ideas about red states and blue states to come up with an explanation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:24AM
The old Republican v Democrat thing doesn't really work at all.
There's a political class, and their job is to keep business profitable. Some of these politicians are financed by the oil industry, some of them are financed by the entertainment industry, and some of them are financed by the banks.
None of them give a flying toss about you or your community, you don't provide enough campaign contributions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:35AM
In Canada, we have a '3 party system' which actually is expanding (come on Pirate Party!)...
We have the left and the right (not going to google which is Dem and which is Rep), and we have the 'more left', and we have the Greens (go greens, now that Harper/Hitler is gone). And we have independents and others, but the 'more left' (NDP) have actually mattered time to time.
I dunno about a 2 party system: you're just trading losers for losers. At least we can trade losers for losers for hopefully not quite as big of losers....... (ymmv)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:37AM
Add-on: a 2 party system just doesn't seem like Democracy to me. At least we can pretend'acy'. tm.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday November 17 2015, @06:08AM
Federally, it's a 2-party system. Liberal and Conversatives have ruled since forever. The NDP, historically, have been remarkably unimportant. Every once in awhile, they get to join whichever of the other two parties got the most seats [but not enough for a majority] to temporarily be a largely ignored part of a coalition government.
The last election, they were super-hyped by the media, polling up with the Libs and ahead of the Convervatives, but still came in a very-distant third-place, with just over 10% of the seats.
Voting NDP in Canada is about as useful as voting Independent is in the US.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @01:22PM
Voting NDP in Canada is about as useful as voting Independent is in the US.
Useful, that is? I only vote for people who I believe are not evil scumbags, and if none exist, then I just write some person's name down who I wish was running. Voting the 'the lesser evil' is a race to the bottom and a self-fulfilling prophecy. One candidate merely has to be less evil than the others to win your ignorant vote, so they all can keep more and more evil as long as one is at least slightly less evil in your eyes.
The only votes that matter to me are ones not in favor of evil. The rest are just the worthless votes of the ignorant and unintelligent majority, and only time will tell if they are even capable of comprehending how to fix this problem.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 17 2015, @11:01PM
Third parties came and went, sometimes getting as much as 20 percent [wikipedia.org] of the vote, but never more than a couple of seats, and no real power.
Then, in a fit of madness, we were promised a referendum on proportional representation, we voted for it, despite the massive amount of money some of our wealthiest people [wikipedia.org] put into a campaign against MMP.
This has resulted in a much more representative system. I live in an one of the safest National Party seats in the country, currently held by a slimey, hand-picked party backroom hack, but at least I have a party vote, meaning that one of my votes counts for something.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:32AM
Wait you mean government statistics are made up and pure bullshit? No way! As for red vs blue - please. They are BOTH out to screw you as much as they can.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:50AM
Wait you mean government statistics are made up and pure bullshit? No way!
Wait, you mean a single statistical metric can't capture the infinite nuance of the human condition? No way!
Let's just not bother looking into this stuff, then.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @04:53AM
If you dig deep enough into where demographic numbers come from you will find horrifying stuff. I mean 25% missing data and using SSN as a pseudo random number to stochastically fill it in level issues. My impression is that the data is processed by a series of excel spreadsheets, which would make it essentially irreproducible and impossible to debug. This is all totally opaque to the end user, only those who dig deep will discover it. This is affecting stuff like population estimates which are used everywhere.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday November 17 2015, @12:29PM
Wait, you mean a single statistical metric can't capture the infinite nuance of the human condition? No way!
I'd agree with and extend your remark with an "over time" aspect.
At one time, in say, 1930, the way we calculated unemployment, or even the concept of considering it a key economic indicator, made sense. Then for continuities sake we did the same thing for 80 years. Just like doing payroll data processing in 1930 is pretty much irrelevant in 2010, ancient economic indicators are meaningless when setting policy after the economy has evolved away from the initial condition for a century.
Generals and Admirals always fight the last war. Likewise we are perfectly positioned if the economy of 1890 ever comes back again. A corollary is we'll never have the numerical results of the great depression or the 70s stagflation again, even when we live thru it the reported heavily doctored numbers will be awesome even if the entire population is in soup kitchen lines.
A cousin of this line of reasoning is people like giving good news so metrics only go up over a long enough time period due to human nature.
For some concrete examples look at the uselessness of something like classical Graham era securities analysis when stock prices have been in a central bank driven bubble for a generation or two. Or the uselessness of thinking intra-bank interest "prime" rates actually mean anything in a post industrial consumer driven economy where the actual driving interest rate is the 29.999% credit card interest rate or whatever your state permits.
A longer form example is back when there was more income equality and the ratio of jobs to citizens was closer to 1:1 something like GNP or its bastardized cousin GDP actually meant something to the citizenry as a whole. Not so much anymore. Something like median inflation adjusted income is probably a better policy tool, although the numbers aren't as good so human nature kicks in and guess how we define the economic health of "the nation"?
Likewise if you want to see a bastardized meaningless concept try modern inflation numbers. The original concept was kinda interesting, but the numbers are so heavily doctored they are virtually meaningless and provide no long term predictive power (although people insist on using them anyway, and surprise surprise human nature means they are invariably good numbers).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:50AM
It's not a matter of "made up" statistics, it's a matter of how the numbers are interpreted. The gov't may collect statistics, but it's not really their job to interpret it, or at least shouldn't be. We have different unemployment metrics because each metric has different uses and tells us something different. The same perhaps should be done for "poverty".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:03AM
TFA points out the comparing poverty levels of two states w/o adjusting for cost of living is problematic. But making that adjustment is problematic too, because the difference in cost of living, to a significant extent, reflects differences in demand for living in locale vs. another. It's hard to find affordable housing in San Francisco, for example, because so many well-paid professionals want to live there, and the housing stock is limited. But if a resident of San Francisco moves to Indianapolis after ten years, s/he can cash out 10 years of savings from the San Francisco-sized salary and use it to live like a king out in the boonies.
If you want to make a state by state comparison of average wealth, I might suggest using educational attainment as a proxy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment [wikipedia.org]
That finesses the issue of local standard of living. Sure, there are problems with the metric of a "college degree" (Stanford vs. University of Phoenix), but that just adds noise, not necessarily systematic bias.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday November 17 2015, @05:08AM
If anyone actually wanted to live in Indianapolis, then it too would have a high cost of living caused by high housing prices.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:07AM
I know damned good and well how much they throw down the socialist program hole. They're like a buck fiddy away from having to file bankruptcy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:17AM
I tell ya there's no personal responsibility, just crack-smoking leeches with welfare cards backed by the libs and the SJWs and corrupt politicians and their patronage deals raising taxes so they can line their own pockets and Al Gore lying about phony climate change along with George Soros and Nancy Pelosi while putting hardworking Mom and Pop outfits out of business, because the libs gave tax breaks to the Chinese. And now the SJWs want to take away our guns too.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 17 2015, @08:08AM
Along with the crack-smoking leeches, is it possible that the Mighty Buzz has shielded hisownself from down modding? Multiple times I have tried to smite my homeboy for what he should have thought better of posting, but the first time it came back as "comment already at limit", which obviously was not true, since the comment was at Troll 0, rather then Troll -1. Always room for improvement, you see. And after that, an the rebound, came the response "comment already moderated", and it stayed at Troll 0.
Now maybe my moderation is incorrect. It would not be the first time. I once modded Ethanol_fueled "Funny", until I realized it only encouraged him. But that is no reason for my moderation to be ineffective. Reddit? Censorship? Mighty Buzz, say it ain't so!!
(For those who do not get the reference, the Chicago White Socks were accused of throwing the World Series of 1919 (of Baseball, an American game), and a young boy asked "Shoeless Joe" Jackson to deny it was true. He didn't.)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2015, @11:40AM
Along with the crack-smoking leeches, is it possible that the Mighty Buzz has shielded hisownself from down modding?
Check your config file and make sure you're not adding +1 to troll mods.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 17 2015, @05:22PM
We have our Poe's Law winner...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:08AM
$150K in NYC is a middle class income after taxes and fees and cost of living are done with you. Elsewhere it goes much further.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:30AM
$150K in NYC is a middle class income after taxes and fees and cost of living are done with you. Elsewhere it goes much further.
That's true if you live in Manhattan or certain areas of Brooklyn and small swath of Queens. For the most part, if you live in the outer boroughs you can be middle class on $60-80k gross income.
The expensive parts of NYC are mostly that way because housing (a decently sized 2BR apartment rents for $3,500-$6,000 a month, and sells for $600K-$1.5M or more) costs are astronomical. For that kind of money you can live in a literal (and not even a mc-)mansion in most places. Other stuff is expensive too, since businesses have to pay for the real estate as well. But the biggest nut is housing costs.
I'd point out that the same can be said for places like Boston and San Francisco/South Bay too.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 17 2015, @12:06PM
No, not even. We live in a rent-stabilized building in Park Slope for much less rent than that, but after taxes and higher cost of living (and also those wonderful student loans) are taken out, there's not that much left over. Pretty depressing to be an executive and still not feeling like you're getting ahead.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:38AM
You're out of touch:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/29/income_distribution_of_new_york_city_what_does_it_take_to_be_rich.html [slate.com]
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday November 17 2015, @09:48AM
You're out of touch:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/29/income_distribution_of_new_york_city_what_does_it_take_to_be_rich.html [slate.com]
Actually, I was right on the money (no pun intended -- okay It was intended :) ).
From the link you posted:
Of those who live in New York City [wikipedia.org] about 19% (a little over 1.6 million) people live in Manhattan. Add in the ritzier parts of Brooklyn and the small swath of Queens I mentioned, and you get up around 25% (or about 2 million) of the city's population. So your source tracks with my comment.
I didn't say that NYC was exceptional in terms of the income curve (although, as you'll see below, Manhattan is). I specifically mentioned housing costs. Many Manhattanites pay 40-50% (or more) of their net income on rent/mortgage/maintenance.
For the record, per capita and median household income [wikipedia.org] by borough (each borough is a county) in NYC breaks down as follows:
Borough (County) Per Capita Median Household
The Bronx (Bronx County): $17,575 $34,264
Brooklyn (Kings County): $23,605 $43,567
Manhattan (New York County): $111,386 $64,971
Queens (Queens County): $25,553 $55,291
Staten Island (Richmond County): $30,843 $71,084
I know it looks like crap, but I'm not sure how to insert a table here. You can figure it out. I'm not going to get into the demographics around these numbers, you can do the research yourself.
So. What exactly did I say that shows me to be, as you put it, out of touch?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Tuesday November 17 2015, @12:07PM
Manhattan's middle class workers primarily commute from outside. I don't think that people can call themselves middle class just because they spend half their money on rent to avoid commuting.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday November 17 2015, @08:57PM
It seems that your username is quite accurate, at least WRT this topic.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Wednesday November 18 2015, @01:11AM
I was a bit confused that you were replying to me as if I replied to you when I was originally trying to tell Phoenix he's out of touch claiming $150k is middle class for New York.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 18 2015, @03:40AM
I was a bit confused that you were replying to me as if I replied to you when I was originally trying to tell Phoenix he's out of touch claiming $150k is middle class for New York.
Your comment was flagged (as I received a message about it) as a reply to my comment. As such, I assumed you were responding to me. My mistake.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:43AM
Much, MUCH further. A couple I know moved to the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. Why:
NY: $1200/month gets you a 1 bed room apt in a decent area. Might be someones converted home, might be a run down 4-6 apt shoe box setup. A so-so area, $1200 might get you a 2 bedroom. Though the area is probably shitty and run down.
AZ: $800/month gets you a single story ranch house with a pool and two car garage. Two big bed rooms, full kitchen and your own washer/dryer. Your own home complete with front and back yard. They now own a home as he used the GI bill for a loan. They don't make much, together they make about 70k/yr. But it is plenty for them with leftovers for leisurely activities. 150k and they'd be living like kings.
You can rent a room for $800 here in NY or rent a REALLY shitty basement or studio if you're lucky to find one that cheap. I was paying $800 for a small studio in Suffolk. Had a friend paying $500 plus utilities split three ways with two other roommates in Oceanside, in Nassau county.
I know a guy paying $2500/month for some shitty apartment in one of those new buildings they vomited up in Williamsburg. My brother was paying $1550/mo for a really shitty 2 bedroom, 5th floor walk up in Astoria that had less square feet than some studios I have seen. The second bedroom could hardly qualify for a closet much less a bedroom. Knew another guy splitting a $3000/mo 2br on 58st and I think 6th or 7th ave just for the ability to say he lived in Manhattan.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @11:50AM
What's the median NY (state) income, and what proportion of NY are earning less than half of that? Isn't that really the state-based poverty level. Applying a local fiddle factor to a national statistic can't be better than just using a local statistic, surely?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 17 2015, @12:44PM
There is some truth to that AC but we also have states that shouldn't be states. NYC has about as much in common with rural upstate as downtown chicago has in common with rural southern illinois. At least in terms of economic conditions they may as well be different countries not one single state.
I live north of there and its a midwest pattern that you can earn $20K in the rural areas but $20K provides a decent lifestyle, or earn $80K in "the" big city but at only $80K you'll have a poverty lifestyle (very high crime, dumpy tiny housing, crap schools, nothing you can afford to do but drink/drugs).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:09PM
There is some truth to that AC but we also have states that shouldn't be states. NYC has about as much in common with rural upstate as downtown chicago has in common with rural southern illinois. At least in terms of economic conditions they may as well be different countries not one single state.
You don't even need to go that far south, once you're an hour or two outside of downtown Chicago (south of I-80 or west of I-39) you're already in a different world. Even closer in the west and northwest suburbs are quite divorced from Chicago.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:13PM
You're better off, my friend. Some cities are worth the trouble, but that one ain't. Horrible weather, horrible people. They combine the worst of the small town (narrow-minded, petty) with the worst of the big city (arrogant, high-falutin'). There's also the fact that the downtown was built on an Indian graveyard, whose residents seem really pissed off about it.
Milwaukee or Madison are preferable. Or, even better, Saugatuck; that's a lovely town.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:35PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:37PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 17 2015, @04:07PM
At least separating urban regions from rural ones probably makes sense.
I was able to think of a strictly cultural non-economic example that being Florida where I'm told if you want to think "south" you need to go to the north part of Florida because the southern Floridians are culturally not southerners. In Miami people are like "WTF are grits?" or however you say that in Spanish. Although living in north Florida is supposedly like living in the South, you can get a decent chicken fried steak and the sweetened ice tea is basically brown corn syrup level of sweet. I lived for awhile in Huntsville aka rocket city or whatever they called it a long time ago, and I miss grits and every couple years buy some although they don't taste as good in the frozen north as the real southern stuff.
And I've heard the opposite cultural example in Utah where I'm told Utah is Utah pretty much everywhere in Utah, for example SLC is merely overcrowded Utah, not a different Utah... Kind of the opposite of a Michigan where UP culture really isn't that similar to inner city Detroit culture.
(Score: 3, Touché) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:33AM
for the most part away from Portland, due to the rapidly climbing rents. That's largely due to Californians moving here.
I myself sleep under a highway overpass, though a friend will be buying me a tent soon.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday November 17 2015, @04:50AM
I really do sleep under a highway overpass. I mostly do OK because that same friend bought me a good sleeping bag, closed-cell foam pad, tarp, a campstove and some propane. When I'm out of propane he buys me some more.
But the cold wind makes it hard to write code or to practice guitar so I asked for a tent so as to keep the wind off, but I asked him to delay my tent purchase until I can find a place where I can leave it set up all the time. I may have found a place but need to look closer, I've only seen it from a distance.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:14PM
Why? Can you really not afford any more shelter than that, or is it something other than money? Like, are you trying to show the world that some Americans realize the American dream has problems? That you at least aren't all talk but really have reduced your environmental footprint to a sustainable level?
Or are you pulling our legs? Not trolling, but just having a laugh.
For myself, I feel in many ways trapped. I'd like to live lighter, but find it difficult to impossible. Family members fight me on what little savings I try. Turn down the thermostat, to 72F, and everyone else starts whining that it's cold. Suggestions that they put on heavier clothing are met with scowls. I am constantly pushed to stop being such a tightwad. I know very well that the house is a typically cheap, shoddily designed and built wasteful embarrassment of a building, with even more embarrassing glitz and shiny to make it look better, but it's not so easy to break out. Most housing is the same. Moving in to another house will accomplish nothing in that direction. Have to get really radical, custom build your own home, or go for one of those tiny 500 sq ft or less micro houses, or something of that sort. There's all sorts of red tape and social expectations that will try to block you every step of the way on a project like that. Most I've been able to do is small stuff, like switch over to CFL and LED lighting, and practice hypermiling when I must travel.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday November 17 2015, @09:42PM
Most commonly I was told that I "would not fit with the company culture".
To discriminate against the mentally ill in employment is unlawful under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC and DOJ have been quite successful in pressing lawsuits against the sorts of employers who discriminate against people like me, but only I myself have standing to file an ADA complaint.
The reason I don't do so is that I agree quite strongly with the assertion that the best response to hate speech is more speech. I address this kind of thing extensively in my writing.
And yes this really IS all I can afford. That I was able to purchase a bus ticket today is the result of an all-night restaurant waitress giving me my Pepsi with infinite free refills absolutely free of charge.
There are some good people in this world - the waitresses at that restaurant, the owner of the Grover Beach, California Burger King who gave me a double whopper meal when I became completely convinced my old girlfriend had been murdered by her new boyfriend, the manager of the Paso Robles Carl's Jr. who gave me a free breakfast when she observed me pilfering her salsa bar.
I am a very, very good computer programmer. In certain limited but very important respects such as low-level debugging I am one of the very best in the industry.
What upsets me the most about being homeless is not the cold wind and rain but that all my software skills are going completely to waste.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday November 17 2015, @09:45PM
It is still warm even when it's wet.
I'm planning to buy a used - actually totally thrashed - cargo van in a few months, then fix it up. I'm handy with every kind of tool and have lots of experience working on cars.
A cargo van is really all the living space I require.
It turns out that it's perfectly legal to sleep in your car in Portland, provided you don't run afoul of other laws such as time limits on parking.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:32PM
One of my friends has a life story with elements similar to yours. How true his stories are, I couldn't say, but I tend to believe him. He's very smart, but he has a bad temper. His life is just one unfair blow after another. Sent to the orphanage by parents who didn't want him. While there, suffered a bit of brain damage that has made him physically clumsy. He can't work on cars, can't feel how tight a nut is and will accidentally twist them off. In high school, a girl he rejected tried to frame him as a sadistic sexual deviant, and the school rushed to judgment and bought it, probably because he looks ugly, they didn't like him anyway, and orphans are always suspect. They were going to kick him out in his senior year, which would have seriously screwed him over. Further, they were going to require that he get therapy for the horrible stuff he allegedly wrote, and he was to pay for that therapy himself despite having no money whatsoever. That time he got a break, and the other members of his class who all knew what was really going on forced the school to reconsider. The vice principal responsible for the rush to judgment would rather have railroaded him than admit error (too typical of high school officialdom), but was overruled.
With high school diploma in hand, he tried to get employment, and was betrayed. A family that had been friendly towards him lost some family treasure. They consulted a psychic to find out whodunnit, and the psychic said "John", which is of course only the most common name of all, and his name is, yeah, John. They lured him over with a fake job offer, and imprisoned him in their domicile! The family member standing guard was probably the person who really stole the valuable item. Ragged on John for being a despicable thief, dishonest, untrustworthy, etc. They got him committed, and off he was dragged to an asylum where they drugged him with thorazine. It took him a year to persuade them to give him a weekend pass to visit family, and as soon as he was out, he promptly left the state. Most disturbing is how shockingly easy it was to have somebody committed. Took only two people to sign some sort of affidavit to declare him insane. Where was the due process? The mental institution was one of those corrupt sort of places more interested in collecting money than in proper medical diagnosis and treatment. Being someone on the outs with society smooths those paths far too much. Later, a psychiatrist who heard this story told him he wasn't paranoid, they really were out to get him. Seems to me there's all kinds of grounds to sue the crap out of everybody involved, but despite his hot temper, he has a lamentable tendency to take things lying down. I believe he is afraid to fight back against the mighty.
In another state, he got in a small accident at a shopping mall. Backed over a curb and damaged a bit of the sprinkler system. He tried to make good, but they were claiming damages of over $2000, which he could not afford, so he left that state too. He's had plenty more crap. In his various jobs, often blamed for things that were beyond his control, not his fault, but fired anyway. Been the victim of underhanded municipal revenue collection practices, like the time he got off work at a job where employees had to park in the street, only to discover that during the day, the city had installed parking meters, and ticketed everyone. Has had junkers for cars that have been entirely too costly to maintain. He's had health problems, and lived in apartments that instead of giving him a break, used his temporary inability to move out as an opportunity to gouge him with a huge rent increase. In spite of all that, he has worked his way up. But it has been very slow thanks to the constant assault from all directions, trying to squeeze more blood out of him.
So I don't know what to tell you. That the US is too harsh and predatory on people down on their luck, yes. Still, ability ought to count for something, and it should be possible for you to move up in the world. You are certainly articulate with your writing. No, I can't offer you a job, I lack work myself, have my own troubles to think about. In my free time, lately, I've been trying to grok Perl6, in particular, the new "grammar" part of the language. So far, I don't entirely get it. I've seen enough to figure out that the documentation is (as usual, sigh) quite lacking.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:48AM
Look carefully at the top of my resume [warplife.com]. And yes that is the link I give potential employers.
I had a far easier time finding work when my writing about my mental illness was at a different domain than my software consulting website. Eventually I concluded that it is far more important that others read my essays, than that I have a job.
Even so it sucks to be poor.
For the most part people are really nice to me. There is an all-night restaurant that I often frequent, I always have money to pay, I wouldn't set foot in the place if I didn't but even so the waitresses spring for my check.
I expect it helps that I avoid looking homeless. I dress nicely, keep my hair cut, brush my teeth and try not to talk to my hallucinations.
I am often offered housing by well-meaning but sorely uninformed people that don't understand what I mean when I point out that I have the Boy Scout Wilderness Survival Merit Badge. There are two blind men who sleep at the Portland Rescue Mission - that is, when they win the lottery and so can obtain a mat. Give that housing to them, I do just fine under my highway overpass.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by WalksOnDirt on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:37AM
You're going to have to more precise than which state someone lives in. The cost of living in San Francisco, CA, is much higher than in San Bernardino, CA, for instance.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @04:03AM
San Franciscans can get free solar installed on their homes if they make under $100k/year. That's their poverty limit. I only made over $50k/year once and never qualified for anything in S. Cali. So yes, big difference depending what part of the state.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by snick on Tuesday November 17 2015, @01:56PM
This.
1000x times this.
The new analysis suffers from the same problem as the old analysis. It just uses different arbitrary lines to group together communities with vastly different cost of living, and come up with the same flawed analysis.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:03PM
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday November 17 2015, @02:39PM
Yes and no. Of course the measure can be more granulated. But at some point there has to be a line that can be applied to everyone or we risk trapping people in their situations and glossing over their circumstance like there is no problem.
Say we do this by zip code (a slight exaggeration as you will shortly see). We end up with something that is very precise and relative to your neighbors. But it would be entirely imprecise in measure of poverty. There are some zip codes that are populated in entirety by rich people. So you can qualify someone making $300K a year as poor because all his neighbors make $1 mil and houses are $10 mil a piece. But this person is not hurting at all, and they can easily move anywhere else in the area or the country and do OK.
Likewise, and even worse, you can have a really run down neighborhood where rents are low because no one would live there unless they had no other choice, yet someone living their making $20K a year might not be "poor" because everyone else is on welfare and rent is only $300 a month. Does this person have opportunities to move out of that shit hole? Can he afford security plus one months rent plus paying rent going forward anywhere else? Hell no. They are trapped in that shit hole. Maybe they could get a slightly better paying job, but it would require a car, which they also cannot afford. So for now they have no other choice, and the future aint looking up.
Sure zip codes are maybe too much, but there exist entire cities that are like this, and even counties. In NJ for example the poorest and the wealthiest counties are actually right next to each other. Probably the reason one is poor is the same reason the other is the rich: people of means moved from one to the other to get away from the undesirables.
So to come up with a good size and criterion on which to base the wealth is somewhat problematic. I can hardly fault them for being inaccurate.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:56PM
Mansion in the countryside vs. Penthouse in Manhatten - please pay your fucking taxes or kill yourself
2 week summer holiday to one distant continent vs. 2 week summer holiday to a different distant continent - must be nice being you
Les Mis show vs. Madonna concert - well, you have strange tastes, have you considered skipping both?
Meal out at the Spanish restaurant vs. meal out at the Korean restaurant - enjoy!
Fantastic Four reboot vs. Batman reboot - see les mis above, how about you think about your savings?
2nd hand shoes to replace the ones with holes vs. 2nd hand jeans to replace the ones with holes - OK, that's not looking so healthy
McDonalds burger vs. McDonalds chips - holy moley, where's your welfare system?!?!
Poverty to me is one of the bottom two - when your choices are between *necessities* rather than luxuries.
Hmmm, I notice that whilst I am wearing "new" 2nd hand jeans, my old 2nd hand trainers do have holes in them. Fortunately, I can afford a replacent, so I can have both, I'm can't tick the bottom-but-one box. (Or the one above that either, for that matter, or even the one above that some weeks.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 17 2015, @04:32PM
Skip the income stats. Look at time preference. Its a combo of how far ahead can you plan and how much self control do you have to get there?
Regardless of current income or current net worth the folks who can't plan further ahead than what daytime TV show is on next are doomed to need lots of .gov help vs folks who are poor but have and execute serious plans usually don't need any help at all, or at most, only need temporary help.
I bet you could use something like payday loan use to predict poverty characteristic rates of a neighborhood based on time preference.
The .gov services vary, in that poor folks with time preference problems usually do the criminal justice revolving door thing until they get killed or get life in prison, whereas folks with the same problem but temporarily have money inevitably end up in the rehab-industrial complex or to a lesser extent white collar crime, more likely to have bankruptcy and stuff like that, etc.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:59AM
Factoring in housing costs (room and board) can be tricky because one can often accept smaller living quarters and/or more occupants per dwelling. Being more crowded is not necessarily "poor". Some like close company, or are at least okay with it. And in NY city one can live fairly well without a car. Living without a car in a rural area may be nearly impossible. And one may have more food and shopping choices in NY. Some may prefer more shopping choices over more living space.
There are different trade-offs one can make, and which trade-off combo makes one "poor" is a sticky equation. Measuring only real-estate is too narrow a factor.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday November 17 2015, @11:23AM
California and New York Are Poorer than You Think
How do you know what I think, Mr Headline?
PS Title case still sucks as well
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Informative) by gidds on Tuesday November 17 2015, @01:54PM
IMHO, the main problem with title case is its inconsistency, in that not every word is capitalised. So you need complex and conflicting rules about word position within the headline, open- vs closed-category words, and other rubbish.
Capitalising every word, on the other hand, is simple, clear, much less ambiguous, and easier to follow as a result. (For example, it lets you distinguish Frankie and Johnny from Frankie And Johnny even without any punctuation or font styling.)
Capitalise Everything In A Title! You Know It Makes Sense!
[sig redacted]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Tuesday November 17 2015, @12:20PM
I'm surprised there is not a normalized cost of living index. In baseball, and other sports, you have these normalized stats like wRC+, WAR, and so on which allow you to compare players on a normalized scale. We need something like that for pay that normalizes housing costs, taxes, fuel costs, and the other cost of living factors for an area so we can compare buying power better. In this age when everything is "big data" and involves statistics, I'm surprised no one has come up with this kind of stat yet. When I see articles about raw pay for, say, technology workers, I always want to see a stat like this.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 1) by meustrus on Tuesday November 17 2015, @07:46PM
I find it strange that this article is going on about a supposed bias-confirming assumption about poverty and politics. Coming from the left myself, I cannot recall hearing that red states are poorer because they are red states. I have, however, heard that because red states are poorer, they get more government assistance. Which would still be a valid point since this is about how the government decides who is in poverty. Is the author conflating those two arguments? Or does the author just talk to a different crowd than I do?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?