The South’s Economy Is Falling Behind: ‘All of a Sudden the Money Stops Flowing’

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by JManc

As is if money flow was unidirectional. I am sure my taxes go towards urban programs inner city Chicago and your taxes go to pay for someone on SSD in rural East Texas. And many of those poor folks in the south are marginalized voters without a voice and are predominately minority and/or disenfranchised. MS, for example, is 40% black yet a staunch republican state. You figure that one out. The poverty map reflects demographics in states like AL and MS too. The RGV region in Texas is overwhelmingly Hispanic and that is one of the most "blue" areas in the country but very poor.

Pretty much this. The difference between the South and the rest is the country is that the South's rural areas are more minority than the North's. The North and Midwest are practically lily white outside of the biggest cities.

Let's look at poverty rates on a more local level particularly in cities and metros where much of the population is concentrated. Showing those maps in former posts is no different than Trump supporters showing a vast sea of red on nationwide voting maps when much of the red is low population rural areas.

[badrunner]

Can big cities also subtract lower performing groups from their maps and figures to make themselves look better? Of course not that would be silly. There's nothing wrong with those maps.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Can big cities also subtract lower performing groups from their maps and figures to make themselves look better? Of course not that would be silly. There's nothing wrong with those maps.

That's what cities have been aiming to do for the last couple of decades now. Look at SF for an example.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Really? If you make 40k in Arkansas, you will be fine. How well would you be making 40k in NYC or California?

You have to look deeper into these numbers.

The reason is because these maps are not based off of the US Census' Supplemental Poverty Measure that factors in things like CoL.

Once you do that, place like Los Angeles County have the highest rates of poverty.

California overall has the highest, followed by Washington DC.

New York State, has a higher poverty level than Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_poverty_rate

[harryc]

Sounds like a great time to start a culture war and poke all those stupid northern liberals in the eye - hey let's ban abortion !

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Pretty much this. The difference between the South and the rest is the country is that the South's rural areas are more minority than the North's. The North and Midwest are practically lily white outside of the biggest cities.

No. A huge proportion of the poorest/most distressed rural Southern counties are almost entirely white. The only "minority" (you mean black) rural Southern counties are in the Black Belt. Rural Southern counties outside the Black Belt are about as poor/distressed.

For example, the entire Appalachia corridor is white and poor/distressed, from Alabama to New England.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The reason is because these maps are not based off of the US Census' Supplemental Poverty Measure that factors in things like CoL.

Once you do that, place like Los Angeles County have the highest rates of poverty.

California overall has the highest, followed by Washington DC.

New York State, has a higher poverty level than Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_poverty_rate

^
And the above is all fabricated. California and NY have some of the lowest poverty rates in the U.S.

But everyone already knew that; this is the "let's pretend that people are poorer if their houses are worth more" talking point regularly regurgitated by those living in places with low housing demand, as if Beverly Hills is poorer than Compton (which would be true using this bizarre logic).

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But everyone already knew that; this is the "let's pretend that people are poorer if their houses are worth more" talking point regularly regurgitated by those living in places with low housing demand, as if Beverly Hills is poorer than Compton (which would be true using this bizarre logic).

But a lot of folks actually are poorer because of housing prices. Look at the metro Portland OR Consolidated Plan or compare a house in Portland to a house in Lansing, Michigan. I’ve lived in both places, have comparable jobs, I make 20% more here but my housing costs exactly 200% more. And I live CHEAP by choice with a mortgage HALF of the average sale price this year because I bought a short sale a couple years back. I have friends in (or were in) Seattle, LA and New York who are leaving in droves because there’s no way in hell they’ll afford a house to start families and their rent is breaking them. These are professional people with good jobs. So let’s not pretend this isn’t a thing.

One way that some low income folks in this area, particularly Latinos, can even afford to be here is because a lot of them live with extended family to afford the rent or mortgage.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

^
And the above is all fabricated. California and NY have some of the lowest poverty rates in the U.S.

But everyone already knew that; this is the "let's pretend that people are poorer if their houses are worth more" talking point regularly regurgitated by those living in places with low housing demand, as if Beverly Hills is poorer than Compton (which would be true using this bizarre logic).

You have this weird deal with thinking most poor people own their homes. No, most rent, and most rent in our urban corridors. Also, even if they own, they have to pay the ever-increasing property taxes, and in places like Illinois and NJ, thats a huge issue.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by JManc

As is if money flow was unidirectional. I am sure my taxes go towards urban programs inner city Chicago and your taxes go to pay for someone on SSD in rural East Texas. And many of those poor folks in the south are marginalized voters without a voice and are predominately minority and/or disenfranchised. MS, for example, is 40% black yet a staunch republican state. You figure that one out. The poverty map reflects demographics in states like AL and MS too. The RGV region in Texas is overwhelmingly Hispanic and that is one of the most "blue" areas in the country but very poor.

On the whole, IL and most (if not all) blue states send more money to the feds than they receive, so even if tax revenue from MS makes its way to IL in some form, it's still far less than IL sent to the feds. IL and reliably blue states are the least federally dependent states. Most wouldn't know that if they're getting their news from Fox.

MS is gerrymandered to hell and voter suppression is an issue as well.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

You have this weird deal with thinking most poor people own their homes.

This is wrong, of course, and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

No, most rent, and most rent in our urban corridors.

This is also wrong, and irrelevant. Housing typology has nothing to do with housing burden.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Also, even if they own, they have to pay the ever-increasing property taxes, and in places like Illinois and NJ, thats a huge issue.

Also wrong, and irrelevent. Do you even understand what we're discussing? You're just throwing out random housing factoids.

The Census link previously posted (and wildly mischaracterized) is for overall housing burden, calculated for Section 8 rents, not your random musings on whether poor people or rich people are buyers or renters or whatever the hell they're paying in property taxes. It's used to calculate what a landlord can charge under federal housing subsidies, it has nothing to do with poverty rates or who rents or buys, or what they pay in taxes.

So, for example, a landord in San Francisco will receive a larger Sec 8 check than a landlord in rural Mississippi, since the federal Sec 8 calcuation is based on local rent burden, and the Sec 8 recipient is renting a "market rate" apartment but only paying 30% of income. The federal check is obviously adjusted based on location. But that doesn't mean someone in SF is "poorer" than someone in MS just because their housing subsidy is larger.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by subterranean

But a lot of folks actually are poorer because of housing prices. Look at the metro Portland OR Consolidated Plan or compare a house in Portland to a house in Lansing, Michigan.

But a homeowner in Portland is generally much richer than a homeowner in Lansing, all things equal, because equity returns are larger in Portland.

Your argument is like saying someone with Sears stock is richer than someone with equivalent Amazon stock because the Sears stock cost less on the front end. The relative value of housing as a wealth vehicle is dependent on rate of return.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But a homeowner in Portland is generally much richer than a homeowner in Lansing, all things equal, because equity returns are larger in Portland.

Your argument is like saying someone with Sears stock is richer than someone with equivalent Amazon stock because the Sears stock cost less on the front end. The relative value of housing as a wealth vehicle is dependent on rate of return.

Okay, but how many people are actually homeowners in Portland vs. Lansing?

Based on this map, Michigan has a 72.6% homeownership rate vs 60% in Oregon...it's probably less in the big cities like Portland since there are more apartments.



California only has a 53% homeownership rate so a lot of people are renting there. You're making the assumption that everyone is getting equity off their home due to rising home prices, but that's not the case for a lot of people in states like California and New York especially in the big cities where home ownership is less than the suburbs.

And ofc, all statistics point towards California for example definitely being more expensive to rent than Mississippi or Alabama.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

You mean to tell me that New Mexico, Mississippi and West Virginia have the lowest poverty rates in the nation? I don't think you even believe that.

California has an affordability problem, to be sure, but you won't see the kind of abject poverty and third world conditions that prevail in parts of Mississippi, Louisiana and native reservations in New Mexico.

[mhays]

That's not what the table says...it's very misleading.

It's the "percentage point difference between official & supplemental measures". In other words, the income-only number vs. the number that includes non-cash government benefits and the costs of necessary expenses. Without knowing what either set of numbers say, it's impossible to infer poverty rates from it.

It also uses "2010-2012 averages" i.e. from early in the economic recovery.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

On the whole, IL and most (if not all) blue states send more money to the feds than they receive, so even if tax revenue from MS makes its way to IL in some form, it's still far less than IL sent to the feds. IL and reliably blue states are the least federally dependent states. Most wouldn't know that if they're getting their news from Fox.

MS is gerrymandered to hell and voter suppression is an issue as well.

The overwhelming bulk people on the receiving end of federal and state benefits in MS are largely not your 'South shale rise again' redneck voting against their interests...it's the poor/ minorities gerrymandered out of a voice. Most blue states (in the north and west) simply do not have this racial dynamic and historical baggage. MS also lacks a major prosperous urban area to really offset the poverty throughout the state. I've been to Jackson...pretty depressing and the Gulf coast towns which are pretty nice are simply too small. Chicago is wealthy and more than offsets the rest of the state.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The reason is because these maps are not based off of the US Census' Supplemental Poverty Measure that factors in things like CoL.

Once you do that, place like Los Angeles County have the highest rates of poverty.

California overall has the highest, followed by Washington DC.

New York State, has a higher poverty level than Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama etc.

I am from New York and have been to every state in the south and just no. That's an example of looking at raw data and not interpreting correctly. Even upstate NY which has its fare share of issues is miles and away better shape than MS and AL. Every been to Navajo country in northern AZ/ NM? Pretty sobering stuff? Hawaii was pretty bad too. This is probably taking into account people moving to NYC, LA or SF after college and trying to make it work and had virtually nothing and while they are technically "poor" they are not meth or chickens in the street poor.

[Razor]

I don't if this can be related to this thread or not, but I read an article years ago that seemed to stick with me..

Basically, the author did some research and concluded that the further you get away from the equator, generally the more productive the economy is (Worldwide) Obviously climate related. Could this be why, the bulk of the manufacturing centres and wealth were in the northern States? Certainly, this became moot with the advent of air conditioning, but it was still an interesting read at the time. Wish I can find it again.There was some an answered questions though..He/she failed to mention economies in extreme cold climates..Thoughts??

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Razor

I don't if this can be related to this thread or not, but I read an article years ago that seemed to stick with me..

Basically, the author did some research and concluded that the further you get away from the equator, generally the more productive the economy is (Worldwide) Obviously climate related. Could this be why, the bulk of the manufacturing centres and wealth were in the northern States? Certainly, this became moot with the advent of air conditioning, but it was still an interesting read at the time. Wish I can find it again.There was some an answered questions though..He/she failed to mention economies in extreme cold climates..Thoughts??

The southern states were agricultural powerhouses from the start; their climates more conducive to cash crops like tobacco and cotton while the population centers were in the north and industry was centered around them. This was ultimately led to their divide, the south relied on slave labor long after the north abolished it.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by badrunner

You mean to tell me that New Mexico, Mississippi and West Virginia have the lowest poverty rates in the nation? I don't think you even believe that.

California has an affordability problem, to be sure, but you won't see the kind of abject poverty and third world conditions that prevail in parts of Mississippi, Louisiana and native reservations in New Mexico.

This is a very misleading map -- it's the difference between two poverty measures.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is wrong, of course, and irrelevant.

This is also wrong, and irrelevant. Housing typology has nothing to do with housing burden.


Also wrong, and irrelevent. Do you even understand what we're discussing? You're just throwing out random housing factoids.

The Census link previously posted (and wildly mischaracterized) is for overall housing burden, calculated for Section 8 rents, not your random musings on whether poor people or rich people are buyers or renters or whatever the hell they're paying in property taxes. It's used to calculate what a landlord can charge under federal housing subsidies, it has nothing to do with poverty rates or who rents or buys, or what they pay in taxes.

So, for example, a landord in San Francisco will receive a larger Sec 8 check than a landlord in rural Mississippi, since the federal Sec 8 calcuation is based on local rent burden, and the Sec 8 recipient is renting a "market rate" apartment but only paying 30% of income. The federal check is obviously adjusted based on location. But that doesn't mean someone in SF is "poorer" than someone in MS just because their housing subsidy is larger.

A rare thing on the internet, but alright, with section 8 that makes sense. The only things that come to mind in knowing that now is:

Those places need massive tax subsidies to stay afloat for poor people, I wonder how sustainable that is in the long run? I mean if the average rent for a 3 bedroom in SF is 10,000 a month in the future(possibly near lol), how much will taxpayers have to give to get someone in that unit?

What about people who don't qualify for section 8 but can't afford high rents?