• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Is California The Poverty Capital Of America?

Moderate Right said:
One word answer: Liberalism



Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America? - LA Times
Click to expand...



You have established yourself as a poor researcher and lacking credibility.

If you took the time to look, you would have found the official statistics on poverty that refute your falsehood.

Click on the link below. Go to the Poverty heading and drop down to the second to last Xcel spreadsheet and open. You will find, by counting, that in the 2014 – 2016 years there were 16 states with higher poverty rates than CA, including MS, NM, and WV that your referenced, bias article said had lower poverty rates than CA.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-259.html
 
bluesmoke said:
You have established yourself as a poor researcher and lacking credibility.

If you took the time to look, you would have found the official statistics on poverty that refute your falsehood.

Click on the link below. Go to the Poverty heading and drop down to the second to last Xcel spreadsheet and open. You will find, by counting, that in the 2014 – 2016 years there were 16 states with higher poverty rates than CA, including MS, NM, and WV that your referenced, bias article said had lower poverty rates than CA.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-259.html
Click to expand...

You did not even bother to read the article before you criticized it. You just decided you did not like the subject of the thread and looked for data.

.That’s according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income....
Click to expand...

Thank you though for providing that link as it showed, using the Supplemental Poverty Measure, that California does indeed have the highest rate of poverty among states. DC is actually a little higher.
 
Moderate Right said:
One word answer: Liberalism



Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America? - LA Times
Click to expand...

You do know that Liberalism is not the same thing as being "Liberal", right? Liberalism is the foundation of our government and all the things the right supposedly believes in.

Secondly, being poor on a metric because the property in your state is worth millions due to demand and high incomes which pushes the cost of living up is not really the same thing as being poor because you live in a Southern state with poor economic options DESPITE having the lowest cost of living and taxes. Not the same thing at all.
 
vash1012 said:
You do know that Liberalism is not the same thing as being "Liberal", right? Liberalism is the foundation of our government and all the things the right supposedly believes in.

Secondly, being poor on a metric because the property in your state is worth millions due to demand and high incomes which pushes the cost of living up is not really the same thing as being poor because you live in a Southern state with poor economic options DESPITE having the lowest cost of living and taxes. Not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...

California should have no poor, no homeless, no income inequality. Liberals claim they have all the answers and yet the facts speak for themselves. They have no answers that work.
 
Moderate Right said:
California should have no poor, no homeless, no income inequality. Liberals claim they have all the answers and yet the facts speak for themselves. They have no answers that work.
Click to expand...

Absolutisms are a sign of a weak mind. Almost nothing is as black and white as you would have everyone believe. Very few claim to have ALL the answers.
 
Moderate Right said:
California should have no poor, no homeless, no income inequality. Liberals claim they have all the answers and yet the facts speak for themselves. They have no answers that work.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. There are lot of ****holes in California, here's a handy map, ****holes in red:

f3b2fb8b9c247cac53a17d328381e270.jpg
 
Critter7r said:
Absolutisms are a sign of a weak mind. Almost nothing is as black and white as you would have everyone believe. Very few claim to have ALL the answers.
Click to expand...

Oh, but liberals do. They have the answer to everything from homelessness to poverty to income inequality. And, as blue as California is, it is proof that liberals DON'T have any answers at all.
 
Absentglare said:
That's absurd. There are lot of ****holes in California, here's a handy map, ****holes in red:

f3b2fb8b9c247cac53a17d328381e270.jpg
Click to expand...

So, all Republicans are ****holes? How about comparing the number of homeless, those in poverty, and those suffering the worst income inequality in California and seeing whether they fall in the blue areas for the red areas. Care to take a guess?
 
Casca XV said:
On the day it fell the USSR was the 2nd largest economy in the world. Bigger is not always better.

40 years ago California was the 5 largest economy in the world after Leftist took over it quickly dropped to 7th. It has recently edged out France as 6th, but only because France with it's Muslim problems is losing even quicker than California.

The natural features and advantages are what drive the California economy. Hollywood and Silicon Valley that make most of their money out of state are a large part of California's GDP.
Click to expand...

And most of Texas economy is tied to the oil industry. Sooooo...... And the liberals took Cali's economy from 5th to 7th, to now 6th? Oh the horror...:lamo Texas supplemental poverty is around 16% just 4% shy of California, and official poverty numbers are higher than California. Your post doesn't address the fact that California's economy is bigger than Texas and largest in the U.S. and always has been. Doesn't address that Cali currently has a faster growing economy and has expanded jobs faster than Texas. And doesn't address Cali is leading in current GDP growth.
 
LunaRose said:
And most of Texas economy is tied to the oil industry. Sooooo...... And the liberals took Cali's economy from 5th to 7th, to now 6th? Oh the horror...:lamo Texas supplemental poverty is around 16% just 4% shy of California, and official poverty numbers are higher than California. Your post doesn't address the fact that California's economy is bigger than Texas and largest in the U.S. and always has been. Doesn't address that Cali currently has a faster growing economy and has expanded jobs faster than Texas. And doesn't address Cali is leading in current GDP growth.
Click to expand...

So? The fact is, California is supposed to be the liberal bastion of how there are no homeless, none in poverty, and there is no income inequality and yet they fail miserably at all of the above. Liberals think they have all the answers to these problems but even when they have total control of their whole state, nothing they do helps those they claim they want to help.
 
Moderate Right said:
f3b2fb8b9c247cac53a17d328381e270.jpg
Click to expand...
So, all Republicans are ****holes? How about comparing the number of homeless, those in poverty, and those suffering the worst income inequality in California and seeing whether they fall in the blue areas for the red areas. Care to take a guess?
Click to expand...

2016 but still useful in countering that whole "liberals cause poverty" nonsense. I wonder why so many of the GOP controlled counties failed to provide data on their poverty rates. :roll:

Poverty-Rates-High-CA-Counties_Chart.jpg

The two poorest counties are GOP districts, three out of 7 in the next level of poverty are GOP, 14 counties controlled by the GOP failed to provide data while only 3 Dem counties didn't do their job.

Seven Dem counties have poverty rates lower than 10% but only two GOP counties can say that.

Now, did I read somewhere that the worst poverty rates are caused by liberals - nah, I couldn't have.
 
Somerville said:
2016 but still useful in countering that whole "liberals cause poverty" nonsense. I wonder why so many of the GOP controlled counties failed to provide data on their poverty rates. :roll:

View attachment 67227175

The two poorest counties are GOP districts, three out of 7 in the next level of poverty are GOP, 14 counties controlled by the GOP failed to provide data while only 3 Dem counties didn't do their job.

Seven Dem counties have poverty rates lower than 10% but only two GOP counties can say that.

Now, did I read somewhere that the worst poverty rates are caused by liberals - nah, I couldn't have.
Click to expand...

I never said that liberals CAUSE poverty. However, they do keep people in poverty and hardly any of their ideas get people out of poverty. That is why California has so many poor, so many homeless, and so many with high levels of income inequality. None of their ideas work to stop it! Hell, where else can you go in the country where Silicon Valley had people making around 80K a year and were homeless? Might as well work for minimum wage in Arkansas or Mississippi and have a home.
 
Moderate Right said:
So? The fact is, California is supposed to be the liberal bastion of how there are no homeless, none in poverty, and there is no income inequality and yet they fail miserably at all of the above. Liberals think they have all the answers to these problems but even when they have total control of their whole state, nothing they do helps those they claim they want to help.
Click to expand...

Says who? The only person with all the answers is Lord Trump because he is a stable genius.

Yea, California puts a lot of effort in helping people in poverty and they do help a lot of people. But high housing costs, electricity and gas prices are the main reasons for the poverty and they know this. How they go about solving this issue remains.
 
Moderate Right said:
I never said that liberals CAUSE poverty. However, they do keep people in poverty and hardly any of their ideas get people out of poverty. That is why California has so many poor, so many homeless, and so many with high levels of income inequality. None of their ideas work to stop it! Hell, where else can you go in the country where Silicon Valley had people making around 80K a year and were homeless? Might as well work for minimum wage in Arkansas or Mississippi and have a home.
Click to expand...

The red southern states would like to talk you about keeping people in poverty.....
 
Moderate Right said:
I never said that liberals CAUSE poverty. However, they do keep people in poverty and hardly any of their ideas get people out of poverty. That is why California has so many poor, so many homeless, and so many with high levels of income inequality. None of their ideas work to stop it! Hell, where else can you go in the country where Silicon Valley had people making around 80K a year and were homeless? Might as well work for minimum wage in Arkansas or Mississippi and have a home.
Click to expand...

Might as well work for minimum wage in Arkansas or Mississippi and have a home.
Click to expand...

Hate to burst your bubble but minimum wage won't get you house in any state....Need to make roughly 14 and 15 an hour to get a house in Ark and Miss....

Besides you will find better quality of education and social programs in Cali...
 
Moderate Right said:
One word answer: Liberalism



Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America? - LA Times
Click to expand...

And the author - and you - apparently failed to remember Mark Twain's famous warning that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Why? I know the moment someone mentions Mother Jones magazine, conservatives immediately close their eyes and ears and assume it's all made up...but what you should instead is to look at what they point out using not their own numbers, but the federal government's numbers. According to the US government, California is:

- 21st worst (not THE worst, but 21st-worst) when it comes to poverty rate. Almost all the states with worse poverty rates are red states, especially in the Deep South. Yes, this poverty rate is determined by using a different metric than in the article, but you have to bear in mind that what's poverty in California is NOT the same as what's poverty in, say, Mississippi. What's more, there's a heck of a lot more to the story than that, as the other metrics below show.

- 20th lowest when it comes to labor force participation rate. Again, almost all the states with lower labor force participation rates are red states, especially in the Deep South.

- 5th lowest when it comes to state employees per capita (meaning, CA has a very low rate of state bureaucrats per person, which should be seen as a great thing by conservatives). As to which side is better or worse with this metric, it's mixed - there's no clear delineation as to whether red states or blue states are better in this respect.

- 4th highest when it comes to housing prices in the nation. No surprise there. Sure, we all want affordable housing, but this is what happens with a free market in a relatively rich area every single time. The more prosperous the city, state, or nation, the more expensive the housing will be...and that will not change as long as the free market is allowed to reign. If anything, this should be a clue to conservatives that the reason why their housing is generally much cheaper is because - with few exceptions - they are simply not as prosperous.

- 8th highest when it comes to state GDP per capita, and that's without an "oil boom" but with a very high illegal immigration rate which (according to conservative dogma) should have resulted in economic disaster...but it didn't. In fact, California's GDP per capita is 13% higher than that of America as a whole. Of course, that could be expected of the state that has the sixth-largest economy on the planet.

So...yeah, CA has problems, but most of the rest of the planet (including much of Red State America) should only wish they had California's problems instead of the problems they already have.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And the author - and you - apparently failed to remember Mark Twain's famous warning that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Why? I know the moment someone mentions Mother Jones magazine, conservatives immediately close their eyes and ears and assume it's all made up...but what you should instead is to look at what they point out using not their own numbers, but the federal government's numbers. According to the US government, California is:

- 21st worst (not THE worst, but 21st-worst) when it comes to poverty rate. Almost all the states with worse poverty rates are red states, especially in the Deep South. Yes, this poverty rate is determined by using a different metric than in the article, but you have to bear in mind that what's poverty in California is NOT the same as what's poverty in, say, Mississippi. What's more, there's a heck of a lot more to the story than that, as the other metrics below show.

- 20th lowest when it comes to labor force participation rate. Again, almost all the states with lower labor force participation rates are red states, especially in the Deep South.

- 5th lowest when it comes to state employees per capita (meaning, CA has a very low rate of state bureaucrats per person, which should be seen as a great thing by conservatives). As to which side is better or worse with this metric, it's mixed - there's no clear delineation as to whether red states or blue states are better in this respect.

- 4th highest when it comes to housing prices in the nation. No surprise there. Sure, we all want affordable housing, but this is what happens with a free market in a relatively rich area every single time. The more prosperous the city, state, or nation, the more expensive the housing will be...and that will not change as long as the free market is allowed to reign. If anything, this should be a clue to conservatives that the reason why their housing is generally much cheaper is because - with few exceptions - they are simply not as prosperous.

- 8th highest when it comes to state GDP per capita, and that's without an "oil boom" but with a very high illegal immigration rate which (according to conservative dogma) should have resulted in economic disaster...but it didn't. In fact, California's GDP per capita is 13% higher than that of America as a whole. Of course, that could be expected of the state that has the sixth-largest economy on the planet.

So...yeah, CA has problems, but most of the rest of the planet (including much of Red State America) should only wish they had California's problems instead of the problems they already have.
Click to expand...

/thread.

By introducing factual data in context, you just destroyed the false narrative and manufactured outrage.
 
Moderate Right said:
I never said that liberals CAUSE poverty. However, they do keep people in poverty and hardly any of their ideas get people out of poverty. That is why California has so many poor, so many homeless, and so many with high levels of income inequality. None of their ideas work to stop it! Hell, where else can you go in the country where Silicon Valley had people making around 80K a year and were homeless? Might as well work for minimum wage in Arkansas or Mississippi and have a home.
Click to expand...

Here's a clue: work for minimum wage in MS, and no, you will not have a home unless you're on welfare. That's the problem with having such low minimum wages - it essentially forces the federal government to subsidize such businesses by giving their workers food stamps and welfare checks.

And pay particular attention to my other reply to you - the states that make up the bottom of the list when it comes to labor force participation rates are almost all RED states - and CA has a significantly higher rate than they do. What does this mean? It means that those who live in RED states are significantly more likely to be the ones sitting on their collective hind ends at home waiting for a check from Uncle Sugar, while those who live in blue states are more likely to be out there working for a living even if it's a low-paying job.

So much for the conservative claim that liberals just sit on their butts waiting for checks - the numbers show just the opposite.
 
Critter7r said:
Like Texas?

1 New Hampshire 9.2%
...
35 California 16.4%
...
38 Texas 17.2%

39 North Carolina 17.2%

40 South Carolina 17.9%

41 Tennessee 18.2%

43 West Virginia 18.3%

46 Arkansas 18.7%

47 Kentucky 19.0%


Those damned liberal states and their poverty!!
Click to expand...

OK, that looks like using the federal rates. What happens when you factor in actual living costs, as the vary by state too.
 
yankintx said:
I lived there for 5 years so I base my opinion on personal experience as a job seeker in the city. Lots of San Antonio employers are paying $7.75 an hour. Even a 16 yo kid is worth more than the pittance called the federal minimum wage.
Click to expand...

But what was the cost of living there? because someone making 15 an hour in san francisco would have a lower standard of living that someone in san antonio making federal minimum wage, and someone in another city making minimum wage will have a better standard of living than someone in san antonio, you seem to be going off raw wages, which is a poor indicator.

For example people get paid much more in austin, but many workers do not live there, as a studio apartment in town can go for over 1k a month, while a few towns over may go for 250 a month.
 
Moderate Right said:
I never said that liberals CAUSE poverty. However, they do keep people in poverty and hardly any of their ideas get people out of poverty. That is why California has so many poor, so many homeless, and so many with high levels of income inequality. None of their ideas work to stop it! Hell, where else can you go in the country where Silicon Valley had people making around 80K a year and were homeless? Might as well work for minimum wage in Arkansas or Mississippi and have a home.
Click to expand...

Deny, Deny, Deny - seems to be accepted practice for some folks.

Who wrote these words? How about comparing the number of homeless, those in poverty, and those suffering the worst income inequality in California and seeing whether they fall in the blue areas for the red areas. Care to take a guess?
 
Somerville said:
Deny, Deny, Deny - seems to be accepted practice for some folks.

Who wrote these words? How about comparing the number of homeless, those in poverty, and those suffering the worst income inequality in California and seeing whether they fall in the blue areas for the red areas. Care to take a guess?
Click to expand...

It is a simple truth that Red states with the federal goalpost, have more in poverty than blue states. That doesn't make it true when you consider the individual sates cost of living.

Ever do any critical thinking?

Blue states on average have a higher cost of living, and because of that, average wages are higher. Red states in general are lower cost of living states, and have relatively lower wages because of that. When you apply the one-size-fits-all federal formula....

Use some critical thinking for a few moments please.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
See #91 - it's not good to see things only in the way of one particular metric.
Click to expand...

None of the numbers disagrees with what I said. Sure, the journalists interpretation does, but not the data when you consider what it means.

You apparently fail to understand my point.

Mother Jones...

seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom