I was reading about poverty levels and they had a list of the 10 poorest and 10 richest states. They stated they used cost of living as part of the listing process. After reading it, I was kind of amused so I started analyzing the actual numbers using cost of living.
After adjusting for the cost of living, the list wouldn't even have the same 10 states on it. Given that it is a huge subject and the numbers aren't always easy to find in an equivalent way. After a bit, I considered looking at the poverty % adjusted for cost of living, but to be honest it looks like I would have to take the IRS gov information per state and do cost of living adjustments against the federal poverty level to compile it. Given the different ways to look at cost of living and everything, I put an hour or so into looking and realized this is the type of thing I should of did in college, lol.
I did enjoy looking at the information however, and I found some other lists that seemed to be trying to do somewhat the same thing.
This list adjusts median income by the cost of living, as well as the percent of state residents on welfare. It uses the ACCRA cost of living index. I am not saying it is dead on, but at least it is an honest try. Though I would of liked to see poverty % adjusted by cost of living.
http://voices.yahoo.com/richest-poorest-states-united-states-6335774.html
I read about how the federal poverty level was calculated in the last 50's by taking the cost of food for a family and multiplying it by 3. This is the same thing we use now apparently, only adjusted for inflation. I was surprised no one had ever tried to fix that.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/wheres_the_pove.html
It was also interesting that the poverty level in some states (like Florida) is likely way off given the number of retirees who have money other than 'income'.
I assume Alaska is skewed by indigenous populations whose income is essentially 0, and may be receiving benefits. Not just on the list I provided, but on many. On the flip side, their cost of living is so high that anyone who works makes more than poverty.
Poverty Levels, I looked at Wiki. This is a straight listing based on people below the federal poverty level. It is essentially useless except as numbers to compare adjusted numbers to. For instance, the cost of living Hawaii is very high so to compare poverty levels there you would have to raise it to $18-20k or so for a single person. This would mean this poverty rate is probably one of the worse in the nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate
Someone who makes $10k in Mississippi is considered poverty level, but someone who makes $12k in California would not be. I don't think anyone would suggest the person in California is better off.
It is my opinion that the poverty levels in states with a high cost of living are very understated, and the poverty level in states with a low cost of living are either closer to the truth or overstated.
I am curious as to why no one ever says "We need to redefine poverty in the United States." Obviously the number we are using isn't based on anything, and is unfairly classifying people who are poor as not, and vice versa.
Policy aside of how much help for the poor there should be, it seems like this is a major problem. If we, as a country, are going to distribute aid to the poor and less fortunate then we should do so logically and fairly, not based on some figure made up by multiplying food costs in the 1950s.
After adjusting for the cost of living, the list wouldn't even have the same 10 states on it. Given that it is a huge subject and the numbers aren't always easy to find in an equivalent way. After a bit, I considered looking at the poverty % adjusted for cost of living, but to be honest it looks like I would have to take the IRS gov information per state and do cost of living adjustments against the federal poverty level to compile it. Given the different ways to look at cost of living and everything, I put an hour or so into looking and realized this is the type of thing I should of did in college, lol.
I did enjoy looking at the information however, and I found some other lists that seemed to be trying to do somewhat the same thing.
This list adjusts median income by the cost of living, as well as the percent of state residents on welfare. It uses the ACCRA cost of living index. I am not saying it is dead on, but at least it is an honest try. Though I would of liked to see poverty % adjusted by cost of living.
http://voices.yahoo.com/richest-poorest-states-united-states-6335774.html
I read about how the federal poverty level was calculated in the last 50's by taking the cost of food for a family and multiplying it by 3. This is the same thing we use now apparently, only adjusted for inflation. I was surprised no one had ever tried to fix that.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/wheres_the_pove.html
It was also interesting that the poverty level in some states (like Florida) is likely way off given the number of retirees who have money other than 'income'.
I assume Alaska is skewed by indigenous populations whose income is essentially 0, and may be receiving benefits. Not just on the list I provided, but on many. On the flip side, their cost of living is so high that anyone who works makes more than poverty.
Poverty Levels, I looked at Wiki. This is a straight listing based on people below the federal poverty level. It is essentially useless except as numbers to compare adjusted numbers to. For instance, the cost of living Hawaii is very high so to compare poverty levels there you would have to raise it to $18-20k or so for a single person. This would mean this poverty rate is probably one of the worse in the nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate
Someone who makes $10k in Mississippi is considered poverty level, but someone who makes $12k in California would not be. I don't think anyone would suggest the person in California is better off.
It is my opinion that the poverty levels in states with a high cost of living are very understated, and the poverty level in states with a low cost of living are either closer to the truth or overstated.
I am curious as to why no one ever says "We need to redefine poverty in the United States." Obviously the number we are using isn't based on anything, and is unfairly classifying people who are poor as not, and vice versa.
Policy aside of how much help for the poor there should be, it seems like this is a major problem. If we, as a country, are going to distribute aid to the poor and less fortunate then we should do so logically and fairly, not based on some figure made up by multiplying food costs in the 1950s.
