Where are the richest and poorest states based on household income?

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/10/08/wealth-america-household-income-richest-poorest-states/38051359/

Quote:From 2016 to 2017, the U.S. economy improved in several key metrics. The median household income increased by more than $1,500, unemployment dropped from 4.9 percent to 4.4 percent, and the poverty rate fell from 14.0 percent to 13.4 percent.

While this is good news, the effects weren’t felt equally across all 50 states, and much of the gains in median household income went to households that were already wealthy. Income inequality in the U.S. remains high and incomes vary dramatically at the state level as well. The typical household in the wealthiest state earns over $37,000 more each year than the typical household in the poorest state.
The South holds a higher-than-average concentration of the poorest states in the country. Many of the wealthiest are coastal states in the West, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast regions. Both states outside of the lower 48 — Alaska and Hawaii — are among the 10 richest states.

24/7 Wall Street ranked all 50 states according to the newly-released median household income figures from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2018/10/21/midterms-poorest-states-have-republican-legislatures/1694273002/

Quote:Though income drives the rankings from poorest (West Virginia) to richest (Maryland), the list also includes population, unemployment and poverty rates. To unlock the political secret in these data points, cross-reference them with figures available from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) showing which party controls state legislatures. 


What you see is exactly the reverse of our cultural mythology: Heading into midterms, Republicans are very much the party of the poor and Democrats are the party of the rich. This seemingly sounds nuts. It isn’t. Thirty-two states have Republican-controlled legislatures.
Eighteen of the 19 poorest states have legislatures where both chambers are Republican controlled. New Mexico (46th richest, fifth poorest) is Democratic. But there isn’t another blue or purple state until you get to purple Maine (31st richest, 20th poorest) with its “split” legislature of one party in each chamber. All the states in between (such as Tennessee and Florida) are Republican, both chambers. So is Michigan, where Republicans hold all high state offices (where Donald Trump won in 2016). Above New Mexico, you jump all the way to middle of the pack Vermont (27th richest, 24th poorest) to find a state with both legislative chambers held by Democrats.


But all five richest states have both legislative chambers controlled by Democrats – Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Overall, Democrats dominate the 20 richest states. 

More info at the links.

[fredtoast]

So the party that makes fun of colleges and education is then party of the poorest states.

And the party that claims that everyone has an equal opportunity and the only reason anyone is poor is because they are lazy is also the party of the poorest states?


Shocking.

[Yojimbo]

(10-23-2018, 11:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So the party that makes fun of colleges and education is then party of the poorest states.

And the party that claims that everyone has an equal opportunity and the only reason anyone is poor is because they are lazy is also the party of the poorest states?


Shocking.

It’s called projection and Trump is the king of the projecting lemmings.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I would argue this isn't a very good article unless they adjust income for average cost of living in that state.

Earning $25/hr in California won't get you as far as earning $20/hr in Kentucky. According to this list, it still considers the Californian wealthier than the Kentuckian, even though the person in Kentucky could afford a better lifestyle and more luxuries.

For instance according to this:
https://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/index.html

Earning $23,572 in Dayton, OH or $23,936 in Louisville, KY is on par with $50,000 in San Francisco, CA as far as cost of living goes. According to your article, that makes the SF person over 2x as "rich", but in reality they have the exact same quality of life.

($19,345 in Louisville gets you the same as $50,000 in Manhattan.)

So unless they adjust for the cost of living, it's a pretty useless article.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-24-2018, 02:25 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I would argue this isn't a very good article unless they adjust income for average cost of living in that state.

Earning $25/hr in California won't get you as far as earning $20/hr in Kentucky. According to this list, it still considers the Californian wealthier than the Kentuckian, even though the person in Kentucky could afford a better lifestyle and more luxuries.

For instance according to this:
https://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/index.html

Earning $23,572 in Dayton, OH or $23,936 in Louisville, KY is on par with $50,000 in San Francisco, CA as far as cost of living goes. According to your article, that makes the SF person over 2x as "rich", but in reality they have the exact same quality of life.

($19,345 in Louisville gets you the same as $50,000 in Manhattan.)

So unless they adjust for the cost of living, it's a pretty useless article.

Excellent point.  I make a six figure salary and I can't afford a house where I live.  However, you're disrupting the chance for the bourgeois to look down their nose at the red state hillbilly's.  That's not very nice of you.

[Benton]

(10-24-2018, 02:25 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I would argue this isn't a very good article unless they adjust income for average cost of living in that state.

Earning $25/hr in California won't get you as far as earning $20/hr in Kentucky. According to this list, it still considers the Californian wealthier than the Kentuckian, even though the person in Kentucky could afford a better lifestyle and more luxuries.

For instance according to this:
https://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/index.html

Earning $23,572 in Dayton, OH or $23,936 in Louisville, KY is on par with $50,000 in San Francisco, CA as far as cost of living goes. According to your article, that makes the SF person over 2x as "rich", but in reality they have the exact same quality of life.

($19,345 in Louisville gets you the same as $50,000 in Manhattan.)

So unless they adjust for the cost of living, it's a pretty useless article.

Agree. At the same time, though, the cost of living in those States is typically higher because more people earn a higher wage. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-24-2018, 09:02 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Excellent point.  I make a six figure salary and I can't afford a house where I live.  However, you're disrupting the chance for the bourgeois to look down their nose at the red state hillbilly's.  That's not very nice of you.

You gotta look outside Bel-Air

[*bfine32*]

(10-23-2018, 11:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So the party that makes fun of colleges and education is then party of the poorest states.

And the party that claims that everyone has an equal opportunity and the only reason anyone is poor is because they are lazy is also the party of the poorest states?


Shocking.

Hell, some here have even labeled those from the poorer states ignorant.

Not shocking.

[Dill]

(10-24-2018, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, some here have even labeled those from the poorer states ignorant.

Not shocking.

Hell, some here have even accused others of so labeling without any proof. 

Not shocking.

[fredtoast]

(10-24-2018, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, some here have even labeled those from the poorer states ignorant.

Not shocking.

Yep.  Some guy named Bfine32 used "economic success" to define the level of "ignorance"

(10-23-2018, 06:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I post a chart showing the more successful in the demographic voted for Trump in an attempt to dispel the hateful  "ignorant folks vote for Trump" mantra

Not shocking at all.

[*bfine32*]

(10-24-2018, 06:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep.  Some guy named Bfine32 used "economic success" to define the level of "ignorance"



Not shocking at all.

Actually some dude named bfine didn't even use the term much less define the levels. He did assert it is hard to consider successful folks ignorant, but it doesn't stop everyone.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-24-2018, 06:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Hell, some here have even accused others of so labeling without any proof. 

Not shocking.

Nah, those folks just refute those that suggest using such a label is inappropriate and insulting. 

[fredtoast]

(10-24-2018, 06:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually some dude named bfine didn't even use the term much less define the levels.

Actually that is exactly what you did.

I posted a direct quote of you using the term "ignorant".

And in order to prove that "ignorant" people did not vote for Trump you showed how many "economically successful" people voted for Trump.

[BmorePat87]

Crabcakes and Highest Median Household Income. That's what Maryland does!

[Dill]

(10-24-2018, 07:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually that is exactly what you did.

I posted a direct quote of you using the term "ignorant".

And in order to prove that "ignorant" people did not vote for Trump you showed how many "economically successful" people voted for Trump.

The qualifier came later. First it was just "the successful."

[*michaelsean*]

(10-25-2018, 07:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Crabcakes and Highest Median Household Income. That's what Maryland does!

We saw The Wire. You’re not fooling anyone.

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2018, 09:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We saw The Wire. You’re not fooling anyone.