Quantcast
View Post
eva01beserk said:
Torillian said:

Nah, according to that metric they have a supplemental poverty rate of 23.8% compared to the overall SPM of the US of 16%. So California has about 1.5x the national average (for this particular version of the poverty rate) and 12% of the population of the US. Therefore, they would have 18% of the country's "poor" or less than 1/5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate

Unless you have different numbers or different math. 

Going more explicitly: California has a population of 39.8m and 23.8% of those are within the SPM designation or 9.401m. USA has a population of 327.2m and 16% of those are within SPM or 52.35m. That means California has 9.401/52.35*100% or 18% of the "poor". 

Works out the same but I felt like checking my original guesstimate math. 

Yea you are right I miss read some data. But still 1/5 still to much. It is still the highest poverty rate in the US. And it is still disproportionate. 

I think that has more to do with average housing costs in California than any social programs. SPM takes into account housing costs which is why California is so much worse in the SPM stat than in the general poverty stat. 



...