Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. 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.

Given robust job growth and the prosperity generated by several industries, it’s worth asking why California has fallen behind, especially when the state’s per-capita GDP increased approximately twice as much as the U.S. average over the five years ending in 2016 (12.5%, compared with 6.27%).

It’s not as though California policymakers have neglected to wage war on poverty. Sacramento and local governments have spent massive amounts in the cause. Several state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200% above the poverty line receive benefits. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and “other public welfare,” according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html


Try to stay on topic and try to read the article.

A disgruntled Republican, no doubt.

But he touches on one thing:

K. Jackson wrote:Further contributing to the poverty problem is California’s housing crisis. More than four in 10 households spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2015. A shortage of available units has driven prices ever higher, far above income increases. And that shortage is a direct outgrowth of misguided policies.

The housing crisis is indicative of a more general problem.  California is a huge attractor-state.  Back in the 60's--already the largest state in the nation--it was gaining 2,000/people a day in population.  This is because it offers so much.

The effect of this is to drive prices up, even while California is rich in human resources.  Ironically, Jackson then argues that it's all due to the welfare state, that public protections are too hefty, and the minimum wage is too burdensome.  Apparently, his argument is the state should make itself less attractive.

Public protections, like zoning, environment concerns, and occupational safety, are necessarily for human survival.  Skiing in the mountains, boating in rivers, surfing in the Pacific Ocean, are what make California so popular.  Who needs another oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara?

The other thing Jackson raises is a real head-turner.  He begins by stating that California is impoverished, and then ends by saying the state should reduce or do away with the minimum wage.  WTF??  How is making people poorer going to help with poverty?

It the end, the reason why California has these pressures is because of its popularity.  Sure, San Francisco is expensive; it's a tiny city/county on the tip of a peninsula.  Go elsewhere--it's only 47.9 square miles.  But across the Bay and eastward, there are plenty of opportunities for expansion.  The answer is not to trash-down California by eliminating public protections or suppressing wages, but to become creative in steering a course around the obstacles.

Original Quill wrote:A disgruntled Republican, no doubt.

But he touches on one thing:

K. Jackson wrote:Further contributing to the poverty problem is California’s housing crisis. More than four in 10 households spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2015. A shortage of available units has driven prices ever higher, far above income increases. And that shortage is a direct outgrowth of misguided policies.

The housing crisis is indicative of a more general problem.  California is a huge attractor-state.  Back in the 60's--already the largest state in the nation--it was gaining 2,000/people a day in population.  This is because it offers so much.

The effect of this is to drive prices up, even while California is rich in human resources.  Ironically, Jackson then argues that it's all due to the welfare state, that public protections are too hefty, and the minimum wage is too burdensome.  Apparently, his argument is the state should make itself less attractive.

Public protections, like zoning, environment concerns, and occupational safety, are necessarily for human survival.  Skiing in the mountains, boating in rivers, surfing in the Pacific Ocean, are what make California so popular.  Who needs another oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara?

The other thing Jackson raises is a real head-turner.  He begins by stating that California is impoverished, and then ends by saying the state should reduce or do away with the minimum wage.  WTF??  How is making people poorer going to help with poverty?

It the end, the reason why California has these pressures is because of its popularity.  Sure, San Francisco is expensive; it's a tiny city/county on the tip of a peninsula.  Go elsewhere--it's only 47.9 square miles.  But across the Bay and eastward, there are plenty of opportunities for expansion.  The answer is not to trash-down California by eliminating public protections or suppressing wages, but to become creative in steering a course around the obstacles.

Plenty of states have population growth rates like California, or even higher. Yet the cost of living is not near as high. California's policies drive up the cost of living creating more poverty.

Maddog wrote:Plenty of states have population growth rates like California, or even higher.

No, they don't.

Maddog wrote:Yet the cost of living is not near as high. California's policies drive up the cost of living creating more poverty.

I found the article self-contradictory.  Lower minimum wage will alleviate poverty??  Allowing big oil to run roughshod over the pristine beauty state??  Jackson wants to trash-down the state in order to fit in all the pieces.  A better idea is to be more creative.

His argument for lower public protections suggests that he just want's more friendliness for big business.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:A disgruntled Republican, no doubt.

But he touches on one thing:



The housing crisis is indicative of a more general problem.  California is a huge attractor-state.  Back in the 60's--already the largest state in the nation--it was gaining 2,000/people a day in population.  This is because it offers so much.

The effect of this is to drive prices up, even while California is rich in human resources.  Ironically, Jackson then argues that it's all due to the welfare state, that public protections are too hefty, and the minimum wage is too burdensome.  Apparently, his argument is the state should make itself less attractive.

Public protections, like zoning, environment concerns, and occupational safety, are necessarily for human survival.  Skiing in the mountains, boating in rivers, surfing in the Pacific Ocean, are what make California so popular.  Who needs another oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara?

The other thing Jackson raises is a real head-turner.  He begins by stating that California is impoverished, and then ends by saying the state should reduce or do away with the minimum wage.  WTF??  How is making people poorer going to help with poverty?

It the end, the reason why California has these pressures is because of its popularity.  Sure, San Francisco is expensive; it's a tiny city/county on the tip of a peninsula.  Go elsewhere--it's only 47.9 square miles.  But across the Bay and eastward, there are plenty of opportunities for expansion.  The answer is not to trash-down California by eliminating public protections or suppressing wages, but to become creative in steering a course around the obstacles.

Plenty of states have population growth rates like California, or even higher.  Yet the cost of living is not near as high.  California's policies drive up the cost of living creating more poverty.  

Gees, you're full of bullshit,  Maddog...

Your reasoning on the causes of poverty is the biggest load of ignorant crap I've seen from you yet..

As soon as people start wanting to drive down wages and increase the level of homelessness even more --  as you have done with various comments, and in agreeing with that article --  than I know that you are part of the problem, and not the solution.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Plenty of states have population growth rates like California, or even higher.

No, they don't.

Maddog wrote:Yet the cost of living is not near as high. California's policies drive up the cost of living creating more poverty.

I found the article self-contradictory.  Lower minimum wage will alleviate poverty??  Allowing big oil to run roughshod over the pristine beauty state??  Jackson wants to trash-down the state in order to fit in all the pieces.  A better idea is to be more creative.

His argument for lower public protections suggests that he just want's more friendliness for big business.

http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2017/12/10_states_that_experienced_pop.html


Top 10 states for population growth.

Cali doesn't make the list.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Plenty of states have population growth rates like California, or even higher.  Yet the cost of living is not near as high.  California's policies drive up the cost of living creating more poverty.  

Gees, you're full of bullshit,  Maddog...

Your reasoning on the causes of poverty is the biggest load of ignorant crap I've seen from you yet..

As soon as people start wanting to drive down wages and increase the level of homelessness even more --  as you have done with various comments, and in agreeing with that article --  than I know that you are part of the problem, and not the solution.

Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

Cause the standard of living is Higher
therefore the cost of living is higher

pretty simple, poverty is income versus cost of living

If you increase the minimum standard of living the minimum cost of living goes up to.

if you look at some of the rational in the article it is entriely based off short term self interests, it's Houses are expensive because California requires housing to be sustainable and Unlike many other states has not systematically destroyed the future environment for miniscule short term savings and profits.

Maddog wrote:Top 10 states for population growth.

Cali doesn't make the list.

All based on percentages, but not of comparable scale to California.  With that kind of test, a town of two could be doubled if they invited their parents, and if dad was broke on arrival he alone would increase the poverty level by 25%.  These are the ways one lies with statistics:  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51291.How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

You can't compare Idaho to California.  You must weight the comparison. Do they even keep poverty records for Idaho?

The point is, this dufus is trying to turn California into a safe place for corporate capitalism by removing all public protections and robbing the poor.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Gees, you're full of bullshit,  Maddog...

Your reasoning on the causes of poverty is the biggest load of ignorant crap I've seen from you yet..

As soon as people start wanting to drive down wages and increase the level of homelessness even more --  as you have done with various comments, and in agreeing with that article --  than I know that you are part of the problem, and not the solution.

Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

It isn't,  in genuine economic terms...

Rather tban the bullshit narrative being spun by the worker-hating economy-destroying scumbag corporatist that wrote that article...

What sort of shit-for-brains scumbag honestly believes that removing the minimum wage and increasing homelessness even further will reduce poverty --  two of the main fixes that the idiot who wrote that piece suggests as a "cure" for poverty  ?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Top 10 states for population growth.

Cali doesn't make the list.

All based on percentages, but not of comparable scale to California.  With that kind of test, a town of two could be doubled if they invited their parents, and if dad was broke on arrival he alone would increase the poverty level by 25%.  These are the ways one lies with statistics:  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51291.How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

You can't compare Idaho to California.  You must weight the comparison.  Do they even keep poverty records for Idaho?

The point is, this dufus is trying to turn California into a safe place for corporate capitalism by removing all public protections and robbing the poor.

Yes, California is a big state and one has to use a rate not raw numbers.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

It isn't,  in genuine economic terms...

Rather tban the bullshit narrative being spun by the worker-hating economy-destroying scumbag corporatist that wrote that article...

What sort of shit-for-brains scumbag honestly believes that removing the minimum wage and increasing homelessness even further will reduce poverty --  two of the main fixes that the idiot who wrote that piece suggests as a "cure" for poverty  ?

It is according to our government;)

veya_victaous wrote:Cause the standard of living is Higher
therefore the cost of living is higher

pretty simple, poverty is income versus cost of living

If you increase the minimum standard of living the minimum cost of living goes up to.

if you look at some of the rational in the article it is entriely based off short term self interests, it's Houses are expensive because California requires housing to be sustainable and Unlike many other states has not systematically destroyed the future environment for miniscule short term savings and profits.

So giving people a higher wage while raising the cost of living increases poverty. Is increasing poverty a good idea?

Economics is always in flux.  Take, for example, interest rates...lower them, and create inflation.  With inflation, peoples' money is worth less, creating an increase in pressures toward poverty:

Investopedia wrote:In general, as interest rates are lowered, more people are able to borrow more money. The result is that consumers have more money to spend, causing the economy to grow and inflation to increase. The opposite holds true for rising interest rates. As interest rates are increased, consumers tend to save as returns from savings are higher. With less disposable income being spent as a result of the increase in the interest rate, the economy slows and inflation decreases.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/12/inflation-interest-rate-relationship.asp#ixzz54HCfRILP

The trick is to balance and stabilize both sides of the equation, in creative ways.

Original Quill wrote:Economics is always in flux.  Take, for example, interest rates...lower them, and create inflation.  With inflation, peoples' money is worth less, creating an increase in pressures toward poverty:

Investopedia wrote:In general, as interest rates are lowered, more people are able to borrow more money. The result is that consumers have more money to spend, causing the economy to grow and inflation to increase. The opposite holds true for rising interest rates. As interest rates are increased, consumers tend to save as returns from savings are higher. With less disposable income being spent as a result of the increase in the interest rate, the economy slows and inflation decreases.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/12/inflation-interest-rate-relationship.asp#ixzz54HCfRILP

The trick is to balance and stabilize both sides of the equation, in creative ways.

Well, California has figured out the trick to increase poverty.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Economics is always in flux.  Take, for example, interest rates...lower them, and create inflation.  With inflation, peoples' money is worth less, creating an increase in pressures toward poverty:



The trick is to balance and stabilize both sides of the equation, in creative ways.

Well, California has figured out the trick to increase poverty.  

It's also made it's way to the 6th-largest economy in the world, surpassing France. It must be doing something right.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well, California has figured out the trick to increase poverty.  

It's also made it's way to the 6th-largest economy in the world, surpassing France.  It must be doing something right.

Yes, in real dollars. If you had a smattering of sense in economics, you would know that actual income has to be weighed against the cost of living. People living in poverty in California make a decent amount of money compared to the rest of the world. The problem is, California's policies have priced them out of many goods and services in the state of California.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's also made it's way to the 6th-largest economy in the world, surpassing France.  It must be doing something right.

Yes, in real dollars. If you had a smattering of sense in economics, you would know that actual income has to be weighed against the cost of living. People living in poverty in California make a decent amount of money compared to the rest of the world. The problem is, California's policies have priced them out of many goods and services in the state of California.      

That's elementary. The nice thing is that California is so large (as well as being so beautiful) that there's room for all economic levels. No one here feels any discomfort, despite skewed summary statistics.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, in real dollars. If you had a smattering of sense in economics, you would know that actual income has to be weighed against the cost of living. People living in poverty in California make a decent amount of money compared to the rest of the world. The problem is, California's policies have priced them out of many goods and services in the state of California.      

That's elementary.  The nice thing is that California is so large (as well as being so beautiful) that there's room for all economic levels.  No one here feels any discomfort, despite skewed summary statistics.

Do the people in poverty feel discomfort?

You do know what poverty means don't you?

"California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients."

Are welfare recipients comfortable? Maybe.

Maddog wrote:"California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients."

Are welfare recipients comfortable? Maybe.

It's true. We're a happy lot in the land of plenty.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:"California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients."

Are welfare recipients comfortable? Maybe.

It's true.  We're a happy lot in the land of plenty.  

I don't doubt that many people on welfare have been conditioned to believe they are happy.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's true.  We're a happy lot in the land of plenty.  

I don't doubt that many people on welfare have been conditioned to believe they are happy.  

We can't help it. It's so beautiful here. People are happy, with less of the guns, race and hatred that motivates places like, oh say, Alabama or North Carolina. It's a state of mind more than anything.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I don't doubt that many people on welfare have been conditioned to believe they are happy.  

We can't help it.  It's so beautiful here.  People are happy, with less of the guns, race and hatred that motivates places like, oh say, Alabama or North Carolina.  It's a state of mind more than anything.

Yes, poverty does that to your mind.

"With a permanent majority in the state Senate and the Assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years."

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Cause the standard of living is Higher
therefore the cost of living is higher

pretty simple, poverty is income versus cost of living

If you increase the minimum standard of living the minimum cost of living goes up to.

if you look at some of the rational in the article it is entriely based off short term self interests, it's Houses are expensive because California requires housing to be sustainable and Unlike many other states has not systematically destroyed the future environment for miniscule short term savings and profits.

So giving people a higher wage while raising the cost of living increases poverty. Is increasing poverty a good idea?

it is relative, long term yes it is better as it reduces the wealth gap and improves the minimum standard.
as I believe Smelly argued, Poverty in the UK or Australia is a lot different than poverty in a 3rd world nation.

being in Poverty in UK and Australia is still better than being in poverty in California and being in poverty in California is better then being in poverty in States like Texas.

Of course running parallel to this needs to be other policies that require businesses and the wealthy to pay their fair share of tax towards a society that allows them to operate and hold wealth.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So giving people a higher wage while raising the cost of living increases poverty. Is increasing poverty a good idea?

it is relative, long term yes it is better as it reduces the wealth gap and improves the minimum standard.
as I believe Smelly argued, Poverty in the UK or Australia is a lot different than poverty in a 3rd world nation.

being in Poverty in UK and Australia is still better than being in poverty in California and being in poverty in California is better then being in poverty in States like Texas.

Of course running parallel to this needs to be other policies that require businesses and the wealthy to pay their fair share of tax towards a society that allows them to operate and hold wealth.

Why is poverty better in California than in Texas, when it is measured by the amount of spending power you have? I think some people don't know what poverty means. The only advantage poverty would have in Cali would be better weather. Having nothing in San Diego is better than having nothing in Amarillo I guess.

"The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse."


If you are making poverty worse, wouldn't the compassionate thing be to stop doing what you are doing? Or is making poverty worse the goal of good government. It's often said in jest that socialists want to spread the misery around. Perhaps now they actually believe that?

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So giving people a higher wage while raising the cost of living increases poverty. Is increasing poverty a good idea?

it is relative, long term yes it is better as it reduces the wealth gap and improves the minimum standard.
as I believe Smelly argued, Poverty in the UK or Australia is a lot different than poverty in a 3rd world nation.

being in Poverty in UK and Australia is still better than being in poverty in California and being in poverty in California is better then being in poverty in States like Texas.

Of course running parallel to this needs to be other policies that require businesses and the wealthy to pay their fair share of tax towards a society that allows them to operate and hold wealth.

Why is poverty better in California than in Texas, when it is measured by the amount of spending power you have? I think some people don't know what poverty means. The only advantage poverty would have in Cali would be better weather. Having nothing in San Diego is better than having nothing in Amarillo I guess.

Because if you are in poverty in California then there are all these state-funded programs to ensure you still have basics, the rent is more expensive but the property is better(due to planning laws and restrictions) so in both places if rent is taking 40% of your income at least in California the actual place your living in is better. Similarly with food, if in both case it is taking 30% of your income, but the minimum standard is higher in California so the food you actually eat is better.

the difference is more obvious in places like UK and Australia where even those technically in poverty still have health care better than the average American.
In Australia Food is relatively expensive due to regulations and legislated standards which means that the minimum standard of food is higher (this is offset by much higher minimum wages). As an example in Australia there is strict grades for Minced beef, from premium to economy for human consumption and then 'pet mince' that is only allowed to be sold as animal food. but We produce another grade of mince below pet mince that is illegal to be sold in Australia even as pet food. it's commonly called 'taco mince' and the US Fast food chains buy as much of it as we produce for sale to humans in America even though it is of such low grade that it is illegal to sell it to dogs in Australia.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why is poverty better in California than in Texas, when it is measured by the amount of spending power you have? I think some people don't know what poverty means. The only advantage poverty would have in Cali would be better weather. Having nothing in San Diego is better than having nothing in Amarillo I guess.

Because if you are in poverty in California then there are all these state-funded programs to ensure you still have basics, the rent is more expensive but the property is better(due to planning laws and restrictions) so in both places if rent is taking 40% of your income at least in California the actual place your living in is better. Similarly with food, if in both case it is taking 30% of your income, but the minimum standard is higher in California so the food you actually eat is better.

the difference is more obvious in places like UK and Australia where even those technically in poverty still have health care better than the average American.
In Australia Food is relatively expensive due to regulations and legislated standards which means that the minimum standard of food is higher (this is offset by much higher minimum wages). As an example in Australia there is strict grades for Minced beef, from premium to economy for human consumption and then 'pet mince' that is only allowed to be sold as animal food. but We produce another grade of mince below pet mince that is illegal to be sold in Australia even as pet food. it's commonly called 'taco mince' and the US Fast food chains buy as much of it as we produce for sale to humans in America even though it is of such low grade that it is illegal to sell it to dogs in Australia.

So, smaller living arrangements are better for people in poverty, because the higher property values lead to that? Even the middle class in California can't afford as much house as the rest of the country.    

And I think you're missing the point. It's not where is poverty the easiest to handle, but what areas tend to drive more people into poverty. Government driving more people into more poverty is not good government.

No that's not true
Because if we take the same standards, not comparative to income but in innate quality then many Americans that are not technically in poverty have it worse off than Australians that are technically in poverty.
Even in the most extreme poverty in Australia you still get $250 a week from the gov't, you still have your health care covered by the gov't, your kids still get a good education paid for by the gov't. Even if you need housing assistance you are far more likely to receive it via the gov't than any state in the USA.

the person with 'nothing' still has a lot more in Australia than the USA thanks to Australia's Socialist leaning gov't initiatives.

veya_victaous wrote:No that's not true
Because if we take the same standards, not comparative to income but in innate quality then many Americans that are not technically in poverty have it worse off than Australians that are technically in poverty.
Even in the most extreme poverty in Australia you still get $250 a week from the gov't, you still have your health care covered by the gov't, your kids still get a good education paid for by the gov't. Even if you need housing assistance you are far more likely to receive it via the gov't than any state in the USA.

the person with 'nothing' still has a lot more in Australia than the USA thanks to Australia's Socialist leaning gov't initiatives.

People in poverty in the US get housing, school and medical care. They also get free food. Not that any of that really matters to this subject.

That still doesn't explain why poverty is far more rampant in California. Worse yet, you seem to think that rampant poverty is some sort of indication of success.

"Several state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200% above the poverty line receive benefits."



Hell, in Cali, people living at twice the rate of poverty still are getting handouts.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:No that's not true
Because if we take the same standards, not comparative to income but in innate quality then many Americans that are not technically in poverty have it worse off than Australians that are technically in poverty.
Even in the most extreme poverty in Australia you still get $250 a week from the gov't, you still have your health care covered by the gov't, your kids still get a good education paid for by the gov't. Even if you need housing assistance you are far more likely to receive it via the gov't than any state in the USA.

the person with 'nothing' still has a lot more in Australia than the USA thanks to Australia's Socialist leaning gov't initiatives.

People in poverty in the US get housing, school and medical care. They also get free food. Not that any of that really matters to this subject.

That still doesn't explain why poverty is far more rampant in California. Worse yet, you seem to think that rampant poverty is some sort of indication of success.  

look at the maths used to in the OP to determine 'poverty'.
it is a measure of success if the MINIMUM standard (a.k.a the poverty point) is higher in REAL terms.
The OP is Comparing the number that are at/bellow the minimum standard, so more Californians are at/bellow the minimum standard for their state but they may well be over the minimum standard in other states.

And NO, really no, people in the USA Do Not get ADEQUATE health care or education for free at all, in poverty or not. Food stamps are Not comparable to the Australian Unemployment benefit, hell even an Americans working on minimum wage are worse off than being on the Australian Unemployment benefit.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

People in poverty in the US get housing, school and medical care. They also get free food. Not that any of that really matters to this subject.

That still doesn't explain why poverty is far more rampant in California. Worse yet, you seem to think that rampant poverty is some sort of indication of success.  

look at the maths used to in the OP to determine 'poverty'.
it is a measure of success if the MINIMUM standard (a.k.a the poverty point) is higher in REAL terms.
The OP is Comparing the number that are at/bellow the minimum standard, so more Californians are at/bellow the minimum standard for their state but they may well be over the minimum standard in other states.

And NO, really no, people in the USA Do Not get ADEQUATE health care or education for free at all, in poverty or not. Food stamps are Not comparable to the Australian Unemployment benefit, hell even an Americans working on minimum wage are worse off than being on the Australian Unemployment benefit.

I looked at the math. California has the highest number of people living in poverty. Somehow you can't seem to grasp either "the highest number" or "poverty". And you still don't address why California is the worse.

Our food stamps are separate from our unemployment benefit. That's a complete different deal.

And Medicaid covers the poor people quite well. It's the people that make too much for Medicaid that have issues with coverage.

Have you been listening to Quill? You sure sound like it.

Maddog is full of bullshit,  once again...

Poor people in the USA do get medical aid and basic healthcare --  but have access to less than 10% of the hospitals over there, meaning that the publicly-owned and university teaching hospitals are over-burdened with the public/welfare patients..

They are also allocated to certain doctors, and have limited access to anciliary services and medications;  which in turn helps to make them worse off than public patients not only in Oz, Britain, NZ, Canada and France --  but also Cuba, Russia and even Mexico.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog is full of bullshit,  once again...

Poor people in the USA do get medical aid and basic healthcare --  but have access to less than 10% of the hospitals over there, meaning that the publicly-owned and university teaching hospitals are over-burdened with the public/welfare patients..

They are also allocated to certain doctors, and have limited access to anciliary services and medications;  which in turn helps to make them worse off than public patients not only in Oz, Britain, NZ, Canada and France --  but also Cuba, Russia and even Mexico.

It would depend on how poor. People on Medicaid, which are the poorest, go to the same doctors as everyone else. As long as those doctors accept Medicaid. It's similar to Medicare which my 86 year old mother is on. She goes to the same doctors and hospitals as everyone else.

Now the working poor or those that don't have insurance (or those not here legally), may go to the county hospitals. But that doesn't mean substandard care. It's just government care, like our VA or the UK's NHS.

I live here, and am hardly full of shit.

Still no answer as to why poverty has the highest level in California.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

People in poverty in the US get housing, school and medical care. They also get free food. Not that any of that really matters to this subject.

That still doesn't explain why poverty is far more rampant in California. Worse yet, you seem to think that rampant poverty is some sort of indication of success.  

look at the maths used to in the OP to determine 'poverty'.
it is a measure of success if the MINIMUM standard (a.k.a the poverty point) is higher in REAL terms.
The OP is Comparing the number that are at/bellow the minimum standard, so more Californians are at/bellow the minimum standard for their state but they may well be over the minimum standard in other states.

And NO, really no, people in the USA Do Not get ADEQUATE health care or education for free at all, in poverty or not. Food stamps are Not comparable to the Australian Unemployment benefit, hell even an Americans working on minimum wage are worse off than being on the Australian Unemployment benefit.

I looked at the math. California has the highest number of people living in poverty. Somehow you can't seem to grasp either "the highest number" or "poverty". And you still don't address why California is the worse.

Our food stamps are separate from our unemployment benefit. That's a complete different deal.

And Medicaid covers the poor people quite well. It's the people that make too much for Medicaid that have issues with coverage.

Have you been listening to Quill? You sure sound like it.  

California had the highest number that failed to meet the Californian standard
you seem to be struggling with the fact that the People in California need More Money to meet the minimum standard, thus they were still richer than many in other states that have a lower standard. the Article at No point compare states to a National poverty level.

And no I don't have to listen to Quill, like most of the world I am Quite well exposed to US culture through it's television news and movies, and Again NO, the level of unemployment benefit in the USA is miniscule. the Healthcare that the Average Worker has to contend with (while paying massive fees) is atrocious.
Hey You know that TV show Breaking Bad? the whole premise of that show is only possible in the USA, in the UK or Australia etc he'd have been treated without the huge medical bills. No Australian Citizen in Australia is ever put in a position like that, I am more than happy to pay higher taxes so my fellow citizens are never put into such a situation, as they would find themselves in the USA.

Also the Article points out that the vast amount of American business are shit, they cant cope with a dollar pay raise? they can't cope with any regulations that may increase their cost? why are they really that bad a business? cause Aussie businesses pay a lot more than a dollar more than US business and have a shit tonne more regulations and expenses. Maybe what needs to happen is these shit business need to be allowed to close and have better entrepreneurs open up instead... it is far more moral to support struggling people than prop up bad businesses.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I looked at the math. California has the highest number of people living in poverty. Somehow you can't seem to grasp either "the highest number" or "poverty". And you still don't address why California is the worse.

Our food stamps are separate from our unemployment benefit. That's a complete different deal.

And Medicaid covers the poor people quite well. It's the people that make too much for Medicaid that have issues with coverage.

Have you been listening to Quill? You sure sound like it.  

California had the highest number that failed to meet the Californian standard  
you seem to be struggling with the fact that the People in California need More Money to meet the minimum standard, thus they were still richer than many in other states that have a lower standard. the Article at No point compare states to a National poverty level.

And no I don't have to listen to Quill, like most of the world I am Quite well exposed to US culture through it's television news and movies, and Again NO, the level of unemployment benefit in the USA is miniscule. the Healthcare that the Average Worker has to contend with (while paying massive fees) is atrocious.
Hey You know that TV show Breaking Bad? the whole premise of that show is only possible in the USA, in the UK or Australia etc he'd have been treated without the huge medical bills. No Australian Citizen in Australia is ever put in a position like that, I am more than happy to pay higher taxes so my fellow citizens are never put into such a situation, as they would find themselves in the USA.

Also the Article points out that the vast amount of American business are shit, they cant cope with a dollar pay raise? they can't cope with any regulations that may increase their cost? why are they really that bad a business? cause Aussie businesses pay a lot more than a dollar more than US business and have a shit tonne more regulations and expenses. Maybe what needs to happen is these shit business need to be allowed to close and have better entrepreneurs open up instead... it is far more moral to support struggling people than prop up bad businesses.

So what you are saying is California has policies that makes things so expensive that it drives more people into poverty than any other state.

I agree.

And I didn't ask about Australia and don't know how that has anything to do with the high poverty rates in California.

and those same Californian policies means the poor Californian is richer than the poor Texan
so California could solve it's 'poverty' by reducing it's economic prosperity and reducing the average wealth and standard of living to the same levels as other US states.

Cause California has a significantly Lower level of Gov't funded poverty support than Australia. If these polices created poverty then Australia would have poverty level higher than California/USA. which is doesn't and No Aussie is Australia is reduced to the same level of desperation as low paid workers in America. SO when policies are looked at in completion rather than trying to falsely present statistics to make a fallacious point their value is clear, the Average Person is far better off with these policies than with out them.

veya_victaous wrote:and those same Californian policies means the poor Californian is richer than the poor Texan    
so California could solve it's 'poverty' by reducing it's economic prosperity and reducing the average wealth and standard of living to the same levels as other US states.

Cause California has a significantly Lower level of Gov't funded poverty support than Australia. If these polices created poverty then Australia would have poverty level higher than California/USA. which is doesn't and No Aussie is Australia is reduced to the same level of desperation as low paid workers in America. SO when policies are looked at in completion rather than trying to falsely present statistics to make a fallacious point their value is clear, the Average Person is far better off with these policies than with out them.

What does wealth matter if you can't afford anything? What does it matter if that extra wealth is not enough to lift you out of poverty.

Australia and California are apples and oranges. And I don't think you have a clue how much California spends per person vs what Australia spends in terms of social services.

Yet, California is so beautiful. It takes care of it's own. Surfing in So. Calif., but 4-hours away and you're skiing in snow. There's no down-side to California.

California is the 5th-largest economy in the world, bigger than France, and it takes care of it's own. The money is spent on its own people, not on Trump's and Mercer's. It's sharing as sharing should be.

God bless California, god bless the Pacific States of America.

Original Quill wrote:Yet, California is so beautiful.  It takes care of it's own.  Surfing in So. Calif., but 4-hours away and you're skiing in snow.  There's no down-side to California.

California is the 5th-largest economy in the world, bigger than France, and it takes care of it's own.  The money is spent on its own people, not on Trump's and Mercer's.  It's sharing as sharing should be.

God bless California, god bless the Pacific States of America.

Yes, California is pretty. San Diego may have the best weather on the planet. It's a shame it's so screwed up that it leads the nation in poverty.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yet, California is so beautiful.  It takes care of it's own.  Surfing in So. Calif., but 4-hours away and you're skiing in snow.  There's no down-side to California.

California is the 5th-largest economy in the world, bigger than France, and it takes care of it's own.  The money is spent on its own people, not on Trump's and Mercer's.  It's sharing as sharing should be.

God bless California, god bless the Pacific States of America.

Yes, California is pretty. San Diego may have the best weather on the planet. It's a shame it's so screwed up that it leads the nation in poverty.  

Yet, everyone is happy over here. Life is good in California.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, California is pretty. San Diego may have the best weather on the planet. It's a shame it's so screwed up that it leads the nation in poverty.  

Yet, everyone is happy over here.  Life is good in California.

Yes, you have spoken to everyone, including those in poverty and they have all told you they are happy.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:and those same Californian policies means the poor Californian is richer than the poor Texan    
so California could solve it's 'poverty' by reducing it's economic prosperity and reducing the average wealth and standard of living to the same levels as other US states.

Cause California has a significantly Lower level of Gov't funded poverty support than Australia. If these polices created poverty then Australia would have poverty level higher than California/USA. which is doesn't and No Aussie is Australia is reduced to the same level of desperation as low paid workers in America. SO when policies are looked at in completion rather than trying to falsely present statistics to make a fallacious point their value is clear, the Average Person is far better off with these policies than with out them.

What does wealth matter if you can't afford anything? What does it matter if that extra wealth is not enough to lift you out of poverty.

Australia and California are apples and oranges. And I don't think you have a clue how much California spends per person vs what Australia spends in terms of social services.  

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-welfare-capital-of-the-us-2012jul28-htmlstory.html
That overall figure amounts to $179 annually for every man, woman and child in California. That trails New York ($256) and Hawaii ($233). Two large states among the lowest in per capita spending are Texas ($32) and Florida ($44). The national average is $99.

Australia is approximately AU$5800 per capita even allowing for a low exchange rate that is still US$4300 per capita
($146Billion divided by 25 Million people)
http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/glossy/welfare/html/welfare_01.htm

not even in the same ball park, According to the logic in the OP Australia should be in absolute poverty.

and wealth matters due to globalisation, while it may make manufacturing and labour intensive industries more expensive, it means that by global standards every one is wealthy enough to feed better meat to their dogs than low wage Americans are able to feed themselves.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What does wealth matter if you can't afford anything? What does it matter if that extra wealth is not enough to lift you out of poverty.

Australia and California are apples and oranges. And I don't think you have a clue how much California spends per person vs what Australia spends in terms of social services.  

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-welfare-capital-of-the-us-2012jul28-htmlstory.html
That overall figure amounts to $179 annually for every man, woman and child in California. That trails New York ($256) and Hawaii ($233). Two large states among the lowest in per capita spending are Texas ($32) and Florida ($44). The national average is $99.

Australia is approximately AU$5800 per capita even allowing for a low exchange rate that is still US$4300 per capita
($146Billion divided by 25 Million people)
http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/glossy/welfare/html/welfare_01.htm

not even in the same ball park, According to the logic in the OP Australia should be in absolute poverty.

and wealth matters due to globalisation, while it may make manufacturing and labour intensive industries more expensive, it means that by global standards every one is wealthy enough to feed better meat to their dogs than low wage Americans are able to feed themselves.

That's what California spends in California. What do the feds spend in California?

How much does New South Wales spend compared to California? That would be apples to apples.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Social-welfare-spending/%3E-%25-of-GDP/Excluding-education

well that's nation to nation, a bit old but you can see Australia 18% of GDP. USA 14.8% of GDP

And excluding education, which is an area that many nations far exceed the USA in public spending.

veya_victaous wrote:http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Social-welfare-spending/%3E-%25-of-GDP/Excluding-education

well that's nation to nation, a bit old but you can see Australia 18% of GDP. USA 14.8% of GDP

And excluding education, which is an area that many nations far exceed the USA in public spending.

Looks like the folks in S. Korea are getting the most bang for their buck.

At least they were 17 years ago.