Economy Unemployment down to 6.9% in October

nostradumbass said:
Even split? The only red state in the top 10 per capita is Alaska, not counting DC which is miles above every real state in every metric of being a total failure, and for just plain numbers without adjusting for population, NY and CA alone have more than half the entire country's homeless population, which is more than 5x the 2 biggest red states.


https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1300&fn[]=2900&fn[]=6400&fn[]=10200&fn[]=13400

The only red state in the top 10 is Alaska.

https://porch.com/advice/states-with-largest-homeless-populations
Click to expand...
if you're not adjusting for population then how is it even relevant? I'm not arguing either side just saying that doesn't make sense.
 
dreden1982 said:
if you're not adjusting for population then how is it even relevant? I'm not arguing either side just saying that doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
I gave both. Per capita, Alaska is the only red state in the top 10, none of the top 5. Plain numbers, which I'm assuming is where the other poster got his "split" from, FL and TX come in 3rd and 4th because they're the 2nd and 3rd biggest states in the country, but those 2 states are miles behind NY and CA. NY and CA combined have like 260,000 homeless with about 58 million people, TX and FL combined have about 54,000 homeless people out of about 52 million people. Hell, Oregon and Washington have 37,000 homeless and their combined population is only like 12 million.
 
Blayt7hh said:
Oh, now you care about income inequality?

I couldn't follow your link on homeless rates because it wants to install a bunch of shit on your computer, so I went ahead and googled it myself. It's pretty much an even split of red/blue states with all the ones you would expect. I don't think anyone is going to argue that California is a model state. That place is a mess
Click to expand...

nostradumbass said:
Even split? The only red state in the top 10 per capita is Alaska, not counting DC which is miles above every real state in every metric of being a total failure, and for just plain numbers without adjusting for population, NY and CA alone have more than half the entire country's homeless population, which is more than 5x the 2 biggest red states.


https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1300&fn[]=2900&fn[]=6400&fn[]=10200&fn[]=13400

The only red state in the top 10 is Alaska.

https://porch.com/advice/states-with-largest-homeless-populations
Click to expand...

Might not pertain to the discussion but I think inequality metrics are tricky to get relevant information out of. An area can have high inequality but most of the population is doing good with there just being very very rich people. Or you could get an area where everyone is poor and that makes it more equal. I don’t like the metric at all tbh. People should look at poverty specific to the areas wages/ costs and see if they are in a good or bad spot. Inequality adds too much noise imo.
 
Lead said:
Might not pertain to the discussion but I think inequality metrics are tricky to get relevant information out of. An area can have high inequality but most of the population is doing good with there just being very very rich people. Or you could get an area where everyone is poor and that makes it more equal. I don’t like the metric at all tbh. People should look at poverty specific to the areas wages/ costs and see if they are in a good or bad spot. Inequality adds too much noise imo.
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't particularly mind inequality if poverty is low. Unfortunately for California, that is not the case, and they have the most billionaires in the country while also having the most homeless people and rank #1 in supplemental poverty rate.

Starting point also matters to see which direction a place is going, and unfortunately again for CA, they actually had a very strong starting point that they've managed to ruin over the last couple decades to overtake states in supplemental poverty rate that started off in a much worse spot.
 
ElKarlo said:
Stay illiterate then. Clearly you’ve never been one to want to learn and to think in any way
Click to expand...

4.8%
Better than the projected 5.1%

Too bad your golden cow was too obsessed with himself rather than actually performing his duty serving the public. But hey, better luck in 2028
 
Lead said:
Might not pertain to the discussion but I think inequality metrics are tricky to get relevant information out of. An area can have high inequality but most of the population is doing good with there just being very very rich people. Or you could get an area where everyone is poor and that makes it more equal. I don’t like the metric at all tbh. People should look at poverty specific to the areas wages/ costs and see if they are in a good or bad spot. Inequality adds too much noise imo.
Click to expand...

Generally, different metrics are good for different purposes, but hacks here aren't really interested in actually studying data to learn something; it's just about trying to score dumb partisan points.

In the case of CA, the economy is very strong overall (and actual poverty is low) but there's a huge housing shortage. The trick is to keep the good parts and increase the housing supply. SB 9 and 10, which just passed (Newsom signed after winning), are huge steps in the right direction.
 
No shit; unemployment always decreases in the 4th quarter with all the seasonal hiring.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Generally, different metrics are good for different purposes, but hacks here aren't really interested in actually studying data to learn something; it's just about trying to score dumb partisan points.

In the case of CA, the economy is very strong overall (and actual poverty is low) but there's a huge housing shortage. The trick is to keep the good parts and increase the housing supply. SB 9 and 10, which just passed (Newsom signed after winning), are huge steps in the right direction.
Click to expand...

What is your reference to actual poverty? I have this which puts CA on average to national

https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17826#P92fbcef6bc5346399e3becd6917e37b1_2_229iT3
 
Lead said:
What is your reference to actual poverty? I have this which puts CA on average to national

https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17826#P92fbcef6bc5346399e3becd6917e37b1_2_229iT3
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. So "normal for the country" would be better (you can also find county-level data, which is more useful still). Note, though that from a policy standpoint, lifting the poverty rate in a time and place with a good economy requires transfers (and many measures exclude transfer income) rather than goosing the economy.

The issue with the other approach is that it just amounts to "housing costs are high," which is a different problem with a different solution than what I called high actual poverty (a lot of people with very low incomes or a high portion of the population in vulnerable groups).
 
Last edited:
skold said:
4.8%
Better than the projected 5.1%

Too bad your golden cow was too obsessed with himself rather than actually performing his duty serving the public. But hey, better luck in 2028
Click to expand...
You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Even for you, this is dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,073
Messages
55,465,811
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top