10 Poorest States in US to have voted for Trump are Poorer than Baltimore

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  485
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
01 August 2019 10:51
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17892
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
01 August 2019 15:21
 

meaningless ranting about an invented issue designed to manipulate people to the sites agenda and views.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
01 August 2019 17:05
 

One would think median household income is the more important measure than per capita income because it better reflects what people in general earn, and at $46, 641 Baltimore City’s median income is lower than seven of the states on Cole’s list (only Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi are lower).  It’s also lower than all but one of the other 22 states that voted for Trump in 2016 (West Virginia).  In other words, ranked as a state, Baltimore would place 47th of 51.

Also, two corrections.  First, the correct per capita income for Baltimore is—according to the US Census Bureau—$28, 488, somewhat below the national average of $31, 177.  Second, for “per capita income of the 10 lowest states,” he links to per capita GDP, not per capita income.  This links to per capita income by state, but the table is out of date.

Both Montana and Florida have a higher per capita income than Baltimore, but by sheer luck he is right about the other eight states.

As for per capita GDP, at $59,079, the Baltimore-Towson-Columbia Metro area ranks higher than all but 6 states, so naturally it’s higher than the 10 poorest states that voted for Trump.  But that’s not only Baltimore City; it includes a large metropolitan area in one of the wealthiest parts of the country.  In any case, one can’t spend per capita GDP, and all the included areas far outrank Baltimore City in median household and per capita income.

[ Edited: 01 August 2019 20:51 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  485
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
01 August 2019 23:38
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 01 August 2019 05:05 PM

One would think median household income is the more important measure than per capita income because it better reflects what people in general earn, and at $46, 641 Baltimore City’s median income is lower than seven of the states on Cole’s list (only Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi are lower).  It’s also lower than all but one of the other 22 states that voted for Trump in 2016 (West Virginia).  In other words, ranked as a state, Baltimore would place 47th of 51.

Also, two corrections.  First, the correct per capita income for Baltimore is—according to the US Census Bureau—$28, 488, somewhat below the national average of $31, 177.  Second, for “per capita income of the 10 lowest states,” he links to per capita GDP, not per capita income.  This links to per capita income by state, but the table is out of date.

Both Montana and Florida have a higher per capita income than Baltimore, but by sheer luck he is right about the other eight states.

As for per capita GDP, at $59,079, the Baltimore-Towson-Columbia Metro area ranks higher than all but 6 states, so naturally it’s higher than the 10 poorest states that voted for Trump.  But that’s not only Baltimore City; it includes a large metropolitan area in one of the wealthiest parts of the country.  In any case, one can’t spend per capita GDP, and all the included areas far outrank Baltimore City in median household and per capita income.

Well, you’re right about the to per capita GDP.  I don’t know why the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED) data on per capita income is so different from the census bureau data.  It doesn’t really make sense.  I’m not sure median household income is a better measure than per capita income, but I guess you could make that argument.  Both depend on a lot of other things anyway.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
02 August 2019 04:50
 

I’m not sure median household income is a better measure than per capita income…

It’s a statistical point.  Median income means half of the people earn less than the median, and half earn more.  Per capita income is the total incomes divided by the number of people to generate an average.  With median income, you get a decent idea what people are earning; the scale is not skewed by extreme values on either end of the distribution.  With the average, extreme values on either end do skew the value, easily obscuring what’s going on.  With a figure like the median you can confidently say that half the population is doing x.  With a figure like the average, one has no real idea how any fraction of the population is doing.

As an illustration, say you have a town with incomes of 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 9, 15.  The median income is 2, meaning half earn less than 2 and half earn more.  The average income is 4.3.  The median tells you half the people in the community are not doing so well, and for the other half who knows.  The average suggests the community is doing just fine.  Note, though, that only 2 people actually earn the average or more, whereas 4 earn less than the median and 4 earn more—and the median is quite low.  And so forth with typical income distributions.

I agree that both depend on a lot of things and would add that neither gives an adequate picture by itself.  Taking to the two together, however, suggests a lot more poverty in Baltimore bringing the per capita income down than great wealth driving it up (and in fact compared to the four Red states with as low or lower median incomes—the 4 poorest in the US—Baltimore has the highest poverty rate).

Look, I hate to be the one whose fact checking takes anything away from making Trump look stupid, but I blame Mr. Cole for being just as bad.

[ Edited: 02 August 2019 10:06 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  485
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
02 August 2019 10:13
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 02 August 2019 04:50 AM

I’m not sure median household income is a better measure than per capita income…

It’s a statistical point.  Median income means half of the people earn less than the median, and half earn more.  Per capita income is the total incomes divided by the number of people to generate an average.  With median income, you get a decent idea what people are earning; the scale is not skewed by extreme values on either end of the distribution.  With the average, extreme values on either end do skew the value, easily obscuring what’s going on.  With a figure like the median you can confidently say that half the population is doing x.  With a figure like the average, one has no real idea how any fraction of the population is doing.

As an illustration, say you have a town with incomes of 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 9, 15.  The median income is 2, meaning half earn less than 2 and half earn more.  The average income is 4.3.  The median tells you half the people in the community are not doing so well, and for the other half who knows.  The average suggests the community is doing just fine.  Note, though, that only 2 people actually earn the average or more, whereas 4 earn less than the median and 4 earn more—and the median is quite low.  And so forth with typical income distributions.

I agree that both depend on a lot of things and would add that neither gives an adequate picture by itself.  Taking to the two together, however, suggests a lot more poverty in Baltimore bringing the per capita income down than great wealth driving it up (and in fact compared to the four Red states with as low or lower median incomes—the 4 poorest in the US—Baltimore has the highest poverty rate).

Look, I hate to be the one whose fact checking takes anything away from making Trump look stupid, but I blame Mr. Cole for being just as bad.

Yes, as you point out, this article is a disappointment, so I’ve emailed him (through the contact form)

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5220
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
02 August 2019 16:08
 

Trump only ever uses the oldest and most ham handed of political gimmicks. Getting poor people to blame poorer people is as boilerplate as it gets and Trump plays that one like a fiddle.