Again the fact is on the SPM blue states are poorer on average. This is from 2016.
Sorry just the facts. Please stop using old methods that fail to factor in cost of living. The link even compares the map using the old method vs the new method.
Higher poverty and higher number of homeless in blue states. Your links are true only using an outdated measure.
Again the fact is on the SPM blue states are poorer on average. This is from 2016.
Sorry just the facts. Please stop using old methods that fail to factor in cost of living. The link even compares the map using the old method vs the new method.
Higher poverty and higher number of homeless in blue states. Your links are true only using an outdated measure.
You're trolling now.
Both of my links state adjustments for cost of living and SPM. I'm not using old methods.
Even your link only says CA, not all red vs all blue.
Red vs. Blue States
More poverty
Lower Income
Lower GDP
Lower Education
Lower Health and Higher Obesity
Lower Human Developement Index
Use the most federal aid
I've given 2-3 links for each data point. They are all true. Red States are objectively worse, on average.
Nothing you ever say will change the fact Red states have a worse Human Developement Index, gdp, income, poverty, and worse health conditions.
@zaryia: Both of my links compare the two methods and show blue states have higher poverty based off SPM
I'm not seeing that. It just says CA has the most. It doesn't compare all 50. You're looking at the "Top" but not average.
Meanwhile both of my link specifically stating SPM and adjustment for costs and shows all 50 states, and on average red is worse. Mine specifically even gives the average income of red vs blue. Yours does no such thing.
Also, what about the lower HDI? Red states just have worse overall living conditions. This is a fact.
@zaryia: Look at the maps on the link. Its color coded. Red, orange yellow are higher poverty. Dark green, lite green or lower poverty. It compares a map of the entire US with the first map using the old measure and the second map using the SPM. Notice how the entire North East goes from rich to poor based off the SPM.
What about blue states having a higher rate of homelessness? I'd rather be fat then homeless.
@zaryia: lots of red states have more rural areas that make the state red, but have huge cities that are blue. Like Texas, you have the liberal cesspools of Austin, Dallas, and Houston ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@zaryia: Look at the maps on the link. Its color coded. Red, orange yellow are higher poverty.
That map uses the data I'm using from 2014. The data I'm using gives actual numbers, and red states have a higher average poverty overall. The map even kind of hints at that. Red states also have lower income when adjusting for this.
@blackhairedhero said:
I'd rather be fat then homeless.
The rate of obesity in red states far outweighs the rate of homelessness in blue states.
@zaryia: Again your denying facts. My link is from 2016 and you notice clearly more blue states are in the red and orange once you factor in the SPM. Sorry blue states are poorer based off the SPM. Its proven without question in my link its as simple as reading a color chart.
@zaryia: Again your denying facts. My link is from 2016 and you notice clearly more blue states are in the red and irance once you factor in the SPM. Sorry blue states are poorer based off the SPM. Its proven without question in my link its as simple as reading a color chart.
Your link is from 2016, but its using 2010-2014 data. The same data I'm drawing from. Perhaps you're color blind, but the actual numbers state Blue>Red.
You don't even know how to check your own citation. I can see why Trump won with the biggest uneducated vote in 30 years.
P.S. I'm glad you're conveniently ignoring gdp, federal aid use, income, health, and HDI. Fact is Red states have a lower human developement index. This isn't debatable.
@zaryia: Please don't talk about education when you can't read a simple color chart. The link is checkmate bro end of discussion. Far more blue states are in orange and red once you factor in the SPM. That 7k a year more they make in blue states doesn't make up for the cost of living differences.
1. Learn to read a color chart.
2. Learn what the SPM is.
I'll address the other issues once you acknowledge that blue states on average have higher poverty based off the concrete evidence I posted.
That 7k a year more they make in blue states doesn't make up for the cost of living differences.
Lie.
Median household income
In 2014; adjusted for regional price differences
They specifically adjusted for this. The article even goes into detail that they did so.
@blackhairedhero said:
Learn what the SPM is.
Lie. My very first link,
Supplemental Poverty Measure (2010-2014 average)
Can't read?
@blackhairedhero said:
The link is checkmate bro end of discussion.
No it's not. Poverty, which you're still wrong about, isn't the only measure we've been discussing. You're ignoring 8 of my data points. Red states have worse conditions overall, this isn't debatable.
@zaryia: No point in carrying on this conversation since you can't read a simple color chart. It's as clear as day and anyone who reads the link can see that.
When factoring in SPM blue states have the highest poverty and higher poverty rate on average. Its crucial you acknowledge a concrete fact before we carry on.
@zaryia: higher average income doesn't change the fact they have more poverty. Please look up the SPM and get back to me. Let me make it simple for you. 35k a year is not living in poverty in a place like Kentucky yet 40k a year( despite being more income) still puts you in poverty due to the higher cost of living in the North east. None of your links refute that and my link clearly backs it up. Again understand what the SPM is and understand blue states on average are poorer.
Higher poverty rate and more homeless make for objectively worse conditions in blue states.
@zaryia: higher average income doesn't change the fact they have more poverty. Please look up the SPM and get back to me. Let me make it simple for you. 35k a year is not living in poverty in a place like Kentucky yet 40k a year( despite being more income) still puts you in poverty due to the higher cost of living in the North east. None of your links refute that and my link clearly backs it up. Again understand what the SPM is and understand blue states on average are poorer.
Higher poverty rate and more homeless make for objectively worse conditions in blue states.
Nonsense. Your giving 1 state examples. I'm talking averages.
Red has,
More poverty (SPM included)
Lower Income
Lower GDP
Lower Education
Lower Health and Higher Obesity
Lower Human Development Index
Use the most federal aid
I've given 2-3 links for each data point. They are all true.
You have given 0 links countering the data above. You have given 1 link saying CA has the most poverty after SPM. That's all.
@zaryia: Again read the color coded maps. It has all 50 states. Notice the entire north east switches to higher poverty on the SPM. This is not up for debate simply learn to read a color chart.
The second map shows all 50 states on the new SPM.
@zaryia: Again read the color coded maps. It has all 50 states. Notice the entire north east switches to higher poverty on the SPM. This is not up for debate simply learn to read a color chart.
The second map shows all 50 states on the new SPM.
This conflicts from the same data I'm using, on top of 7 other data points you keep ignoring.
@zaryia: Again read the color coded maps. It has all 50 states. Notice the entire north east switches to higher poverty on the SPM. This is not up for debate simply learn to read a color chart.
The second map shows all 50 states on the new SPM.
This conflicts from the same data I'm using, on top of 7 other data points you keep ignoring.
@zaryia: Nope. The map gives a overall score based off the SPM. There is no conflict your links simply don't do that. Your also posting from wikipedia which is lol worthy. My link is from Forbes. Again anyone who knows how to read a color chart knows blue states are worse off based off the SPM according to my valid link. You need to acknowledge this basic fact first. Your proving to me that libs can't read links or color charts and that's concerning.
@zaryia: Again read the color coded maps. It has all 50 states. Notice the entire north east switches to higher poverty on the SPM. This is not up for debate simply learn to read a color chart.
The second map shows all 50 states on the new SPM.
This conflicts from the same data I'm using, on top of 7 other data points you keep ignoring.
Red states have worse conditions. No question.
You're really ignoring proof? wow
What are you smoking. This isn't even a debatable topic, it's even more solid than climate change. It's hard data. Red states have worse living conditions. I'm not ignoring his proof. It says what I'm saying. He can't read it properly. My sourcing is more numerous, detailed, and comprehensive than his. He's still stuck trying to disprove 1 of my 8 points. And he's not doing too well, considering these first 3 links:
Poverty and Income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate
@zaryia: Nope. The map gives a overall score based off the SPM. There is no conflict your links simply don't do that. Your also posting from wikipedia which is lol worthy. My link is from Forbes. Again anyone who knows how to read a color chart knows blue states are worse off based off the SPM according to my valid link. You need to acknowledge this basic fact first. Your proving to me that libs can't read links or color charts and that's concerning.
You're looking at the wrong map. You're looking at the map that shows the shift changes when SMP is presented. Look at the third map, which shows final results. This clearly shows a mixed bag, with a slight lead to Red states with higher poverty. When you actually use exact numbers for all red states and all blue states, Red states have higher poverty on average. And lower income.
Based off the SPM blue states are worse off... end of discussion.
You have posted a dozen links and not one refutes this claim. Not one of them mention the SPM which is the new standard as of 2009.
Your maps are based strictly off income which is outdated.
PS. In case you can't read a color coded map red and orange are worse then green and lite green.
This is not debatable. The single most important category in determining a condition for the state is poverty ratio and going by the new standard blue states are worse.
Based off the SPM blue states are worse off... end of discussion.
You have posted a dozen links and not one refutes this claim. Not one of them mention the SPM which is the new standard as of 2009.
Your maps are based strictly off income which is outdated.
PS. In case you can't read a color coded map red and orange are worse then green and lite green.
This is not debatable. The single most important category in determining a condition for the state is poverty ratio and going by the new standard blue states are worse.
You moron, He's using the wrong map. "Change in Poverty Measure when Switching". That's not what we're looking for. That's literally just shows us the number each state changes by when using SPM, not the final results. Hence the +3, +5, +2.5, etc. The darker the color, the more the changes, but this doesn't necessarily mean the end results made Blue states end up more poor.
Here are the final results, after the adjustments, as shown by his very source. Red has a slightly higher poverty rate due to the Midwest states. These numbers line up with the link I gave, which has the actual number for each state. When averaged, RED IS WORSE.
@blackhairedhero said:
Living wage in TN
http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/47037
Vs living wage in Cali
http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/06
For one adult and one child you need to make st least 13k a year more in CA to have the same standard of living in TN hence the importance of the SPM.
You're comparing 1 state to another 1 state. When comparing every state, it's 57k>53k. Adjusted for cost of living.
Red states are worse off than Blue states. On average you will make 4k less, be less healthy, and have a worse education. That's just the facts, and why Red states lose out on all HDI charts.
Not one of them mention the SPM which is the new standard as of 2009.
My very first link mentions SPM, which shows Red states below Blue, with specific number of each state with and without SPM. Red loses both.
My second link mentions adjustment for Income and the cost of living.
The single most important category in determining a condition for the state
1. I would need citation on this. Average Income, Health, and Education are not important living conditions? What?
2. But Red states are worse with or without SPM. SPM just closes the gap to a very narrow margin, but still with Red being slightly worse. Combined with the 7 other factors, the out look isn't good.
3. Quick, tell me the trend with all of these maps: (and almost all maps I can find on any measure for anything related to living conditions)
@zaryia: Again not one of your maps mention the SPM. Hence why CA isn't ranked worse in any of the maps you posted you dunce. I know you struggle with color coded maps but only the maps I posted deal with SPM. Yours are going based off overall income. When we deal with the 3 year average map your still worse off with Cali and New York taking the 1 and 3 spot by a MASSIVE MARGIN and Florida isn't really a red state as it voted for Obama twice. So you could argue 4 out of the top 5 poorest states are blue. And I'd hate to tell you but there are far more red states then blue states. What we do know is 3 of the top 5 states that are consistently blue make up the top 5 poorest on the SPM with only one consistent red state making the list.
Again your not reading links. The difference between Cali and TN is nearly 13k a year. This is a common gap between blue and red states when the more money you make simply doesn't make up for the cost of living.
Your other links are just pulling from the same source. Any state that has higher Obesity will obviously have lower life expectancy but your income links are worthless because as shown more people live in poverty in blue states.
@zaryia: Again not one of your maps mention the SPM. Hence why CA isn't ranked worse in any of the maps you posted you dunce. I know you struggle with color coded maps but only the maps I posted deal with SPM. Yours are going based off overall income. When we deal with the 3 year average map your still worse off with Cali and New York taking the 1 and 3 spot by a MASSIVE MARGIN and Florida isn't really a red state as it voted for Obama twice. So you could argue 4 out of the top 5 poorest states are blue. And I'd hate to tell you but there are far more red states then blue states. What we do know is 3 of the top 5 states that are consistently blue make up the top 5 poorest on the SPM with only one consistent red state making the list.
Again your not reading links. The difference between Cali and TN is nearly 13k a year. This is a common gap between blue and red states when the more money you make simply doesn't make up for the cost of living.
1. The income adjusts for different living costs depending on region. The graph itself states this. 57k>53k. Red states have lower income.
2. Stop comparing California to everything. I said average. The 3 year average SPM map shows Red states have slightly more poverty, on average. The 3 year average non SPMmap shows the same.
3. Red states have lower income. Higher poverty. Worse education. Lower gdp. Worse Health. And worse Human Development Index.
There is almost no map I can find that shows Blue states having worse living conditions overall on average. The HDI indicates this as well, if the separate measures weren't enough. Meanwhile, I've found over 20 that show the opposite. You saying they don't count does not make it so they don't count. That's low IQ debating.
I'll continue to post them, because the data is overwhelming. This is like debating climate change. Jesus christ dude.
Gallery
Overall Health:
Overall calculation of crime, economy, weather, education, health,
1. I never stated once that red states didn't have lower income what I stated is the cost of living is so much higher the extra income doesn't make up for it. Hence why blue states have higher poverty and more homeless based off the SPM
2. Except that's not true. And again 4 out of the top poorest states based off the SPM are blue states with 3 of the top 5 consistently blue.
3.Wrong again. Lower income true but they also have lower poverty.
Your on flat earth levels of stupid st this point. 3 out of the top 5 poorest states are consistently blue and you are somehow praising liberal policies. The HDI doesn't use the SPM so it's an irrelevant index.
1. I never stated once that red states didn't have lower income what I stated is the cost of living is so much higher the extra income doesn't make up for it. Hence why blue states have higher poverty and more homeless based off the SPM
2. Except that's not true. And again 4 out of the top poorest states based off the SPM are blue states with 3 of the top 5 consistently blue.
3.Wrong again. Lower income true but they also have lower poverty.
Your on flat earth levels of stupid st this point. 3 out of the top 5 poorest states are consistently blue and you are somehow praising liberal policies. The HDI doesn't use the SPM so it's an irrelevant index.
1. Lie. The graph specially says cost of living adjusted for. Red states have lower income.
2. Stop looking at the top 5, look at all 50. Red states on average have a higher poverty. SPM or no SPM.
3. Red states have worse living conditions overall, considering 8 different factors. Resulting in a lower HDI and all measures associated separate if you don't like HDI.
If you live in a red state, there is a higher chance that you will be making less money (adjusted for cost of living), you will be less healthy, you will be less educated, and you will be using more federal aid.
You're reaching climate denier levels of stupidity. My evidence is overwhelming. Almost every chart on this issue shows a map resembling the electorate college.
1. It doesn't compare the cost of living between states.. wtf is so hard for you to understand. Are you telling me 5k extra a year would allow you to live the same quality of life in the Northeast as it would the midwest? Is this the claim you're making?
2. No they don't and the sad thing is the most liberal states are the worse. That is your argument correct? That leftwing policy is somewhat better? But if it is why are the most liberal states the worst?
3. Every chart is based off old measures. The HDI factors in GDP and overall income which does not factor the SPM. I told you that multiple times.
With the most liberal states having the largest wealth gap meaning the average are screwed because the extremely wealthy are boosting them at the expense of the poor.
1. It doesn't compare the cost of living between states.. wtf is so hard for you to understand. Are you telling me 5k extra a year would allow you to live the same quality of life in the Northeast as it would the midwest? Is this the claim you're making?
2. No they don't and the sad thing is the most liberal states are the worse. That is your argument correct? That leftwing policy is somewhat better? But if it is why are the most liberal states the worst?
3. Every chart is based off old measures. The HDI factors in GDP and overall income which does not factor the SPM. I told you that multiple times.
With the most liberal states having the largest wealth gap meaning the average are screwed because the extremely wealthy are boosting them at the expense of the poor.
1. IT LITERALLY SAYS THE 57>53 IS AFTER REGIONAL COST ADJUSTMENTS. You lose.
2. The graph shows blue states on average have lower poverty vs red states on average.
3. You're lying. The Health and Education charts do not have to factor in SPM. This is arm-chair theory. HDI is using the latest SPM figures.
Yes. Blue states have a higher wealth gap. I never said they were perfect.
They're just better off than Red States overall.
@blackhairedhero said:
@zaryia: lmore proof that looks like liberal policies are not working anymore.
If you keep denying, my next post will have over 10 charts all showing red states are worse in far more measure, and far more important measures. Lower income, lower gdp, lower health, more obesity, more federal aid reliance, worse education, lower HDI. All better sourced than yours. There are very very few charts showing otherwise.
I'm sorry, but I simply have more facts on my side. And more relevant ones.
@zaryia: 1. Thats still just an average income . I'm not sure what your not understanding. Again are you arguing that 57k a year in the Northeast will allow you to have the same quality of life as 54k a year in the midwest? Is that what your arguing? Because I will gladly compare states if you like.
2. The graph shows the most liberal states have the worst poverty and are on target to get worse. That directly refutes your point that left wing policies are better
3. Children living in poverty should factor in SPM which it does not. The HDI factors in overall income and GDP which again given the massive wealth gap and higher poverty rates is pointless. The health and life expectancy can be linked less to policy and more to geographical differences and Obesity.
Yes outlook. Meaning liberal policies have caused those to sped money they don't have and dooming their states to failure proving that in fact they don't work.
@zaryia: 1. Thats still just an average income . I'm not sure what your not understanding. Again are you arguing that 57k a year in the Northeast will allow you to have the same quality of life as 54k a year in the midwest? Is that what your arguing? Because I will gladly compare states if you like.
2. The graph shows the most liberal states have the worst poverty and are on target to get worse. That directly refutes your point that left wing policies are better
3. Children living in poverty should factor in SPM which it does not. The HDI factors in overall income and GDP which again given the massive wealth gap and higher poverty rates is pointless. The health and life expectancy can be linked less to policy and more to geographical differences and Obesity.
This is arm chair theory. Nothing you are saying is what my data points are saying. They explicitly are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. It says adjusted for cost of living. I have no clue what you are going on about.
Red states on average have,
Lower Income
Higher poverty
Lower Education
Lower Health
Higher Obesity
Lower Human Development Index
No data point I've seen shows otherwise. I will continue to post this as 100% accurate facts.
@zaryia: 1. Thats still just an average income . I'm not sure what your not understanding. Again are you arguing that 57k a year in the Northeast will allow you to have the same quality of life as 54k a year in the midwest? Is that what your arguing? Because I will gladly compare states if you like.
2. The graph shows the most liberal states have the worst poverty and are on target to get worse. That directly refutes your point that left wing policies are better
3. Children living in poverty should factor in SPM which it does not. The HDI factors in overall income and GDP which again given the massive wealth gap and higher poverty rates is pointless. The health and life expectancy can be linked less to policy and more to geographical differences and Obesity.
This is arm chair theory. Nothing you are saying is what my data points are saying. They explicitly are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. It says adjusted for cost of living. I have no clue what you are going on about.
Red states on average have,
Lower Income
Higher poverty
Lower Education
Lower Health
Higher Obesity
Lower Human Development Index
No data point I've seen shows otherwise. I will continue to post this as 100% accurate facts.
@zaryia: 1. Thats still just an average income . I'm not sure what your not understanding. Again are you arguing that 57k a year in the Northeast will allow you to have the same quality of life as 54k a year in the midwest? Is that what your arguing? Because I will gladly compare states if you like.
2. The graph shows the most liberal states have the worst poverty and are on target to get worse. That directly refutes your point that left wing policies are better
3. Children living in poverty should factor in SPM which it does not. The HDI factors in overall income and GDP which again given the massive wealth gap and higher poverty rates is pointless. The health and life expectancy can be linked less to policy and more to geographical differences and Obesity.
This is arm chair theory. Nothing you are saying is what my data points are saying. They explicitly are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. It says adjusted for cost of living. I have no clue what you are going on about.
Red states on average have,
Lower Income
Higher poverty
Lower Education
Lower Health
Higher Obesity
Lower Human Development Index
No data point I've seen shows otherwise. I will continue to post this as 100% accurate facts.
Never seen you backpeddle so much.
You are trolling right now. You even fell for his wrongly used map earlier. Please tell me exactly what I backpedaled on.
Nothing I've said has been wrong.
I saw you do this in another thread. I beat someone in a debate but you quoted the guy and wrote /destroyed to make it look like I lost.
Please keep this childish behavior in System Wars.
@zaryia: 1. Thats still just an average income . I'm not sure what your not understanding. Again are you arguing that 57k a year in the Northeast will allow you to have the same quality of life as 54k a year in the midwest? Is that what your arguing? Because I will gladly compare states if you like.
2. The graph shows the most liberal states have the worst poverty and are on target to get worse. That directly refutes your point that left wing policies are better
3. Children living in poverty should factor in SPM which it does not. The HDI factors in overall income and GDP which again given the massive wealth gap and higher poverty rates is pointless. The health and life expectancy can be linked less to policy and more to geographical differences and Obesity.
This is arm chair theory. Nothing you are saying is what my data points are saying. They explicitly are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. It says adjusted for cost of living. I have no clue what you are going on about.
Red states on average have,
Lower Income
Higher poverty
Lower Education
Lower Health
Higher Obesity
Lower Human Development Index
No data point I've seen shows otherwise. I will continue to post this as 100% accurate facts.
Never seen you backpeddle so much.
You are trolling right now. Please tell me exactly what I backpedaled on.
I saw you do this in another thread. I beat someone in a debate but you quoted the guy and wrote /destroyed to make it look like I lost.
This is arm chair theory. Nothing you are saying is what my data points are saying. They explicitly are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. It says adjusted for cost of living. I have no clue what you are going on about.
Red states on average have,
Lower Income
Higher poverty
Lower Education
Lower Health
Higher Obesity
Lower Human Development Index
No data point I've seen shows otherwise. I will continue to post this as 100% accurate facts.
Never seen you backpeddle so much.
You are trolling right now. Please tell me exactly what I backpedaled on.
I saw you do this in another thread. I beat someone in a debate but you quoted the guy and wrote /destroyed to make it look like I lost.
That was this thread I believe.
I believe you've done it in the past to bolster far right posters who were losing debates.
@zaryia: Adjusted for cost of living is vague. That's why I asked you a question. Are you making the claim that the 57k a year in the Northeast is equal to 54k a year in the midwest? Yes or no?
If that's what your chart is saying then I will gladly prove it wrong. So is that your claim?
@zaryia: Adjusted for cost of living is vague. That's why I asked you a question. Are you making the claim that the 57k a year in the Northeast is equal to 54k a year in the midwest? Yes or no?
I'm not making any claims. I'm giving facts stated by my citation, I gave you a data source that says Blue states make more income after adjusted cost of living. If you don't believe them, prove the link is incorrect.
@zaryia: You have lost. You post irrelevant shit and ignore what's right in front of you
I have like 20 links open in front of me showing me that every single bullet point I'm listing is factually accurate and has 2-4 sources of data confirming them.
You're the one who keeps posting red-herrings.
I was right about red states being takers and blue states being makers on Page 1. (Initial Claim).
Then I was right about the 7 other data points that were brought up after that.
Log in to comment