The richest (and poorest) places in the U.S.

[phk]

The richest (and poorest) places in the U.S.

Maryland knocked New Jersey out of the top spot this year, while Mississippi and West Virginia were the poorest states in the Union.

By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
August 28 2007: 2:32 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Maryland is now the wealthiest state in the union, as measured by median household income, according to the latest stats from the Census Bureau.

The typical Maryland household earned $65,144 in 2006, propelling it past New Jersey, which came in second with earnings of $65,470, but had led the nation in 2005. Connecticut finished in third place both years, recording a median income of $63,422 in 2006.

The median income for the United States as a whole came to $48,451.

Household incomes rose, but . . .

Income growth was highest in the District of Columbia, where it rose 6.4 percent for the year. Median income in both Nevada and New Mexico jumped 4.5 percent. Delaware, down 2.9 percent, took the biggest dip, followed by Rhode Island (down 2.0 percent) and Maine (down 1.6 percent).

Among places with 250,000 or more residents, the affluent Dallas suburb of Plano, Texas, boasts the highest median income: $77,038. San Jose came in second at $73,804 and San Francisco was third with $65,497.

Paychecks in 2008: No big bump

The list of the 10 poorest cities was filled with mostly old, northeastern and mid-western industrial locales. Cleveland had the lowest median income of any city in the nation with more than 250,000 residents; households there earned just $26,535. Miami was the next poorest at $27,088, followed by Buffalo ($27,850), Detroit ($28,364), St. Louis ($30,936) and Cincinnati ($31,103).

Other poor sun-belt cities included Memphis ($32, 593) and El Paso (33,103). With median income of $33,229, Philadelphia was the only city among the nation's 10 biggest that was also among the 10 poorest cities.

The middle class may be better off than it thinks.

Among towns of between 65,000 and 250,000 in population, Yorba Linda, California, where six-figure incomes are the rule, had the highest median income at $121,075. The Orange County town is considerably wealthier than the second place city, Pleasanton, California, in the Bay area, which had a median income of $105,956.

The lowest income town of any with more than 65,000 population was Youngstown, Ohio at $21,850, which finished last by a large margin. Muncie, Indiana was its closest rival for this dubious distinction, with residents there earning $25,859, a difference of 18 percent. Top of page

Top 10 wealthiest states

Here's where the median household income is highest

State              Income
Maryland    $65,144
New Jersey    $64,470
Connecticut    $63,422
Hawaii              $61,160
Massachusetts    $59,963
New Hampshire    $59,683
Alaska              $59,393
California      $56,645
Virginia    $56,277
Minnesota    $54,023
Source:U.S. Census Bureau

The 10 poorest states

The states with the lowest median household income

State                Income
Montana    $40,627
Tennessee    $40,315
Kentucky    $39,372
Louisiana    $39,337
Alabama    $38,783
Oklahoma    $38,770
Arkansas    $36,599
West Virginia    $35,059
Mississippi    $34,473

[Conan]

It's not like those states are poor. The cost of living is significantly lower in most of them compared to the "richest" ones.

[Gabu]

It's not like those states are poor. The cost of living is significantly lower in most of them compared to the "richest" ones.

That's a fair point; what might be a better thing to do is to get a "median income minus cost of living".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's not like those states are poor. The cost of living is significantly lower in most of them compared to the "richest" ones.

That's a fair point; what might be a better thing to do is to get a "median income minus cost of living".

You could probably use that con-trick to "prove" that the U.S is "poorer" than, say, Kenya.

I am, of course, exaggerating. But not by all that much.

[Gabu]

It's not like those states are poor. The cost of living is significantly lower in most of them compared to the "richest" ones.

That's a fair point; what might be a better thing to do is to get a "median income minus cost of living".

You could probably use that con-trick to "prove" that the U.S is "poorer" than, say, Kenya.

I am, of course, exaggerating. But not by all that much.

How is it a "con-trick"?  It seems reasonable to me; having more money doesn't mean much if you have to spend a commensurately larger amount of it on necessities.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How is it a "con-trick"?  It seems reasonable to me; having more money doesn't mean much if you have to spend a commensurately larger amount of it on necessities.

To argue that (for example) New Jersey is a poorer state than (for example) West Virginia is just flat out absurd no matter how many attempts to distort the figures you can think of (just as it would be absurd to argue that (for example) Luxembourg is poorer than (for example) Moldova... or Kensington & Chelsea and Easington, Neuilly-sur-Seine and Saint-Denis... and so on and so forth).

Which isn't to say that there is no poverty in New Jersey (a claim that would be every bit as absurd; class divisions in New Jersey are about as sharp as they get in the U.S) o/c. Or to say that everyone in Mississippi or West Virginia is poor (which would be both wrong and offensive).

[Colin]

How is it a "con-trick"?  It seems reasonable to me; having more money doesn't mean much if you have to spend a commensurately larger amount of it on necessities.

To argue that (for example) New Jersey is a poorer state than (for example) West Virginia is just flat out absurd no matter how many attempts to distort the figures you can think of (just as it would be absurd to argue that (for example) Luxembourg is poorer than (for example) Moldova... or Kensington & Chelsea and Easington, Neuilly-sur-Seine and Saint-Denis... and so on and so forth).

Which isn't to say that there is no poverty in New Jersey (a claim that would be every bit as absurd; class divisions in New Jersey are about as sharp as they get in the U.S) o/c. Or to say that everyone in Mississippi or West Virginia is poor (which would be both wrong and offensive).

I think you're overstating the effect of what is known as purchasing power parity. While PPP can raise median incomes and GDP per capita figures, for example South Africa's nominal GDP per capita is around 3,000 while its GDP per capita adjusted for PPP is around 12,000. All this takes into account is cost of living and exchange rates, of course exchange rates can't be used in comparisons between the states. While PPP could raise the median incomes and GDP per capita of, let's say, Mississippi they most likely could not raise them to the same level as states like Connecticut because, while there are price differences, they are not so vastly different to make some sort of absurd calculation that West Virginia is richer than Connecticut.

As for Luxembourg and Moldova they have nominal GDP per capitas of 87,955 and 957 respectively. Their GDP per capitas adjusted for purchasing power parity, which I take to mean basically the same thing as Gabu was trying to get at though probably not stated in the best way, are 80,471 and 2,818 respectively. While taking PPP into account does raise the GDP per capita numbers of poor countries it does not make them equal but only shows a more realistic disparity of income. I don't think that Gabu is arguing that West Virginia is as rich as New Jersey or Connecticut but I believe he does have a valid point in stating that if the median incomes were adjusted for purchasing power and cost of living poorer states would have higher median incomes than if only nominal figures are used.

Personally what I thought should be done is actually rank the states by HDI ratings, which I have yet to find for any US state. Other countries with subnational entities, especially developing nations such as Mexico, Brazil and China, give out HDI figures for each individual state in order to better show the disparaties in living conditions between the richest and poorest states. While the divisions would not be as drastic as in those developing nations HDI figures would be a better way of understanding the divisions between wealthy states and poorer states than straight income or GDP per capita figures.

[7,052,770]

A house that costs $250,000 in Mississippi costs nearly $800,000 in the San Francisco area (this info from my cousin who lives there.)  When you consider that, I doubt we're actually last.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think you're overstating the effect of what is known as purchasing power parity.

Actually I'm just making a general point about the absurdity of trying to fiddle these sort of figures to make things "more equal".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeeeeeeeessssssss... but if regional inequality is what is being measured, then it is clearly very silly to do that for reasons that should be too obvious to waste time pointing out.

[Conan]

How is it a "con-trick"?  It seems reasonable to me; having more money doesn't mean much if you have to spend a commensurately larger amount of it on necessities.

To argue that (for example) New Jersey is a poorer state than (for example) West Virginia is just flat out absurd no matter how many attempts to distort the figures you can think of (just as it would be absurd to argue that (for example) Luxembourg is poorer than (for example) Moldova... or Kensington & Chelsea and Easington, Neuilly-sur-Seine and Saint-Denis... and so on and so forth).

Which isn't to say that there is no poverty in New Jersey (a claim that would be every bit as absurd; class divisions in New Jersey are about as sharp as they get in the U.S) o/c. Or to say that everyone in Mississippi or West Virginia is poor (which would be both wrong and offensive).

No one suggested NJ was poorer than WV and how do you explain that second one?

A house that costs $250,000 in Mississippi costs nearly $800,000 in the San Francisco area (this info from my cousin who lives there.)  When you consider that, I doubt we're actually last.

I found a house in Courtland, MS for sale for $395,000 and it has 3750 square feet and 4.5 baths and 4 bedrooms on 2 acres. Two acres of land in my area would sell for around $200,000+ and a house like that on two acres would cost about $500-600,000. In my grandpa's area that would cost $800-900,000. If this house were in Saddle River, it would cost around $1.5/6 million. Average in NJ, probably around $450,000.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How is it a "con-trick"?  It seems reasonable to me; having more money doesn't mean much if you have to spend a commensurately larger amount of it on necessities.

To argue that (for example) New Jersey is a poorer state than (for example) West Virginia is just flat out absurd no matter how many attempts to distort the figures you can think of (just as it would be absurd to argue that (for example) Luxembourg is poorer than (for example) Moldova... or Kensington & Chelsea and Easington, Neuilly-sur-Seine and Saint-Denis... and so on and so forth).

Which isn't to say that there is no poverty in New Jersey (a claim that would be every bit as absurd; class divisions in New Jersey are about as sharp as they get in the U.S) o/c. Or to say that everyone in Mississippi or West Virginia is poor (which would be both wrong and offensive).

True, but it's not really so much if you for example you argue DC is truly poorer than Bismarck, ND.

[Tender Branson]

In other news TX had the highest rate of people without health insurance last year at 24.1%, while MN had the lowest rate at 8.5%.

The poverty rate was highest in MS at 19.8% and lowest in NH at 5.5%.

The poverty treshold in 2006 was about 10.300$ or less for a single person.

[Lief 🗽]

In other news TX had the highest rate of people without health insurance last year at 24.1%, while MN had the lowest rate at 8.5%.

Good thing our legislature is dealing with important issues like adding "Under God" to the State pledge instead of liberal nonsense like healthcare.