For John, BLUF: Not everything is bad in Texas. Nothing to see here; just move along.
From The Federalist we have "America’s Future: California Or Texas?". The subheadline is " If California is America’s future, then that future is overrun with poverty."
When I was young I thought California was the promised land. Apparently no longer. Here is an except from the report:
The share of minorities in California and Texas is about 50 percent higher than in the nation as a whole, triple that of Wisconsin or Minnesota, more than quadruple that of Iowa, and about six-and-a-half times that of New Hampshire. Thus, it is an illuminating measure [of] the wellbeing of America’s four largest racial or ethnic groups in the two most-populous states that one-fifth of Americans call home. The table below shows the average SPM for four years, 2010 to 2013, for these four groups.♠
|White, non-Hispanic SPM Rate, 2010-13||Black, non-Hispanic SPM Rate, 2010-13||Hispanic SPM Rate, 2010-13||Asian SPM Rate,2010-13|
Note that in Texas, all four groups’ poverty rates are below the national average, while in California all four groups suffer a poverty rate above the national average.
The article credits the difference to increased economic freedom in Texas. We should all be skeptical of a single point answer, but I would think that economic freedom is important.
By the way, have you heard that Black voting is up in Texas after the state introduced Voter ID?
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff
♠ The SPM is the US Census Bureau's alternative measure of poverty, the Supplemental Poverty Measure. Differing from the "official measure, it accounts for housing cost differences by state and considers non-cash benefits.