Top 25 Poorest Counties In Texas

What are the two poorest cities in the Midwest?

It depends on the measurement you choose to apply. When you consider things like SNAP usage and per cent living in poverty, the surprising finding is that small cities with large universities top the list: Bloomington, IN, Ames IA, Muncie, IN. That is a statistical anomaly due to the lower salaries of students and their likelihood to seek food stamps or other assistance.In terms of percentages of the population below the poverty level, Flint, MI, takes the honor America's Richest & Poorest Cities:Taken as a region, the Midwest and Northeast are the least likely to have massive poverty rates in its cities. South Texas, for instance, typically comes in with the poorest titles due to cities like Laredo and McAllen. California is the most varied, as one would expect, with the richest areas (San Jose and Silicon Valley) and some of the poorest — Merced or El Centro, for instance.Within the Midwest, you will find the largest pockets of poverty in those places like Flint, Youngstown, OH, Gary and East Chicago, IN, among those places that have been abandoned by their former industrial bases.

How do UK counties that kept 11+ and grammar schools compare to those counties that eliminated them and have comprehensive state schools?

The ultimate answer to this has just been written in the FTSchool performance in three LAsThey don't like mass quoting so I urge you to read the whole piece and the comments afterwards: the author addresses several issuesBut he has compared the education results in Kent (with Grammar schools) vs London and English state-school average.The X is is % income distribution (poorest on left, richest on right), Y axis is A-level point scoreThis graph makes a few things clear:The slope of the lines tells you how equitable the systems are. Kent has a gradient of about 0.015. England as a whole is a little over 0.012 and London is lower at about 0.010. Kent is less equitable than the others.The level of the line tells you the level at which the schools are performing. So a line which is higher up, on average, is an area where average grades are higher. On this, Kent is at the national average.What we are showing here is the same thing others have found. Taken together, what that means is that, on average, poor children do markedly worse in Kent than in the rest of the country. Kent is less socially mobile than the rest of England – and much less mobile than London.Poor kids do worse; quite a lot worse. This is not just a few: it includes the average kid (X=50) and in all about 50-60% of kids do worse than national average. And for the poorest it is a lot worse.The richest kids (top 10%) do slightly better than the national average. But not by very much - and nothing like as much as the poor kids fall back.So this is bad for social mobility: poor kids do less well, but rich kids do better than with comprehensive education in the rest of the countryIt is not good at aggregate results (the idea that "sure some people do worse but by focussing on the few the actaul results as a whole are better") because the overall result (the kid in the middle) does worse then rest of countryIt is possible to do *WAY* better than selective schools as the graph for London shows: despite some of the very poorest boroughs in England, London not selective schools do better for all kids - and much better for the poorer ones.

Is there any facts that Republican states have the poorest, least educated, have the least well paying jobs, most health problems, and highest dependence on welfare programs?

The 10 Poorest States are :1.Mississippi: Median household income: $40,593.2.Arkansas: Median household income: $41,995. ... 3.West Virginia: Median household income: $42,019. ... 4.Alabama: Median household income: $44,765. ... 5.Kentucky: Median household income: $45,215. ... 6.New Mexico: Median household income: $45,382. ... 7.Louisiana: Median household income: $45,727. The 10 Least Educated States are (in reverse order):41 New Mexico 36.11 38 49 42 Oklahoma 35.58 41 35 43 Tennessee 35.52 42 31 44 Nevada 32.84 44 37 45 Kentucky 31.80 46 26 46 Alabama 31.33 45 40 47 Arkansas 27.18 47 34 48 Louisiana 22.96 48 47 49 West Virginia 21.71 50 42 50 Mississippi 21.06 49 50 The 10 States with Lowest Pay:1. Mississippi2. Arkansas3. West Virginia4. South Dakota5. Louisiana6. Alabama7. South Carolina8. Montana9. Florida10. IdahoTen States with Poorest Health:1. Mississippi2. Louisiana3. Arkansas4. Alabama5. West Virginia6. Tennessee7. South Carolina8. Oklahoma9. Kentucky10. Georgia States Receiving greatest Federal Dollars per Dollar of Federal Tax Paid:New Mexico: $2.03 • Mississippi: $2.02 • Alaska: $1.84 • Louisiana: $1.78 • West Virginia: $1.76 • North Dakota: $1.68 • Alabama: $1.66 • South Dakota: $1.53 • Kentucky: $1.51 • Virginia: $1.51"As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill." - https://www.businessinsider.com/...ALL of the States listed are Republican Red States. No Blue State lies is the lowest 10 of any of the criteria stated.

Why are 8 out of 10 of the poorest US states Republican?

One thing to consider in these comparisons is the disparity in cost of living.Here is a poverty map of the United States without adjusting for cost of living, and then below it is one in which we adjust for cost of living.Notice that things become a bit more evenly matched after we do that. California (Blue), Hawaii (Blue), New York (Blue), Nevada(Purple/Blue-leaning), Arizona (Red), Texas (Red), Arkansas (Red), Georgia (Red), Mississippi (Red) and Florida (Purple/Red-leaning) are the top ten states by poverty rate when adjusted for cost of living.Notice though, that the Midwest and New England have the lowest poverty rates, and relative poverty almost disappears when we adjust for cost of living. The Midwest is the strongest Republican region in the country, and New England is a strong Democratic region (excepting New Hampshire.) So it does not seem as if the partisan politics affect the poverty rates.So it seems to me as if poverty correlates with regional culture and history. The South has been pretty much the poorest region since the civil war, and it is only recently that southern states have started to catch up in terms of economic development. This was true when Democrats controlled the South, and it is a bit less true today with Republicans having their influence. Since there has been strong population growth, tourism, and influx of an industrial economy, I suspect the poverty rates in the south will continue to equalize with the rest of the country in coming decades.When that happens, the United States will likely retain its position as one of the countries with the richest populations in the world.