Ask a question

Top 25 Poorest Counties In Texas

Red States Republican: poorest counties by per capita income?

I randomly selected one of the poorest counties listed in Mississippi, a "red state".

Turns out, Quitman County in the 2004 Presidential election was carried by John Kerry, the democrat (59.84%).

Another random selection, Lee County, Arkansas.

Kerry 62%

Let’s try a third time.

Wilcox County, Alabama

Kerry 67%

Starr County, Texas

Kerry 73%

Macon County, Georgia

Kerry 60%

Allendale County, South Carolina

Kerry 71%

What about the poorest county on the list: Buffalo County, South Dakota

Kerry 71%

Hey, I’m sure some of those counties on the list at the link voted for Bush. Probably because they didn’t want handouts or pity, but jobs.

Why do the poorest cities in the U.S.A. have democrat mayors?

As salaamu 'alaykum. Insha'Allah, no longer basically it relatively is now an economically undesirable u . s . a . for the final public of its electorate besides the fact that it is likewise and long has been a spiritually undesirable u . s . a .. people who say different sensible are nevertheless paying for into and believing the propaganda that the U. S. has been pumping out for years. Ignoring the info, they nevertheless cahnt "we are No. a million!", while in reality, they are greater like "no. 2" (in case you seize the jest). ma'a salaam

Top 10 poorest counties in texas?

The counties and their average per capita income are listed below:

1. Starr County, Texas $7,069
2. Maverick County, Texas $8,758
3. Willacy County, Texas $9,421
4. Hudspeth County, Texas $9,549
5. Presidio County, Texas $9,558
6. La Salle County, Texas $9,692
7. Dimmit County, Texas $9,765
8. Hidalgo County, Texas $9,899
9. Zavala County, Texas $10,034
10. Brooks County, Texas $10,234

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.

Why are the red/republican voter areas also the poorest and least educated?

The areas of red/Republican voters also happen to be the hot spots of where illegal aliens live and where largest concentrations of minorities are. The deep south has high concentrations of minorty populations that tend to be the poor and less educated. Your rural/uneducated hypothesis is also wrong. Louisiana is considered a red state however the poorest and most uneducated people live in the largest part of the state, ie.. New Orleans

Los Angeles can hardly be considered rich or educated if you are talking about the people who live and vote in the city. You must not have ever been there, it's a ghetto. Most of the "smart" people who work there live in the suburbs where it is firmly red. The same goes with most urban cities with the exception of New York.

Funny you used LA, San Fran and NY as examples of wisdom when they are some of the cities with the worst economic/crime problems in the country.

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." - 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.

Why are 8 out of the top 10 states with the highest median income?

Funny thing is,all those higher wages,and higher taxes in those fine Blue States does is drive the cost of living through the roof.I have friends that live in States like that,and they make more than I do,and I live better than any of them.

A wage comparison is absolutely useless without a cost of living comparison.The same house you could buy for 90,000 is a state like Mississippi would cost you double that in New Jersey,and that's just the beginning.


Are There Any Majority White Cities Or Towns Where 40% Of The Population Live Below Poverty Line?

Yes many such towns exist. I live in one in Missouri. They are all over the south, midwest, and Appalachian mountains. The biggest difference is the cost of living is lower in those places and family stays together and helps each other a lot