Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
So...to use an argumentum ad absurdum: If the Great Sovereign State of Mississippi had a population of 100 people and 20 of them were impoverished that 20% rate is a more meaningful stat than a 15% Kalifornia rate with population of 3,000,000 people? Or in the real world: Kalifornia has a population of approx. 39,500,000 whereas Mississippi has a population of about 2,900,000. Kalifornia has more than 13 times the population of Mississippi. Might wanna consider weighting those numbers in the graph. Just sayin'...  |
It's not the total number of poor, it's the number of poor per 100,000 people.It's called a RATE. Of course, California is going to have more poor people because they have more people. If Mississippi's population suddenly bloomed to California's and kept the same poverty rate, they would have more total poor than Cali. Dig?
Now if the red states could keep their hands out of the pockets of the wealth producing blue states, California might have more resources to combat the problem of poverty .
