See
Housing and poverty by Scott Sumner of EconLog.
"The traditional definition of poverty in America has been criticized
for ignoring factors such as government benefit programs and regional
variation in the cost of living. Now the Census Bureau
has released new estimates of poverty, which account for various types
of benefit programs and cost of living differences. For some states the
figures are about the same, whereas for others they are substantially
different. Here are a few examples:
State -- Original poverty rate -- Adjusted poverty rate
California ------ 16.0% ----------- 23.4%
Massachusetts 11.5% ------------ 13.8%
New York ----- 16.0% ----------- 17.5%
Texas --------- 17.2% ----------- 15.9%
In the unadjusted figures, Texas looks the worst of these 4. The
adjusted figure for Texas is exactly equal to the national average, but
I'll argue that in fact it's far better than the national average, which
partly explains why so many people are moving to Texas.
Let's compare Texas to California, which comes in dead last in the
adjusted figures. Both states are "majority-minority," with
non-Hispanic whites being less than 50% of the population. Both states
have huge Hispanic minorities. The main difference between the two is
that in Texas blacks are the second largest minority group by a wide
margin, while in California it's Asians, with blacks a distant third.
Because Asians tend to earn more than blacks, just looking at
demographics you'd predict Texas to have more poverty. Instead it has
far less.
If you are liberal the news gets worse. California has one of the
most generous welfare states in the country, and Texas has one of the
stingiest. And yet Texas has far less poverty.
Indeed if you adjusted for demographics, I'd guess Texas actually has
less poverty than the US as a whole, and probably even less than
heavily white Massachusetts.
So what explains the Texas success in race-adjusted poverty rates?
There are probably many factors, but the housing market is almost
certainly the biggest difference from California. Housing regulations
(often enacted by well-intentioned liberals) are one of the biggest
causes of poverty in America. And these regulations don't just hurt
progressive areas. Elsewhere I've argued that the biggest problem with
otherwise free market Hong Kong is the restrictive building regulations,
which keep housing prices absurdly high. I don't have any data for
Hong Kong, but I'd guess that much of the poverty level consumption in
that city is due to the high housing prices, caused by restrictive
housing regulations.
In the modern developed world most people have enough to eat (partly
due to food stamps.) Indeed obesity is now a problem among the poor.
Clothing is now really cheap, as are many basic home appliances like TVs
and washers. There's free public education and Medicaid. The main
cause of poverty is housing costs, and more specifically restrictive
zoning laws that make it hard to build. Fix that and you fix much of
the problem---focus on welfare, minimum wages, etc., and you are likely
to be disappointed."
One commenter over their said "Joel Kotkin provides
supporting analysis and stats."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.