The OP is actually partially right. If measured by the federal poverty line, which is simply a number, California doesn’t look so bad. But when you adjust for cost of living, California’s poverty rate is far higher than any other in the nation. Even Washington DC can’t compete.
Of course places such as Malibu and Pacific Palisades are quite wealthy, but if you head west to places such as Pomona, Montclair, or Ontario, you’ll find poverty aplenty.
If you head west from Malibu or Pacific Palisades, you’ll get wet.
Heh, true enough obviously. I meant east.
Growing up on the east coast, I always associated “west” with inland and “east” with the ocean. When I went to California for college, I don’t think my subconscious ever made the switch.
It is true that a lot of people in those little plains towns are working the the oilfields, but they’re commuting hundreds and hundreds of miles working weeks on/off schedules. The reason why they have to do that is because the economy in those places is practically non-existent and so it’s one of the few ways to keep making a decent living while still living at home.
Exactly. Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico are similarly poor, though I do wonder if a lot of it has to do with their Mexican immigrant population which naturally would be poorer than the mean.