This is very subjective. South Europe isn't poor, but less productive per capita, hence the smaller income. However, in terms of physical products the South has much more to show than the North, who relies heavily on services and tech etc.
To add to what the others have wisely countered, judging based on current times is a very narrow view. For a good deal of history the south of Europe was doing a lot better than the north. Things change over time. Politics, migrations, technology, weather, war.
One must be careful when making or implying statements like "X is better than Y" in regards to this subject, cause that tends to lead to the notion of inherent superiority, when, if such superiority exists (which is very relative), it's only temporary. One of many reasons why nationalism is a foolish notion.
Honestly, it probably is the weather. A better climate for growing cash crops led to an economy based on slavery and agriculture, which isn't nearly as productive as one based on industry. 200 years later, the effects are still felt - although the differences in income are much less stark than they would have been 50 years ago.
The scientific literature is still divided on this issue. Climate- or geography-based explanations typically ignore the role of institutions (like property rights regimes, market institutions, and so on), although the two are ultimately difficult to separate from each other. This paper by Sokoloff and Engerman provides a nuanced overview of the debate: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.14.3.217
One should also consider that due to the South's geography, there is not many powerful rivers (within the interior) that can be used to power the factories or encourage maritime trade with the Caribbean, thus the South could have never grow urban centers like the North. Along with this, those cash crops effectively made the South rely on an agrarian economy in which the only sort of industrialization reaching it would be tools to increase farming output. Even after the Civil War during Reconstruction, although many textile factories did move down South, the region still lagged behind the more robust North, as the newly industrialized economy has to compete with an established dominating competitor. These are only a few factors in which why those states in the South lag behind in those income, as a lack of industrialization/reliance on an agrarian economy can not be a dominate force in an economy based on service/industry, in which the South is still playing catch-up to this day.
@supermusic Perhaps you didn't read the argument. One giant river doesn't propel textile mills like the smaller rivers found everywhere in New England and the Northeast.
Pretty common phenomenon across world history...Economies and civilisations were more "developed" across temperate zones pre the industrial revolution and the age of European colonisation
There's also a correlation in cost of living. You can make 50K in Arkansas and live quite comfortably, or you can make 50K in California and live in poverty. A major driving force for household income is cost of living in that area. The real cause is likely a combination of all of the things in these comments, but with industry comes greed in most cases. Greed in industry and corporations results in higher cost of living, so they are forced to pay higher wages as well. Higher household income doesn't necessarily equate to higher quality of living when comparing states to other states.
It probably goes back to the early days of the nation - industrial north vs agricultural south - and add the limited crops of the south, labor-intensive (rice, cotton, tobacco).
One of the few quizzes on the site where it would make sense to use purchasing power parity (many of these states are also among the cheapest US states), but it doesn't.
It does look obvious to an outsider that nearly all the once 'Confederate States' are on the poorest list. The question is 'Why?'. There must be a reason and as I am not from USA I wonder what it is.
The north and coasts have more inflated housing and goods. Somebody making $70k in Baton Rouge, Louisiana will have an equivalent standard of living as somebody making $108k in San Diego, California.
Even using PPP Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia and New Mexico rank among the poorest US states, but while what Pork said is still essentially true it doesn't come close to explaining why these states are poor. It's complicated. A big part of it is that the warmer southern states were still largely agrarian, with economies driven by plantation farming, when the northern states were becoming industrialized. Part of it is that the South was left in ruins after the American Civil War, and while the North attempted to rebuild the South through Reconstruction, Southern politicians were more interested in maintaining racial inequities in their states than accepting help rebuilding and so saw Reconstruction as foreign meddling in their affairs. These two factors alone gave the Northern states a huge head start going forward, and can account for most of the discrepancy that exists today. But you could also point to other factors.
For instance the fact that air conditioning and weather proofing weren't invented until the 20th century and before that living in a large city in the American South meant disease and unpleasantness- though New Orleans thrived as a port of trade there were never any Southern cities to rival New York, Boston, Chicago, or Philadelphia. Finally, the Republican party has a death grip on most of these states and has ever since the 1960s when Republican leaders decided to oppose Civil Rights legislation in order to win the favor of Southern racists. It was a very sad turn of events for the party of Lincoln, but it worked, and all of these once solidly-blue states became solidly red. And Republican policies are simply bad for the economy. But I'd say this is the least important factor of all those things I already mentioned. And Pork's point shouldn't be discounted, either. If you look at cost of living then there are more poor people in New York and Hawaii than in any Southern state.
There is no more prevalent myth among liberals than that of the South turning red with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For those seeking the truth, Sean Trende does a very thorough and good analysis here:
It's not a myth. Look at an election map. And quoted from the article: "This is not to say that race didn't play a role - it absolutely did. Nor is it to deny that the Republicans sometimes exploited (and still exploit) racial issues to motivate voters (as do Democrats)" Missed that part?
All that the article seems to point out was that the Democrats' "Solid South" didn't flip overnight, which is obvious, and I've never seen anyone assert anything to the contrary. Of course some people who had voted Democrat their whole lives were reluctant to switch parties. But the change in the patterns of the electoral map could hardly be more stark, sudden, or complete in its transformation.
Also I'm not sure which states Trende is counting as Southern, everything south of the Mason-Dixon line? But it's most useful to look at the plantation/slavery/racism belt... Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina. This is where the "Southern strategy" was meant to pay dividends. Other southern states have always been more swingy. But just look at that block and you can see that 100% of them voted Democrat or Dixiecrat ("State's Rights") every single year from 1880 to 1960... and then starting in 1964 they immediately flip... and virtually go 100% to Republicans (or segregationist George Wallace) every single year, minus 1976 when Democrats ran a Georgian peanut farmer for president (in '80 he was only able to hang on to his home state), and 1992 when Ross Perot split the vote and Democrats ran a good old boy from Arkansas with a Tennessee native for VP (and they still only managed to pick up one state out of the bunch in '92, and none in '96).
Democrats started to lose their hold on Southern racists around 1948, when southern Democrats angry with Truman's increasing support of civil rights splintered off and formed their own racist party, the "States' Rights" party, commonly called the Dixiecrat party. Virtually all of these Dixiecrats including Strom Thurmond their candidate for president eventually became Republicans.
But that wasn't enough to lose the South to Democrats immediately, who after all had much better campaign and political infrastructure established there going back generations. So it's not true that the '64 Civil Rights Act and Nixon's Southern Strategy alone flipped the South, but it finished what already began decades earlier. And it was always about race.
Next you're going to deny that the Civil War was really about Slavery, right?
Final note about West Virginia: it's a coal miner's state. And its industry is dying. This is why it's the only state in the USA where both it's population and GDP have been shrinking. This is a trend that goes back decades and has little to do with Slavery, the Civil War, politics or anything else.
Mississippi and West Virginia are also the two states with the highest obesity rate in the nation if I'm not mistaken. My region in France sits also on top on both stats, and I think there is a correlation between those two statistics in every "developped" country in the world. Precarity tends to bring a lot of ailments with it.
Unfortunately here (and I don't know how it is in France), the cheapest food to buy, calorie-for-calorie, is at fast food restaurants like McDonald's. Combine that with working possibly multiple jobs with no time to cook, and you have people who need to get the most out of their food money, which sadly means crap that will make you both fat and sick. :-(
McDonald's is cheap but definitely more expensive than cooking. Also, in the United States, hours worked per worker has decreased by a lot, and on average, poor people work far fewer hours than the rich. There's definitely something else going on. Food deserts is one theory, but it turns out they don't really matter. Which makes sense as there wouldn't be food deserts in the first place if people wanted to buy healthy food. So, I'd have to guess that cultural transmission of poor eating habits explains it. Which sucks because that's the hardest thing to fix.
you'd be pretty hard-pressed to cook up more calories for a dollar than what you could get off the dollar menu at Taco Bell. It's easier if you're cooking for a large number of people but if you're by yourself it is a challenge. You might get there with some cheap frozen hot dogs, or day-old bread that was about to be thrown out, but options would be very limited.
Religion is truly "the opiate of the masses". Note that the poorest states have by far the most church goers, gamely suffering through this earthly hell while eagerly awaiting their reward in heaven. And yes, while $70,000 a year may go a lot further in Mississippi than it does in New York or California, how many Mississippians actually earn $70,000/yr?
On the other hand, most of these states have higher life satisfaction that rich, northern states. Better to be happy than rich in my book, but to each their own.
You're looking at studies that use income as an input to determine happiness, so yeah, it's going to be correlated heavily with income.
If you want to find out how happy someone is, you should simply ask them. It's impossible to infer someone's happiness level by looking at their income, obesity rate, or other metrics. There are plenty of happy poor people and tons of miserable rich ones.
Here's a quiz about the 10 Happiest States based on actual survey data from 1.3 million people.
3 types of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics. These statistics, like all statistics, can be infinitely refined with "but"... The cost of a home in a "rich" state means your average income is keeping you living in a poverty box. Top 10 "rich" states Maryland and Virginia, full of suburbs leeching from the taxpayers, lie next to the penned in ghetto that supports them. Ever been to Bridgeport or Trenton? They make any part of Mississippi or South Carolina look like a better place to live and raise kids.
Yes, but if you go to most of Connecticut or New Jersey, you'll feel differently, which is probably why this is not "name the states with the poorest cities" quiz. Cities and states are governed differently and subject to different stressors, so your simplistic and facile objection isn't really worth anything.
True. If you look at GDP per capita (in PPP), for example, the UK is poorer than the poorest US state. If you look at median household income not adjusted for PPP, Mississippi's $42k is pretty high. I can't find data for countries by median income (nominal). Adjusted for PPP and looking at median household incomes, New York actually becomes the USA's poorest states, but its $43,200 household income (PPP) makes it wealthier than Canada, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Finland, Japan, Germany, Singapore, Qatar, the UK, etc.
Yep. But actually the UK has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $45,705 (2018), or $43,013 in 2016, which is higher than Mississippi (poorest U.S. state by GDP (PPP) per capita), but lower than the 2nd poorest (West Virginia).
Worth mentioning that GDP per capita might not show the full picture. In terms of HDI, the UK (0.932) is ever so slightly ahead of the US (0.926), but significantly ahead of Mississippi (0.863).
Granted, even by this metric Mississippi isn't that poor. It has roughly the same value as Portugal.
Living in one of the top three poorest states gives me a different insight. Lack of education and the failure to get past the harms done during slavery are the main issues.
Christ, it always shocks me how incredibly rich Americans are. The "poorest" Americans make more money than my entire family put together back in China.
Proof that incentives, capitalism, free markets, and the American dream DO actually work better than most of the world, so I don't know why people keep seeking to destroy this and replace it with some failed systems from other places.
A few super-wealthy outliers at the top of a curve will often have only a small impact on the mean. On the median, the impact is basically zero. This quiz is based on the median.
This is median household income. Perhaps you are looking at median wage data or something? Unless you post sources, it's impossible to know where you're coming from.
Perhaps others have pointed this out already, but "poorest" seems to be a fair label only if it's considered relative to the cost of living.
A salary of $60,000 per year or so isn't that bad if you're living in a rural part of Oklahoma or Arkansas. Relative to the cost of living, it's more than enough to get by without really "feeling poor".
I'm sure people in NY and California have much higher salaries on average, but the cost of living is so high that you would have to make far more than 60K in order to avoid feeling the effects of low income.
I think it would be interesting to see a quiz that ranks the poorest or richest states when adjusting for this metric.
One must be careful when making or implying statements like "X is better than Y" in regards to this subject, cause that tends to lead to the notion of inherent superiority, when, if such superiority exists (which is very relative), it's only temporary. One of many reasons why nationalism is a foolish notion.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/misunderstanding_the_southern_realignment_107084.html
All that the article seems to point out was that the Democrats' "Solid South" didn't flip overnight, which is obvious, and I've never seen anyone assert anything to the contrary. Of course some people who had voted Democrat their whole lives were reluctant to switch parties. But the change in the patterns of the electoral map could hardly be more stark, sudden, or complete in its transformation.
https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
But that wasn't enough to lose the South to Democrats immediately, who after all had much better campaign and political infrastructure established there going back generations. So it's not true that the '64 Civil Rights Act and Nixon's Southern Strategy alone flipped the South, but it finished what already began decades earlier. And it was always about race.
Next you're going to deny that the Civil War was really about Slavery, right?
You're looking at studies that use income as an input to determine happiness, so yeah, it's going to be correlated heavily with income.
If you want to find out how happy someone is, you should simply ask them. It's impossible to infer someone's happiness level by looking at their income, obesity rate, or other metrics. There are plenty of happy poor people and tons of miserable rich ones.
Here's a quiz about the 10 Happiest States based on actual survey data from 1.3 million people.
My cousin lives in Bridgeport.
Granted, even by this metric Mississippi isn't that poor. It has roughly the same value as Portugal.
Think of all them execs
I was super surprised to see Kentucky and Arkansas on here instead of Michigan and Deleware, seriously
A salary of $60,000 per year or so isn't that bad if you're living in a rural part of Oklahoma or Arkansas. Relative to the cost of living, it's more than enough to get by without really "feeling poor".
I'm sure people in NY and California have much higher salaries on average, but the cost of living is so high that you would have to make far more than 60K in order to avoid feeling the effects of low income.
I think it would be interesting to see a quiz that ranks the poorest or richest states when adjusting for this metric.
51. Hawaii: $50,941
50. Louisiana: $60,104
49. West Virginia: $60,839
48. Mississippi: $61,301
47. Arkansas: $61,523
46. Maine: $61,816
45. Kentucky: $62,495
44. New York: $62,841
43. New Mexico: $63,471
42. Vermont: $64,006
Full list here.