America's Low-Cost Counties
What does the Federal Poverty Line represent, when the least expensive
counties in the United States have a bare-bones cost of living that is well
above
that line?
This table lists the Self-Sufficiency Standard — that is, a barebones,
no-frills, basic needs budget — for several configurations of family,
for one to three low cost-of-living counties per state, from the Self
Sufficiency Standard
studies — and the Federal Poverty Rate. Here are a few observations:
- The lowest-cost place costs 26% more than the Federal
Poverty Guideline for a single adult
- The SSS as a percent of the FPG rises as one moves from single adult to
adult and one child, to adult and two children to two adults and two children,
even in these low-cost places
- Most of the low-cost places are rural counties with low populations
and low densities. The exceptions are the cities of St. Louis, New Orleans,
Hartford,
Worcester and Springfield.
- Many of these low-cost places have Federal Poverty Rates well above the
national average, and yet the "SSS
% FPG" calculations show that there is
significant need over and above that acknowledged by the FPG in these low-cost
places.
| America's
Low-Cost Counties: The Self-Sufficiency Standard and the Federal Poverty
Guideline |
| This
table shows selected counties from Table
SSS-1-2-3-4. The counties are
among the lowest-cost places to live in each state. The year shown is
the year in which the Self-Sufficiency Standard Study for that state
was done, and the "% FPG" calculations are to the Federal Poverty Guidelines,
by household size, for that year. |
State |
County |
Year |
Single
Adult |
SSS %
FPG |
Adult +
Pre-schooler |
SSS %
FPG |
Adult,
Pre-schooler,
Schoolage |
SSS %
FPG |
Two Adults,
Pre-schooler,
Schoolage |
SSS %
FPG |
Federal Poverty
Rate, 2004 |
| NY |
Clinton |
2000 |
$13,248 |
159% |
$23,256 |
207% |
$28,968 |
205% |
$35,412 |
208% |
13.9% |
| SD |
Spink |
2000 |
11,326 |
136% |
18,024 |
160% |
24,672 |
174% |
30,996 |
182% |
12.8% |
| |
Todd |
2000 |
11,328 |
136% |
17,184 |
153% |
23,556 |
166% |
29,832 |
175% |
48.3% |
| CA |
Trinity |
2000 |
13,332 |
160% |
22,594 |
201% |
27,893 |
197% |
34,703 |
204% |
18.7% |
| |
Tulare |
2000 |
13,505 |
162% |
21,810 |
194% |
28,066 |
198% |
35,126 |
206% |
23.9% |
| IL |
Brown |
2001 |
12,223 |
142% |
18,515 |
159% |
|
|
31,901 |
181% |
8.5% |
| |
Edgar |
2001 |
11,667 |
136% |
17,906 |
154% |
|
|
31,019 |
176% |
10.5% |
| KY |
Knott |
2001 |
13,328 |
155% |
21,307 |
184% |
28,039 |
192% |
35,731 |
202% |
31.1% |
| |
Calloway |
2001 |
12,781 |
149% |
20,949 |
180% |
27,719 |
189% |
35,452 |
201% |
16.6% |
| MD |
Kent |
2001 |
16,459 |
192% |
24,563 |
212% |
26,712 |
183% |
35,532 |
201% |
13.0% |
| |
Allegany |
2001 |
16,159 |
188% |
22,966 |
198% |
27,819 |
190% |
36,402 |
206% |
14.8% |
| UT |
Sevier |
2001 |
14,773 |
172% |
24,048 |
207% |
29,619 |
202% |
37,456 |
212% |
10.8% |
| |
Emery |
2001 |
14,807 |
172% |
|
|
|
|
34,600 |
196% |
11.5% |
| WA |
Chelan |
2001 |
13,158 |
153% |
22,931 |
272% |
26,489 |
181% |
33,374 |
189% |
12.4% |
| |
Douglas |
2001 |
13,364 |
156% |
21,809 |
234% |
|
|
32,129 |
182% |
14.4% |
| AZ |
Apache |
2002 |
14,168 |
160% |
24,219 |
202% |
29,829 |
199% |
37,171 |
205% |
37.8% |
| |
La Paz |
2002 |
14,296 |
161% |
23,253 |
195% |
29,024 |
193% |
36,596 |
202% |
19.6% |
| FL |
Leon |
2002 |
14,821 |
167% |
25,240 |
211% |
31,400 |
209% |
37,476 |
207% |
18.2% |
| GA |
Hancock |
2002 |
14,036 |
158% |
20,292 |
170% |
23,087 |
154% |
32,242 |
178% |
29.4% |
| |
Floyd |
2002 |
14,254 |
161% |
22,215 |
186% |
26,249 |
175% |
34,550 |
191% |
14.4% |
| MO |
Bates |
2002 |
11,412 |
129% |
16,423 |
138% |
20,663 |
138% |
28,020 |
155% |
14.5% |
| |
City of St. Louis |
2002 |
12,072 |
136% |
23,275 |
195% |
30,177 |
201% |
33,551 |
185% |
24.6% |
| |
Washington |
2002 |
12,567 |
142% |
16,993 |
142% |
20,761 |
138% |
28,150 |
156% |
20.8% |
| MT |
Dawson |
2002 |
13,017 |
147% |
20,852 |
175% |
25,475 |
170% |
33,100 |
183% |
14.9% |
| |
Rosebud |
2002 |
12,693 |
143% |
21,310 |
178% |
26,230 |
175% |
33,804 |
187% |
22.4% |
| NE |
Colfax |
2002 |
11,983 |
135% |
16,069 |
135% |
20,970 |
140% |
28,576 |
158% |
10.8% |
| |
Scotts Bluff |
2002 |
12,065 |
136% |
17,093 |
143% |
22,610 |
151% |
30,691 |
170% |
14.5% |
| NV |
Elko |
2002 |
15,702 |
177% |
25,402 |
213% |
28,954 |
193% |
36,210 |
200% |
8.9% |
| NJ |
Camden |
2002 |
15,745 |
177% |
28,623 |
240% |
34,898 |
232% |
38,252 |
211% |
10.4% |
| OK |
Adair |
2002 |
12,770 |
144% |
18,857 |
158% |
22,432 |
149% |
32,425 |
179% |
23.2% |
| |
Texas |
2002 |
12,759 |
144% |
20,691 |
173% |
25,167 |
168% |
34,275 |
189% |
14.1% |
| TN |
Cocke |
2002 |
12,031 |
136% |
18,401 |
154% |
23,091 |
154% |
31,768 |
176% |
22.5% |
| |
Hardeman |
2002 |
12,333 |
139% |
17,906 |
150% |
21,657 |
144% |
29,962 |
166% |
19.7% |
| VA |
City of Roanoke |
2002 |
13,831 |
156% |
20,393 |
171% |
23,469 |
156% |
32,746 |
181% |
15.9% |
| |
Washington |
2002 |
13,905 |
157% |
18,214 |
153% |
20,692 |
138% |
29,818 |
165% |
10.9% |
| AL |
Cherokee |
2003 |
12,658 |
141% |
17,881 |
148% |
21,071 |
138% |
28,153 |
153% |
15.6% |
| |
Wilcox |
2003 |
12,646 |
141% |
17,422 |
144% |
20,810 |
136% |
29,312 |
159% |
39.9% |
| CA |
Shasta |
2003 |
15,316 |
171% |
25,579 |
211% |
29,551 |
194% |
36,218 |
197% |
15.4% |
| |
Tulare |
2003 |
14,394 |
160% |
23,061 |
190% |
28,290 |
185% |
34,736 |
189% |
23.9% |
| MA |
City of Springfield |
2003 |
15,304 |
170% |
31,471 |
260% |
36,603 |
240% |
42,844 |
233% |
23.1% |
| |
City of North Adams |
2003 |
14,583 |
162% |
29,744 |
245% |
34,875 |
229% |
40,909 |
222% |
9.5% |
| DE |
Sussex |
2003 |
14,424 |
161% |
23,303 |
192% |
27,638 |
181% |
34,666 |
188% |
10.5% |
| LA |
Orleans Parish |
2003 |
16,847 |
147% |
21,810 |
180% |
26,610 |
174% |
30,101 |
164% |
27.9% |
| |
East Carrol Parish |
2003 |
12,224 |
136% |
18,402 |
152% |
23,579 |
155% |
30,113 |
164% |
40.5% |
| |
Caddo Parish |
2003 |
13,998 |
156% |
20,745 |
171% |
25,277 |
166% |
31,942 |
174% |
21.1% |
| MS |
Sunflower |
2003 |
12,929 |
144% |
18,115 |
149% |
21,730 |
142% |
29,206 |
159% |
30.0% |
| |
Itawamba |
2003 |
13,075 |
146% |
17,524 |
153% |
22,024 |
144% |
29,548 |
161% |
14.0% |
| CO |
Pueblo |
2004 |
15,477 |
166% |
23,736 |
190% |
29,884 |
191% |
36,965 |
196% |
14.9% |
| |
Alamosa |
2004 |
14,551 |
156% |
21,075 |
169% |
28,266 |
180% |
35,463 |
188% |
21.3% |
| PA |
Warren |
2004 |
13,595 |
146% |
20,755 |
166% |
25,647 |
164% |
32,654 |
173% |
9.9% |
| |
Clearfield |
2004 |
13,579 |
145% |
21,252 |
170% |
|
|
31,416 |
167% |
12.5% |
| WI |
Ashland |
2004 |
12,014 |
129% |
21,299 |
171% |
27,779 |
177% |
34,797 |
185% |
11.9% |
| |
Adams |
2004 |
11,774 |
126% |
|
|
23,341 |
149% |
28,741 |
152% |
10.4% |
| WY |
Carbon |
2004 |
12,371 |
133% |
20,008 |
160% |
24,282 |
155% |
31,168 |
165% |
12.9% |
| |
Niobara |
2004 |
12,509 |
134% |
20,537 |
164% |
25,348 |
162% |
31,990 |
170% |
13.4% |
| CT |
Hartford |
2005 |
14,792 |
155% |
33,545 |
261% |
44,628 |
277% |
47,499 |
245% |
30.6% |
| IN |
Orange |
2005 |
13,375 |
140% |
18,681 |
146% |
20,452 |
127% |
28,304 |
146% |
12.4% |
| |
Fulton |
2005 |
14,925 |
156% |
20,133 |
157% |
23,737 |
148% |
32,368 |
167% |
7.6% |
| NJ |
Atlantic |
2005 |
16,803 |
176% |
29,732 |
232% |
36,547 |
227% |
41,350 |
214% |
10.5% |
| |
Camden |
2005 |
16,884 |
176% |
30,312 |
236% |
37,374 |
232% |
42,136 |
218% |
10.4% |
| WV |
Fayette |
2005 |
13,820 |
144% |
20,057 |
156% |
23,901 |
149% |
32,594 |
168% |
21.7% |
| |
Marshall |
2005 |
13,327 |
139% |
20,046 |
156% |
24,321 |
151% |
33,160 |
171% |
16.6% |
| VA |
City of Roanoke |
2006 |
14,534
|
148%
|
26,213
|
199%
|
29,435
|
177%
|
36,778
|
184%
|
|
| |
Washington County, VA |
2006 |
14,819
|
151%
|
21,903
|
166%
|
24,554
|
148%
|
32,359
|
162%
|
|
| PA |
Lycoming |
2006 |
11,602
|
118%
|
17,518
|
133%
|
24,009
|
145%
|
27,885
|
139%
|
|
| |
Warren |
2006 |
15,087
|
154%
|
24,864
|
188%
|
30,269
|
182%
|
38,148
|
191%
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The
gaps in this table are due to certain configurations of families not
being provided in the appendices of the original studies, the links for
which are available here.
|
Here's something to think about. Suppose that some major portion of the retiring
Baby Boom generation finds itself unable to afford to stay in the towns they
are currently living and working in. Not only can they not afford to stay in
the house whose home equity they have been borrowing against instead of paying
off their mortgage in anticipation of retirement, but they cannot afford a
more modest home nearby either, because most of the cost of a property
there is in the land value rather than the house itself. And the apartment
rents in those places tend to be higher too, so renting there may not be within
their budget.
So they'll take their home equity, whatever is available after paying off
their refinanced mortgages, and set off in search of less expensive places
to live.
What will happen to America's rural areas when a few of them start to trickle
into each of the less expensive counties? Who will benefit? Who will be hardpressed
by their arrival?
The beneficiaries will be those with apartments and houses to rent and sell,
or land on which housing can be built. Their patience and foresight will be
rewarded, and whose children and grandchildren will be enriched by population
growth. (See also : land
speculation,
speculators, all
benefits...) As population rises,
economic rent rises. But others who already are renters there
will have
competition
for the
available
rentals.
Young people
just starting
families will be competing for existing housing with these new arrivals.
|
To
share this page with a friend: right click, choose "send," and
add your comments.
|
|
Red
links have not been visited; .
Green
links are pages you've seen |
|