Over at Microsoft Money there's a slideshow of the "Poorest County in Each State," using data from the Census Bureau. Short version: the poorest county in each state, based on median household income (MHI) have incomes ranging from $56,564 (Windham County, CT) to the lowest, $21,611, in Wilcox County, Alabama.
According to the Census Bureau, Puerto Rico's MHI in 2009 was $18,314. What this means is that the poorest county in the U.S. of part of A. has a roughly 16% higher MHI than Puerto Rico.
No surprise there. We know We don't have the income of Statesiders. But the deep individual economic problems We create for Ourselves stem from the notion that We do.
However, regardless of Our political status or lack thereof, Our economic status is basically one of playing "Monopoly" with 10s and 20s when "the other guys" are playing with 100s and 500s.
And that, My Brethren, is a sure-fire recipe for...problems.
Think about it: the poorest county in Connecticut has a median household income roughly 309% higher than Our MHI. The U.S of part of A. MHI average is $46,723 and the poverty level for a family of four is defined as $22,314.
Or exactly $4,000 more than Our MHI. Which means, you statistical freaks, that at the very least well over 50% of Our households are in poverty.
We knew that already. But the ramifications and implications, though clear, are being debated as if they involved differential equations and higher-order philosophy by lunkheads who can't read without moving their lips or add three single-digit numbers without a calculator.
The ramifications all stem from being the limited-resource stooge at a no-limit game. When "they" can play with everything they have and We can only play with what "they" allow us to, We lose. Eventually and every time. Doesn't really matter who "they" and "We" are: it's just a mathematical certainty when the game goes on long enough.
For the lunkheads, a translation: We are poor because We are playing their game, by their rules and accepting their control. If that sounds like I am accusing the U.S. of part of A. of being a bully, tyrannical and abusive, you are right.
The implication is that if the game is rigged against Us--and it is--then the only two options are to either change the rules or change the game. Given Our situation, changing the rules could only happen if "they" allow it. They haven't and they won't: they are winning. Therefore the only rational, the only effective and the only pragmatic and dignified course of action is to change the game.
Meaning We tell "them" to take a flying leap at the freaking Moon and make Our own game, with rules more favorable to Our side and negotiated with other players in more equitable fashion.
For the lunkheads, a translation: If that sounds like I'm advocating independence for My Island, then what the hell took you so long?
Yet, as We know so very very very well, the notion of being an independent nation, of standing on Our own and shouldering the burdens and joys of Our development, facing the world as equals rather than as semi-obscure adjuncts of imperialism, that notion is as appealing to Us as jumping into a frying pan appeals to largemouth bass.
For the lunkheads, a clarification: Independence is not as agonizing and fatal as a frying pan is to a fish. You just think it is. That's why you're a lunkhead.
And that's why We continue to be poor: because We are playing a rigged game, with limited resources, with rules set to favor "them." And We are stupid enough to try to play the game "their" way.
Their poorest counties average roughly 180% more income than Our "richest" ones. And yet We supposedly play at the same table.
Lastly, for you lunkheads who fart "Well what about statehood to level the playing field?", let Me copy-paste this and have somebody with a modest 2-digit IQ explain it to you: "Changing the rules could only happen if "they" allow it. They haven't and they won't: they are winning."
Now shut up, lunkheads.
The Jenius Has Spoken.