[nixon_why69]

To be fair to gruez, the chart was made by the economist and not by them.

To be less fair to the economist, "adjusted by poverty level" is a heck of a spin, we've had many generations as a developed nation now, your state poverty level is caused by your state education outcomes. And that's without even speculating about what "demographic factors" means or implies.

[walthamstow]

> we've had many generations as a developed nation now

Have you? Jim Crow apartheid was in place in my parents lifetime. I don't care how many cars and ship you make, that ain't developed.

[nixon_why69]

You're right, but "don't blame us, we were investing our energy in oppressing the blacks" isn't really the greatest excuse for cotton belt states when it comes to their education and gdp numbers.

[gruez]

> we've had many generations as a developed nation now, your state poverty level is caused by your state education outcomes.

Does this explain the gap between white/black poverty too?

[squeefers]

> your state poverty level is caused by your state education outcomes.

bad teachers dont make an area poor. a poor area doesnt have the money for good teachers, youve got it the wrong way around.

[bluGill]

Teachers generally make the same in a suburb as in an inner city school. In the Des Moines area all schools get the same amount of money per student, but you still see suburbs outperforming the city schools. I don't know what the problem is, but this disproves the money is the problem theory.

[the_sleaze_]

No, gp is correct. Good public education is a profoundly good indicator of economic prosperity, though it is a long term investment.