Connect with us

The Center Square

This Is the City With the Richest Middle Class in Mississippi | Mississippi

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Samuel Stebbins, 24/7 Wall St. via The Center Square – 2023-04-12 08:18:48

The American middle class has been hollowed out for decades. Factors such as the decline of major industries like manufacturing, alongside stagnating wages and the rising cost of living, have reduced the ranks of the American middle class since the 1970s and exacerbated income inequality.

Not only impacting millions of American families, the decline of the middle class, as the economic backbone of the United States, is also a cause for concern among policy makers. A strong middle class is considered a pillar of economic stability and a key driver of economic growth. Middle-class households provide the labor market with workers and are themselves a steady market for goods and services. Middle-class households are also an engine of entrepreneurship and innovation, and their tax dollars help sustain investment in quality public services.

Despite the challenges of the middle class nationwide, there are still cities in the United States where middle-class incomes remain relatively high. Due to both economic and demographic circumstances, the middle class in these places have bucked many of the longer-term trends that are all too evident in other parts of the country.

Of the three metro areas in Mississippi, Gulfport-Biloxi ranks as having the wealthiest middle class. The middle 20% of households by earnings in the area make between $42,951 and $69,812 annually, which is still below what the middle 20% of earners across the state as a whole earn, between $52,295 and $82,996.

Unlike in decades past, where someone could get a well-paying job with just a high school diploma, today, the vast majority of high-paying positions require a college education. In Gulfport-Biloxi, 26.8% of adults have a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 24.8% of adults across all of Mississippi.

All data in this story is from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey. For each of the 384 U.S. metro areas with available data, we reviewed the income range of the middle 20% earners at the household level. In each state, the metro area with the highest floor for the middle quintile of earners ranks as having the wealthiest middle class.

 

State Metro area with the wealtiest middle class Lower income limit of middle class households in metro area ($) Upper income limit of middle class households in metro area ($) Lower income limit of middle class households in state ($) Upper income limit of middle class households in state ($) Total metro areas in state
Alabama Huntsville 59,275 95,386 51,964 81,812 12
Alaska Anchorage 69,309 104,406 56,320 89,984 2
Arizona Phoenix 60,980 92,683 69,215 113,568 7
Arkansas Fayetteville 58,347 85,134 51,469 81,356 6
California San Jose 107,949 176,806 63,308 101,711 26
Colorado Denver 72,213 111,148 71,175 111,220 7
Connecticut Bridgeport 75,514 127,824 46,623 73,356 4
Delaware Dover 52,778 79,512 56,948 94,304 1
Florida Naples 61,008 93,239 50,200 78,317 22
Georgia Atlanta 61,941 95,704 50,200 78,317 14
Hawaii Urban Honolulu 73,035 110,664 69,215 113,568 2
Idaho Boise City 60,209 88,755 66,612 105,995 6
Illinois Chicago 61,683 97,911 52,379 83,764 10
Indiana Columbus 60,201 88,113 51,980 80,331 12
Iowa Des Moines 60,185 91,157 65,032 96,596 8
Kansas Wichita 49,763 73,976 49,218 77,486 4
Kentucky Lexington 50,700 78,104 50,200 78,317 5
Louisiana Houma 45,606 75,633 48,732 77,231 9
Maine Portland 62,119 94,293 53,713 85,848 3
Maryland California 89,350 126,751 39,906 65,189 5
Massachusetts Boston 77,961 125,760 66,612 105,995 5
Michigan Ann Arbor 60,480 97,679 48,732 77,231 14
Minnesota Minneapolis 69,840 106,711 66,612 105,995 5
Mississippi Gulfport 42,951 69,812 52,295 82,996 3
Missouri Kansas City 59,319 90,657 49,218 77,486 8
Montana Billings 56,458 83,949 50,618 77,150 3
Nebraska Omaha 58,797 91,491 65,335 104,919 3
Nevada Reno 61,956 95,089 52,379 83,764 3
New Hampshire Manchester 73,687 108,394 50,618 77,150 1
New Jersey Trenton 68,864 108,749 56,295 88,426 4
New Mexico Santa Fe 53,897 84,031 69,921 112,054 4
New York Poughkeepsie 69,276 109,645 49,218 77,486 13
North Carolina Raleigh 67,045 104,142 44,235 69,505 15
North Dakota Bismarck 54,197 85,621 51,156 79,317 3
Ohio Columbus 57,296 89,383 50,618 77,150 11
Oklahoma Enid 50,742 72,058 51,964 81,812 4
Oregon Portland 67,202 102,601 66,612 105,995 8
Pennsylvania Lancaster 62,449 89,527 66,612 105,995 18
Rhode Island Providence 57,443 93,753 50,200 78,317 1
South Carolina Charleston 58,474 89,582 54,292 81,556 8
South Dakota Sioux Falls 62,200 89,212 52,379 83,764 2
Tennessee Nashville 58,925 90,095 66,612 105,995 10
Texas Austin 68,737 105,556 51,964 81,812 25
Utah Provo 71,963 104,267 69,215 113,568 5
Vermont Burlington 65,505 98,761 50,618 77,150 1
Virginia Charlottesville 63,159 97,426 54,429 84,652 9
Washington Seattle 80,316 124,685 62,433 95,630 11
West Virginia Morgantown 43,940 71,959 52,379 83,764 7
Wisconsin Appleton 61,672 90,064 54,429 84,652 12
Wyoming Casper 51,001 75,905 52,295 82,996 2

 

Source link

News from the South - Louisiana News Feed

Op-Ed: First do no harm begins with our diet | Opinion

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph Abraham – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 17:37:00

The Make America Healthy Again movement has gained significant attention throughout the nation and many of the top initiatives highlighted have found their way into state legislatures this session.

Louisiana is no exception and Senator Patrick McMath, R-Covington, has, via Senate Bill 14, proposed a significant cleanup of our food supply, especially focused on kids. Backed by the popular support of the MAHA Moms, this bill has three major parts that are worth examining separately for their merits.

First is a ban of several “ultra processed” foods in school meals. In this case the term ultra processed is defined as products that contain any one of 13 specifically referenced compounds. Of these the first 7 are artificial dyes, like red dye No. 40, derived from petroleum byproducts that serve a singular role to make food more visually appealing.

We should all be asking ourselves why we ever allowed this stuff to find its way into our food in the first place. Several of these synthetic dyes have been shown to be associated with various harms ranging from ADHD to allergies and tumors.

Most of the other compounds on the list sound like they should have a skull and cross bones on the label. Take the bread additive azodicarbonamide as an example. If you thought that sounded like something you should not eat, you would be right.

It breaks down into urethane (yes, like the paint), a known carcinogen, and is banned is just about every country but the U.S.

In the case of school lunches, the child has no choice in the matter. They eat what they are provided and we have an obligation to protect them from toxic substances in the cafeteria.

Second is a labeling requirement for foods containing the substances in the school lunch ban portion, plus a few more, known to have a questionable safety profile that are banned in other countries.

It directs manufacturers to place a label on any food or drink containing these chemicals that clearly alerts the consumer of the fact that it contains something that is banned in other countries.

Last, but certainly not least, is a provision to reform of the Supplemental Nutritional Aid Program, once known as food stamps. This program is federally sponsored, and provides food assistance to families with an income below 130% of the federal poverty line. This would be about $31,200 net yearly income for a family of four.

In our inflationary economic environment, every penny counts and when it comes to food and obtaining the maximum calories for minimum dollars is a necessity. Historically, the cheapest foods happen to also be the least healthy in many cases, condemning those dependent on the program to poor health.

Soft drinks containing very high sugar or sugar substitutes are a major contributor to the chronic diseases that plague our health system like obesity and diabetes, especially in children. This bill directs DCFS to seek a waiver from the federal government allowing Louisiana to prohibit use of SNAP to purchase soft drinks.

Ultimately, the federal government should go a step further and incentivize healthier alternatives for SNAP beneficiaries, but this bill represents a major step in the right direction that can be accomplished at the state level.

The old saying goes: “You are what you eat.” We should keep this literal and obvious truth in mind when we think about how to turn the tide on chronic disease in our nation.

Let us begin by protecting the children who are too young to choose for themselves and providing better information for adults who can. SB 14 will accomplish both goals and move Louisiana to the forefront of the movement to Make America Healthy Again.

Dr. Ralph L. Abraham, M.D. is the  Louisiana Surgeon General

The post Op-Ed: First do no harm begins with our diet | Opinion appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The article presents a clear ideological stance that aligns with health-conscious, regulatory-focused policy perspectives often associated with center-left viewpoints. It advocates for government intervention to regulate food safety, particularly in school meals and assistance programs like SNAP, emphasizing protection of public health and vulnerable populations such as children and low-income families. The tone is supportive of regulations to restrict harmful substances and promote healthier choices, which suggests a bias favoring increased oversight and reform in food policies rather than a neutral, detached report.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Newsom parole board approves release of another toddler murderer | California

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Kenneth Schrupp – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 17:30:00

(The Center Square) – California Board of Parole Hearings ordered the release of convicted child murderer Herbert David Brown III, making this the second announced early release of a convicted child murderer in recent weeks.

San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow, whose office convicted Brown for beating his 22-month-old daughter Lily to death, has requested that California Gov. Gavin Newsom use his authority to overturn the parole board’s decision. All current board members are Newsom appointees.

“Brown has done self-help programming but didn’t express responsibility for Lily’s death until Inmate Brown was told that failure to do so was a bar to being paroled,” wrote Dow. “Even then, Inmate Brown’s account lacked credibility.”

“Brown has significant mental health issues that appear to require ongoing monitoring and treatment,” continued Dow. “Inmate Brown’s relapse prevention plans are inadequate and superficial.”

Brown entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for the murder. Lily was found dead with multiple injuries, including a fractured skull.

Brown was under the influence of methamphetamine when he killed his daughter. He now identifies as a woman and has served 12 years of his sentence.  

According to the most recent Comprehensive Risk Assessment on Brown from 2023, he was found to be a “higher moderate” risk for violence. 

Brown was first granted parole in October 2024, after which California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has appointed all current members of the California Board of Parole Hearings, referred the parole decision back to the parole board for review. The board has since reaffirmed its earlier decision, and Dow is seeking residents to write to the governor to use his constitutional authority to override the parole board.

“Precious Lily deserves better. The time is now Governor Newsom, please help ensure that we have Justice for Lily Brown,” said Dow.

“The Governor has authority under California Constitution, Article V, Section 8(b) to reverse a decision to release a convicted murderer on parole, but must do so within 30 calendar days,” continued Dow. “The decision was issued on April 22, 2025.”

There is currently no release date set for Brown.

Two weeks ago, the Board of Parole Hearings’ decision to approve the early release of convicted child murderer Josue Herrera, who was found to have beaten his girlfriend’s 2-year-old son to death, sparked national outrage against the state’s apparent leniency toward murders of young children. 

Dow said Brown’s early release is possible due to Proposition 57, passed in 2016. 

Prop. 57 was written to only allow early release of “prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies.” 

However, because the state automatically classifies any crimes not specifically classified as violent to be non-violent, such as drive-by shootings and assault with a deadly weapon, many violent crimes are not technically considered “violent” per se.

Dow also noted Prop. 57 allows the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior or educational achievements, even to those who committed crimes classified as violent.

“This means that even those inmates sentenced for violent offenses, like murder of a child, are eligible to be released much earlier than under the law that was in effect prior to the passage of Proposition 57,” said Dow.

The post Newsom parole board approves release of another toddler murderer | California appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Right-Leaning

This article presents a narrative that is critical of the California Board of Parole Hearings and Governor Gavin Newsom’s appointments, focusing on the early release of convicted child murderers. The tone and framing emphasize public safety concerns and criticize the perceived leniency of the parole system under progressive policies like Proposition 57. The language used highlights the gravity of the crimes and frames the parole decisions as contentious and problematic, which aligns with a right-leaning viewpoint commonly skeptical of criminal justice reforms associated with more liberal or progressive politics. While the article reports facts, the selection and emphasis on these facts, and the inclusion of the District Attorney’s plea for the governor to intervene, reveal a conservative-leaning perspective.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Trump softens tariffs for U.S. automakers through complex rules | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Brett Rowland – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 15:45:00

(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump took measures to lessen the impact of tariffs on U.S. automakers, but vehicle prices are expected to increase. 

“We just wanted to help them during this little transition, short term,” Trump said. “We didn’t want to penalize them.”

The 25% tariff on imported cars remains, and a new 25% tariff on auto parts will go into effect May 3. But Trump’s latest executive order allows reimbursements for U.S. producers importing car parts, which will be subject to 25% tariffs starting May 3. The maximum reimbursement will be 3.75% of the value of domestically produced cars. The cap falls to 2.5% for the second year and is phased out entirely after that.

Trump’s executive order also means that automakers that pay tariffs on imported cars won’t be required to pay other import duties, such as those on steel and aluminum.

“They all want to come back to Michigan and build cars again. You know why? Because of our tax and tariff policy,” Trump said Tuesday during his rally in Michigan. “We’re giving them a little time before we slaughter them if they don’t do this.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the goal was to get automakers to create more U.S. jobs.

“President Trump has had meetings with both domestic and foreign auto producers, and he’s committed to bringing back auto production to the U.S.,” Bessent said. “So we want to give the automakers a path to do that, quickly, efficiently and create as many jobs as possible.”

Still, vehicle prices are expected to increase as tariffs reshape the market.

Cox Automotive Chief Economist Jonathan Smoke said “uncertainty remains acute, especially regarding what will happen with the tariffs.” 

“Supply has since tightened and prices have moved higher,” he said. “With higher prices, urgency has diminished.”

Smoke said the next two months could set the stage for the rest of the year. 

“Instead of putting China first, I’m putting Michigan first and I’m putting America first,” Trump said at the Macomb County Rally.

Even before Trump’s auto tariffs, cars were too expensive for many Americans. The average price of a new vehicle in the U.S. is above $48,000, according to Cox Automotive. Real median household income was $80,610 in 2023, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. However, more than 40% of new-vehicle sales by volume in 2024 were priced below $40,000.

The post Trump softens tariffs for U.S. automakers through complex rules | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com



Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The article predominantly reports on actions taken by President Donald Trump regarding tariffs on U.S. automakers with largely neutral language, including direct quotes from Trump and officials, as well as commentary from a chief economist. However, the framing subtly aligns with a center-right perspective by emphasizing Trump’s economic policies favoring U.S. industry and job creation, and by using language that reflects his own nationalist and protectionist rhetoric (“putting Michigan first and I’m putting America first”). The article presents these policies without overt criticism, thus reflecting a viewpoint sympathetic to the administration’s economic nationalism rather than a strictly neutral or critical stance. This suggests a center-right bias, leaning towards support for Trump’s economic agenda.

Continue Reading

Trending