Not sure what’s off here . . . that map has a drop down selector to show percentage of population in addition to the total count.
That’s true. The legend is great. But the coloration of a map should always be based on a rate. The big states are not more reliant on SNAP just because they are big.
That assumes the big states can handle being screwed out of Fed money. Maybe they can, maybe they can’t.
Good news is The Government will find a way to fund the red states. And no one will stop them.
It doesn’t assume anything.
If nobody pays for SNAP, then people in CA will not be worse off than people in AL.
If states step in to pay SNAP, then CA will have more revenue than AL.
No matter how you look at it, it’s a rate.
Heat maps are always kind of dumb, but they are super dumb if you don’t divide by anything.
The way I read that “total number” maps is an indication of which state is going to get a larger share of federal money. That is, CA is going to get a good chunk of it. And if this statement that I quoted is accurate, then I would be questioning why are we giving CA so much federal money?
Right, and the answer is very simple. It has the most people. CA also contributes as much in taxes as 30 other states combined. Not because it is very rich, but because it is that big.
The problem with a map like this is you naturally want to compare regions, like CA vs the East Coast, but you can’t do that because East Coast is cut into more pieces.
1 Like
Since SNAP benefits are income-graded and based on families (not linear on recipient count) the income distribution and family sizes would have to be similar to have the same relationship between recipients and $ paid in benefits. This map is not about $ paid in benefits.
1 Like
Ever so slightly, but I get from 10.7 to 13.3 (2023-24) a percentage growth of 24.3% and 13.3 to 16.5 (2024-25) a percentage growth of 24.1%, so I would say that qualifies as slower growth.
Even “slower growth” isn’t really correct anymore
In covering these trends, some journalists have attempted to use the less-wrong phrase “slower growth,” showing that EV sales are still growing, but at a lower percentage change than previously seen.
But for the first ten months of this year, that isn’t true – EV sales are up more in 2025 than in 2024 by a percentage basis.
They are also up in raw sales numbers – in 2024, EV sales grew by a larger number than in 2023. And the same is true so far in 2025.
Going back to 2023, 10.7 million EVs were sold globally in the first 10 months. Then in 2024, 13.3 million were sold, a difference of 2.6 million. And so far in 2025, 16.5 million EVs have sold, a difference of 3.2 million.
Maybe in the NSFW thread in the Lounge.
I’m thinking of the mocking grammar/speeling thread