The SPM isn’t less or more accurate, it’s just a different measure. The SPM punishes states like California and New York where large cities with large median incomes skew the average. There are plenty of low cost areas to live in California that rival the costs of living in other states, however, the SPM ignores that when using the averages of the states as a whole. The point stands, California is middle of the pack in terms of the percentage who are in poverty. The fact that’s some people above the poverty line opt to scrape by in California is their choice, and is in no way indicative of the state’s economics. If living in California puts people below the SPM poverty line, and they are willing to be poor in California as opposed to rich in Ohio, so be it. That speaks more to the allure of the state.

You said “California has the highest debt-to-income.” I addressed that point, not the credit debt of the population. To that point, large chunks of debt are driven by housing loans.

Which brings me to my point “California has the greatest demand.” No I’m not talking about population growth, which is doing just fine, I’m talking about housing prices. People want to live in California. People will pay big money to own or rent here. It’s indisputable. Look at how the 2008 housing market crash impacted California. Spoiler alert, it barely impacted the state at all. Anyone can buy a house in Iowa. Why? There is no demand from anyone to be there! Same with North Dakota and other flyover states. You want to know the places that have the greatest demand? Look at the price per square foot.