从下面这篇文章可知

美国穷州有：Mississippi，West Virginia，Arkansas，North Dakota ， Kentucky，Sout

h Dakota，Louisiana

富州有：Connecticut，New Jersey，California， Colorado，Minnesota

有哪位知道更详细的资料，烦请贴出，对于欲远渡重洋的学子们也可作参考。

不过 密西西比与康涅狄格之间的贫富差异一定不会比贵州与北京之间的大。

from the August 22, 2001 edition

Poorer states close gap with rich

New census data show that bottom-tier states grew rapidly in 1990s, while those

in the top 10 struggled.

By Laurent Belsie | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

ST. LOUIS - The 1990s were a boom for high-tech, high-skilled economies and a bu

st for those with low-tech industries and low-skilled workers, right?

Wrong. The highest-income states back in 1989 lost ground during the \'90s and, i

n many cases, their poverty rates rose. Low-tech, low-education states, meanwhil

e, raised household income and cut poverty, often dramatically. In the end, the

1990s left this unexpected legacy: The gap between the richest and poorest state

s is now narrower, as measured by new census data on household income.

The decade also calls into question easy assumptions about economic growth. High

-tech, highly educated places don\'t always beat out low-tech, less-educated ones

. Sometimes, the most advanced have trouble growing at all. "When you\'re coming

from the bottom it doesn\'t take much to do better," says Stan McMillen of the Co

nnecticut Center for Economic Analysis at the University of Connecticut in Storr

s. "But when you\'re at the top, it\'s that much harder to make progress."

Such lessons will prove key as states plan economic growth for the 21st century.

Consider Connecticut and Mississippi, two states that stand at polar opposites o

f America\'s economic spectrum. The former is urban and high-tech; the latter is

rural and manufacturing-laden. One-third of Connecticut adults have graduated fr

om college; less than a fifth of Mississippi\'s have. In 1989, Connecticut boaste

d the nation\'s highest median household income ($56,260 in year 2000 dollars). M

ississippi had the lowest ($27,153).

But something strange happened during the 1990s. Connecticut\'s median income act

ually slipped 5.6 percent, the biggest drop of any state, to $53,108. Mississipp

i, meanwhile, saw its household median rise 17.7 percent, the biggest rise of an

y state, to $31,955. (All income figures are adjusted for inflation.)

As a result, by 2000 Connecticut had fallen to No. 2 in median household income

while Mississippi jumped two spots to No. 48. Other states at both extremes expe

rienced similar trends. In 1989, the gap between the highest median-income state

and the lowest median-income state stood at 52 percent. By 2000, the gap betwee

n the new top state (New Jersey) and the new bottom one (West Virginia) had narr

owed to 47 percent.

These numbers represent estimates, cautions Edward Welniak, chief of the income

branch for the US Census Bureau. And they may understate actual income growth du

ring the 1990s. That\'s because the first set of numbers comes from the 1990 cens

us, while the second set stems from the Census Bureau\'s new American Community S

urvey, which was collected slightly differently and uses 2000 and 1999 data.

Nevertheless, the numbers look too consistent to ignore. For example: of the 10

states with the lowest median household income in 1989, half posted among the 10

best income-growth rates during the 1990s. Among them were perennial bottom-of-

the-chart states such as Arkansas (up 14.7 percent), North Dakota (10.1 percent)

, and Kentucky (8.1 percent). South Dakota, fifth-lowest in the nation in 1989,

grew an impressive 16 percent and moved out of the bottom 10.

In contrast, seven of 1989\'s top 10 states saw median household income fall. Wit

h a 3.7 percent decline, California fell out of the top 10 altogether.

Family poverty tells a similar story. All of the bottom 10 states saw their pove

rty rates fall more than the national average. Louisiana, the fourth-lowest-inco

me state in 1989, saw its share of families under the poverty line drop by 3.2 p

ercentage points - some 10 times the overall US decline of 0.3 percentage points

. Mississippi posted a nation-leading drop of 5.9 percentage points.

Economists credit the telecommunications and healthcare industries, as well as t

he gambling industry, for the state\'s advance. Connecticut, meanwhile, is still

digging out of a nasty 1991 recession that battered its manufacturing base and s

hrunk its prominent banking and insurance industries.

Does this mean high-income states are destined to stagnate while only poor, casi

no-laden states prosper? Hardly. Other states - notably Colorado and Minnesota -

also delivered eye-popping income growth and cut their family poverty rates dur

ing the 1990s. Both moved into the top 10 for 2000.

Also, the bottom 10 states still have a long way to climb. Mississippi still has

more than 14 percent of its families below the poverty line; Connecticut, less

than 6 percent. The big question is: Will the trends from the \'90s continue?

The nation\'s high-tech slump may slow Connecticut\'s recovery. On the other hand,

the state has restructured and expanded its high-tech base into biotechnology a

nd photonics (light-based products). "At the end of the decade, the Connecticut

economy is stronger, more diverse," says Mr. McMillen. "The productivity in Conn

ecticut has been growing rapidly."

Mississippi, meanwhile, shouldn\'t expect its \'90s-style growth to continue at su

ch a high pace, warns Marianne Hill, senior economist with the Center for Policy

Research in Jackson. Worryingly, its workers\' productivity isn\'t keeping pace w

ith the rest of country.

On the other hand, Nissan is building a $930 million auto plant outside Jackson,

which will employ 4,000 people at wages of twice the current county average. Th

e state has launched an economic-development program aimed at luring in high-wag

e jobs. And the Mississippi Development Authority is making a major tourism push

. "We\'re going to continue this trend where Mississippi is no longer considered

last," promises the agency\'s spokeswoman, Sherry Vance.