If you draw a polygon around the poorest contiguous region of 5% of the population of any state ... won't you also likely end up with a area with a median incom

If you draw a polygon around the poorest contiguous region of 5% of the population of any state ... won't you also likely end up with a area with a median income below Mississippi? Forget the contiguous geographic restriction for a moment, if I instead said the median of income in the poorest 5% of California was less than the median income of Mississippi would anyone find that surprising in the slightest? What about the poorest 5% of counties having a median income less than mississippi? Still not surprising. Requiring the contiguous areas would increase the income somewhat-- but we know that activities and income are not geographically independent.