Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Facts are facts. Chicago's middle class percentage wise is very similar to pretty much every other major city (a good deal of a higher percentage than cities like San Francisco and DC). Anecdotal evidence means nothing in this - just because you spend time in some areas on the south and west sides doesn't mean a lot. Believe it or not, I also spend time in various areas on the South side and that's not limited to areas like Hyde Park or Bridgeport. No doubt are the highest levels of poverty usually in these areas, but anyone who's actually spent enough time in a variety of south side neighborhods for example can tell you that not everywhere is Detroit and there's also many normal Middle class looking (even if sometimes they aren't from an economic statistic level) areas.
This is verified Census data - unless you have a problem with facts which in this case it appears you do since you are actually trying to counteract official US Census Department data.
The debate really begins at what is middle class, your definition (which is pretty reasonable) would factor in the large amount single transplants earning between $35-100K, which is fine, but doesn't really tell the entire story. Middle class families are no doubt being squeezed out of Chicago (and essentially every major city in the US). Cities in the US will be populated by the poor and the rich, with no place for middle class families.
Unless there is a requirement because of job, I can't really think of any compelling reasons why a middle class family would pick the City of Chicago over the suburbs; there are just way too many hassles living in the city for a family with modest means (again this isn't unique to Chicago)
The debate really begins at what is middle class, your definition (which is pretty reasonable) would factor in the large amount single transplants earning between $35-100K, which is fine, but doesn't really tell the entire story. Middle class families are no doubt being squeezed out of Chicago (and essentially every major city in the US). Cities in the US will be populated by the poor and the rich, with no place for middle class families.
Unless there is a requirement because of job, I can't really think of any compelling reasons why a middle class family would pick the City of Chicago over the suburbs; there are just way too many hassles living in the city for a family with modest means (again this isn't unique to Chicago)
The debate is really not about whether people are being squeezed out. The poster claimed that Chicago has a very small middle class, and it doesn't. That's what I was addressing by providing statistics and comparing to other cities in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonio Montana
This post confirms my original point. Chicago is a city of ultimately haves and have nots. There is very little middle class and middle class jobs left in Chicago. So, you will continue to have only the very rich and the very poor. As I said, 1/3rd of Chicago is booming. The other 2/3rd are Detroit.
It's basically the same percentage as Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, etc etc. Middle class people being squeezed out is a different thing that i wasn't addressing. But I don't even agree with his statement above. - a lot of the new jobs being added in Chicago like ones in the tech industry are primarily middle class. Very few would I honestly consider to be upper class. We both know that a 30 year old earning $130K/year when they have no family is very nice, but it is in no way upper class. I know it's very hard for people to believe, but the vast majority of office jobs out there, including tech, are primarily middle class even when it's a someone earning say $90K - $130K/year for their startup tech job. This is not upper class or even close.
It's basically the same percentage as Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, etc etc. Middle class people being squeezed out is a different thing that i wasn't addressing. But I don't even agree with his statement above. - a lot of the new jobs being added in Chicago like ones in the tech industry are primarily middle class. Very few would I honestly consider to be upper class. We both know that a 30 year old earning $130K/year when they have no family is very nice, but it is in no way upper class. I know it's very hard for people to believe, but the vast majority of office jobs out there, including tech, are primarily middle class even when it's a someone earning say $90K - $130K/year for their startup tech job. This is not upper class or even close.
Why would this be hard to believe? there is no set in stone definition of middle class. The point I was making is the percentages you listed of middle class (based on your definition) includes single people, which is an entirely different conversation, in my opinion. I don't want to speak for the person you were initially commenting to, but I interpreted the "no middle class" comment to be "no middle class FAMILIES, which still isn't accurate, but middle class families (parent(s) + kids) will certainly struggle in Chicago more than the burbs.
Governmental bankruptcy has NOTHING TO DO with how many middle class, poverty level or wealthy people live in an area!
You can look at the lesson from lack of oversight the Orange County bankruptcy -- Orange County Case - Finance Train Clearly NOTHING to do with the "wealth" of households in the county.
Tellingly, the biggest holders of NY's debt were the very banks that agree to changes rather than letting them default.
The real question will come when Chicago's bond holders decide they can no longer stomach the risk of default at any premium --
Quote:
The price of a 30-year Chicago bond sold in March 2014 has risen 2.7% over the past year, compared with a 22% jump in the price of a similar-maturity U.S. Treasury bond. The yield on the Chicago bond decreased from 6.3% at the time of sale to 6.1% when it last traded in mid-March, while the 30-year Treasury bond decreased from 3.6% to 2.5% over the same period. Yields fall when prices rise.
Why would this be hard to believe? there is no set in stone definition of middle class. The point I was making is the percentages you listed of middle class (based on your definition) includes single people, which is an entirely different conversation, in my opinion. I don't want to speak for the person you were initially commenting to, but I interpreted the "no middle class" comment to be "no middle class FAMILIES, which still isn't accurate, but middle class families (parent(s) + kids) will certainly struggle in Chicago more than the burbs.
I included households because "middle class" just isn't talking about families - if we're doing that then you can see that my percentage for Chicago is actually higher percentage for families than it is for households making between $35K and $100K
Again, saying that the middle class in Chicago, whether it's individuals or families, is "very little" is factually wrong and stupid. And the discussion about vanishing middle class (which we all know is happening in every city) is not what I was addressing. If you were to adjust the definition to families between $50K and $149,999, then the percentage goes up a little to 40.1%.
Governmental bankruptcy has NOTHING TO DO with how many middle class, poverty level or wealthy people live in an area!
You can look at the lesson from lack of oversight the Orange County bankruptcy -- Orange County Case - Finance Train Clearly NOTHING to do with the "wealth" of households in the county.
I would disagree, to the extent that higher income residents tends to mean higher housing values and thus more revenue from property taxes, as well as more income from sales taxes. It also probably means more jobs because the area economy will be stronger, and its workforce and environment will be more attractive to prospective companies which may locate there and create more jobs. There's just more money to work with.
Of course, there's having money, and then there's managing money. Two different things! I think Chicago (and the State) is such a financial mess that even a strong middle class wouldn't be enough to address the current problems alone.
Why would this be hard to believe? there is no set in stone definition of middle class. The point I was making is the percentages you listed of middle class (based on your definition) includes single people, which is an entirely different conversation, in my opinion. I don't want to speak for the person you were initially commenting to, but I interpreted the "no middle class" comment to be "no middle class FAMILIES, which still isn't accurate, but middle class families (parent(s) + kids) will certainly struggle in Chicago more than the burbs.
Sure, Chicago may not be good for your typical middle class family that wants an affordable 3 bed/2 bath house with a 2 car garage, a white picket fence, and top notch schools. I'm not sure that it's ever been that kind of city. That's why there's places like Des Moines, IA and Plano, TX. I think a strong argument could also be made that many, and ever-increasing, Chicago suburbs are pushing out the "middle class" as well, at least using the definition I provided. The insane tax climate for suburban property owners in particular comes to mind.
Facts are facts. Chicago's middle class percentage wise is very similar to pretty much every other major city (a good deal of a higher percentage than cities like San Francisco and DC). Anecdotal evidence means nothing in this - just because you spend time in some areas on the south and west sides doesn't mean a lot. Believe it or not, I also spend time in various areas on the South side and that's not limited to areas like Hyde Park or Bridgeport. No doubt are the highest levels of poverty usually in these areas, but anyone who's actually spent enough time in a variety of south side neighborhods for example can tell you that not everywhere is Detroit and there's also many normal Middle class looking (even if sometimes they aren't from an economic statistic level) areas.
I've already addressed the middle class issue. Feel free to respond to what I've said. In most neighborhoods on the south and west side, look at the average income statistics, crime stats, and unemployment rate. Also check out the vacant lots. If it's not similar to Detroit, I don't know what is. You've been to Englewood and Roseland, right? Also, Garfield Park has a higher homicide rate than Honduras! These stats aren't anecdotal evidence.
This is verified Census data - unless you have a problem with facts which in this case it appears you do since you are actually trying to counteract official US Census Department data.
I have no problem with the facts at all. That is why I've stated my agreement with you in several places. But there are truths behind the facts that need to be acknowledged in order to get the whole story. My main point, in response to this thread, is that Chicago in many ways is booming, but to deny that the financial crisis, which if I'm correct, began with the crash in 2008, is not resolved (true pension reform), there is a potential for a very bleak future in Chicago. To kick the can down the road and pretend this is not big deal is not acknowledging reality.
^ If you don't have a problem with facts, then you wouldn't be trying to argue against official US Census statistics that show your comment about a "very little middle class" is downright factually wrong via the official government source. And listen, I don't think you're a troll while others do - but you aren't helping your case in others' minds by trying to somehow argue with me against official US Census Department statistics. Chicago in no way has a "very little middle class" and the statistics show that. In fact, the percentages are basically the same as cities like Houston, Minneapolis, NYC, etc.
^ If you don't have a problem with facts, then you wouldn't be trying to argue against official US Census statistics that show your comment about a "very little middle class" is downright factually wrong via the official government source. And listen, I don't think you're a troll while others do - but you aren't helping your case in others' minds by trying to somehow argue with me against official US Census Department statistics. Chicago in no way has a "very little middle class" and the statistics show that. In fact, the percentages are basically the same as cities like Houston, Minneapolis, NYC, etc.
I'm not arguing against census stats....although I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning the census. I don't buy everything the government says, just because the government says it. Do you believe everything the government says, just because the government says it? The government said there were WMDs in Iraq. Did you believe that because the government said that? The government's food pyramid is total BS.
Anyway, from my research there's no one universal, definition of middle class. You and I have different definitions of middle class. It definitely varies on where you live. Where I live, what is considered middle class would be considered poverty in Chicago or New York.
Chicago was at one time a manufacturing center that provided what is traditionally known as "solid, middle class jobs". It's not anymore. Now, you could say that about the entire nation, but there are places where manufacturing jobs are doing better than others. Chicago and Illinois is not one of them. Perhaps, I should have specified what I had in mind when I talked about middle class. Despite the booming downtown and recent additions, the main employer tends to be government. Government jobs don't grow economies. Private sector manufacturing jobs do.....for the most part. Combine this reality with Chicago's pension crisis...and you have a ticking time bomb, of which we've seen many effects already. Then again, my fears could be irrational. No matter how high taxes in Chicago could get, the rich may still keep moving in....but that will definitely increase the likelihood that Chicago will become a city of only the VERY rich and VERY poor.
By the way, this article from CBS Chicago cites data from the U.S. census, and the conclusion is that Chicago's middle class has been disappearing. I don't see any reason to doubt the accuracy of this article. It features a map that map is very revealing, if you check it out.
This is another good article, but in fairness, I should add that this is something happening across the nation to an extent. Chicagoland
Just take the Chicago Public School system for an example, especially the schools on the south and west sides. They just recently closed a bunch of schools and many others are under enrolled...and if CPS doesn't get money from the state, they're probably going to lay off 5,000 teachers. This is a sign of very big problems. In fairness, though, I should mention that to my knowledge the magnets and schools in the rich neighborhoods don't have this problem. I'm mainly talking about the south and west sides.
If you want to call me a troll for questioning and doubting spin, go ahead. I can live with that. You're trying to portray me as a wingnut who is out of the mainstream for doubting your narrative about Chicago's "middle class" however you define it. Well, Maybe I'm right, or maybe I'm wrong....but the links I've provided show that on this issue, my concern is not out of the mainstream.
Last edited by Antonio Montana; 11-23-2015 at 09:59 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
