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.
Posters can given a number of cities as examples. I showed the map. It's tedious to go through each city. I'm not shocked, I think you're wrong.
Ok. In the Northeast, the city limits of Boston, Philadelphia, NYC, Baltimore and DC all have a higher poverty rate than the rest of the metro area. If you don't believe those numbers, I could give a bit more detail on a specific city, though btownboss showed some numbers. Katiana showed similar with Denver.
Like I said, there are exceptions. Overall in the US suburban poverty is worse. I have provided the links to show this. So if you want to compare Detroit to the suburbs you will have a point. If you want to compare all cities and all suburbs and look at poverty rates than my point stands.
Also, btownboss didnt really show anything. He showed median income of a city vs the state as a whole. In doing so he is ignoring that the median income includes the city he is comparing the state to, the fact that there are already other cities in all of these states, and that there are rural areas. Finally median income isnt reliable to measure poverty. The median income could be higher in place A than place B, but place A could also have a higher poverty rate despite having a higher median income.
Like I said, there are exceptions. Overall in the US suburban poverty is worse. I have provided the links to show this. So if you want to compare Detroit to the suburbs you will have a point. If you want to compare all cities and all suburbs and look at poverty rates than my point stands.
Also, btownboss didnt really show anything. He showed median income of a city vs the state as a whole. In doing so he is ignoring that the median income includes the city he is comparing the state to, the fact that there are already other cities in all of these states, and that there are rural areas. Finally median income isnt reliable to measure poverty. The median income could be higher in place A than place B, but place A could also have a higher poverty rate despite having a higher median income.
No you have not. As several of us, including me, have tried to explain to you, your numbers show more poor living in the burbs than the cities, but NOT a higher percent. Everyone who has disagreed with you has posted concrete evidence to the contrary.
I'm not sure how we got into a discussion on poverty rates in suburbs vs city but going back to suburbs and interacting with your neighbors.
I used to live on a street that had very small lot, houses closely abutting the street, and lots of people walked. Even when people drove, a lot of times people parked on the street so they would have to walk to their car. I got to see my neighbors often, and talked to some regularly. Most houses had porches, and I was in an apartment that shared the porch with 3 other apartments, so I got meet (and see) all the people lived in the building. My bedroom faced the street / porch so I got to watch (and hear) everything that went on on the street and porch.
So, living in a denser neighborhood where more people were walking let me see more people regularly and I think, made it a little easier to meet people. Though there were many people I saw regularly that I didn't meet. That doesn't mean that people are more or less friendly in the suburbs, just a bit harder to see, especially if the houses are on big lots and people usually drive into their attached garages.
I'm not sure how we got into a discussion on poverty rates in suburbs vs city but going back to suburbs and interacting with your neighbors.
I used to live on a street that had very small lot, houses closely abutting the street, and lots of people walked. Even when people drove, a lot of times people parked on the street so they would have to walk to their car. I got to see my neighbors often, and talked to some regularly. Most houses had porches, and I was in an apartment that shared the porch with 3 other apartments, so I got meet (and see) all the people lived in the building. My bedroom faced the street / porch so I got to watch (and hear) everything that went on on the street and porch.
So, living in a denser neighborhood where more people were walking let me see more people regularly and I think, made it a little easier to meet people. Though there were many people I saw regularly that I didn't meet. That doesn't mean that people are more or less friendly in the suburbs, just a bit harder to see, especially if the houses are on big lots and people usually drive into their attached garages.
When we moved into my current neighborhood, my oldest was going into kindergarten. The next door neighbor had a then 4 year old; she came over to the house with her daughter and rang the bell. We met the neighbors behind us, who had two similarly aged kids as ours, when the kids went out to play in the backyard. I met more people at the school bus stop. If you have kids, you will meet people.
Cities have long had a reputation as a place for anonymity. That is no more true than the myths of the suburbs.
No you have not. As several of us, including me, have tried to explain to you, your numbers show more poor living in the burbs than the cities, but NOT a higher percent. Everyone who has disagreed with you has posted concrete evidence to the contrary.
Again, if you look at my evidence it says more people as a % live in suburban poverty.
No one has posted any relevant evidence. I am still waiting Katiana.
I posted numbers as a percentage for the city of Denver and the Jefferson County suburbs. You don't understand math well. According to the census bureau numbers, there are 114,000 poor people in Denver. According to the same figures, there are approx. 1500 poor people in the poorest suburb, Edgewater. The entirety of Jefferson County has 42,800 poor people (out of 534,543), virtually all suburban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
There are two numbers here: One is the % of percentage of people in an area (city, suburb, etc) that are poor; this is a poverty rate.
Then there is what percent of poor people total nationwide that live in suburbs vs cities.
These are not the same numbers at all. I am talking about the first number, not the second; it is unclear which one you are talking about.
Whichever is more convenient to "prove" his point.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-25-2012 at 07:38 PM..
I posted numbers as a percentage for the city of Denver and the Jefferson County suburbs. You don't understand math well. According to the census bureau numbers, there are 114,000 poor people in Denver. According to the same figures, there are approx. 1500 poor people in the poorest suburb, Edgewater. The entirety of Jefferson County has 42,800 poor people (out of 534,543), virtually all suburban.
Whichever is more convenient to "prove" his point.
I saw your numbers.
Denver isn't the whole US. In fact it is a small area of the US both in terms of population and land area. You probably didnt know this, lots of suburbanites dont know much beyond their own suburb, but your statistic doesn't change anything.
I have said that there are some exceptions, but as a whole suburbs have higher poverty. If you want to argue just behind Denver MAYBE you are right, but the US as a whole suburbs are the new ghettos.
Denver isn't the whole US. In fact it is a small area of the US both in terms of population and land area. You probably didnt know this, lots of suburbanites dont know much beyond their own suburb, but your statistic doesn't change anything.
I have said that there are some exceptions, but as a whole suburbs have higher poverty. If you want to argue just behind Denver MAYBE you are right, but the US as a whole suburbs are the new ghettos.
So sad.
So Boston, Denver, NY, Providence, Harford, Philly, Detroit (combined 32,000,000) isnt enough to prove cities are poorer, because I can pull up some more if you like.
So Boston, Denver, NY, Providence, Harford, Philly, Detroit (combined 32,000,000) isnt enough to prove cities are poorer, because I can pull up some more if you like.
No, your information was useless because it didnt give ANY relevant info.
So for the 10th time, median income does not equal poverty rates. Also, it is a comparison of a city to the state as a whole. It doesnt reflect suburban poverty rates. I think the only poverty rate information you had was Suffex to some other county.
So, yes pull some more information, but make it relevant. You need to get the city poverty rates, than compare them to suburban areas. If the source doesnt list an area as suburban or urban please provide a link showing that it is indeed suburban or urban. You need to do this for every suburban area around a city also.
You have a lot of work my friend, but with a little time and effort, actually a lot you can see that I am right.
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.
