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.
Someone told me this "good neighborhood/bad neighborhood" calculus before and it strong me as empty. Look at the percentage of kids qualifying for school lunches. This is what my wife and I used to determine quality of neighborhood.
Not necessarily. You have areas where the local school takes in kids from bordering areas, which bring up the free lunch percentage. There are schools on the UES that take in kids from East Harlem and have a high free lunch percentage.
And it depends on what you consider a "high" percentage of free lunch. The elementary school in my area has 60% of the people receiving free lunch, and it's a perfectly safe area.
But then again, the really bad areas generally have an extremely high percentage of free lunch. For instance, my old elementary school had 83% of the students receiving free/reduced lunch and it was a working-class area, but if you put in the stats for an area like Browsville, Brooklyn, you'll see that the percentage is pretty close to 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but
Now back to what does a town have to do to be considered "poor?" Perhaps the best way is to (a) find the current numbers on what is considered "poverty level" and (b) see if the average income in a town is below that.
The poverty rate is something like $21,000 for a family of four. No area on LI has a median income of $21,000, but you can look at the poverty rates.
Personally, I think that per capita income in the village/hamlet is a better way of determining if it is "poor" (and again, most of it is by LI standards because by NYC standards those areas would be middle class). In Wyandanch, the per capita income is around $18,000 IIRC, and it's around $20,000 in Brentwood and Hempstead, and around $43,000 in Massapequa (I'm too lazy to look up the stats right now. Anybody else wants to do that, be my guest)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John9l0
lol. I like how in order to prove your point, you posed a closeup of two boarded up/foreclosed homes (which pretty much every neighborhood has in these times) on a block with otherwise decently well-kept homes.
edit: two boarded up /foreclosed homes with a dumpster outside meaning there is going to be some renovation going on. Epic fail.
You really aren't going to find a whole lot of areas with a high poverty rate on Long Island. Suburbs in general don't tend to have the extremes of wealth and poverty that you find in the city.
And also keep in mind that within each hamlet/village, you have areas with different socioeconomic characteristics. For instance, Bay Shore has a poverty rate of 8.4%, and a per capita income of $27,159, and it has some upper-middle class (or wealthy) areas south of Montauk Highway, but it has some public housing around the train station: https://www.city-data.com/city/Bay-Shore-New-York.html
Ideally, the best information to have would be the median per capita income (not the same as the mean per capita income), because it gives you an idea of what the average household in the village/hamlet makes (it isn't skewed by high-earning households). But unfortunately, that data is not easily available, so we have to go by the mean per capita income.
Just to give an example, NYC has a per capita income of $30,000, but it has a poverty rate of close to 20%. Compare that to Bay Shore where the per capita income is lower, but the poverty rate is also lower because again, suburbs tend to have more equality between the different classes, without extremes of wealth or poverty.
And also keep in mind that within each hamlet/village, you have areas with different socioeconomic characteristics.
You're right, I mean OR. I believe the only CDP with a poverty rate above $15% is (surprise) Wyandanch. So I guess you can go by per Capita income alone.
You're right, I mean OR. I believe the only CDP with a poverty rate above $15% is (surprise) Wyandanch. So I guess you can go by per Capita income alone.
That makes sense (not that I necessarily agree with it, but it makes sense).
I mean, to me, those numbers would be more working-class than poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1nevets
What about Montclair or the Oranges in New Jersey? Highly desirable towns with a noticeable minority population.
East Orange and Orange are far from being considered desirable. If you put them on Long Island, they'd be the Black version of Hempstead.
It's only West Orange and South Orange that are considered desirable, and those aren't majority Black (I think both towns have a slight White majority. The city-data pages say so, but I think West Orange might have slipped under 50% White as of the 2010 census)
Just for anybody's that's curious here's a list of SOME of the majority black areas with median household incomes well above their state averages and where the majority of people are middle class and above. Not saying these areas are perfect but i'm just wondering why you never hear about these places in the news! )
MAJORITY MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASS BLACK LONG ISLAND AND UPSTATE TOWNS
- Wheatley Heights, NY: This town has a median income of $98,387 (as of 2008) and is 48.6% Black (so they are the majority race because all the other races makeup smaller percentages of the population)
Source: https://www.city-data.com/city/Wheatl...-New-York.html
- Elmont, NY: This town has a median household income of $82,690 (as of 2008) and is 42% Black, which puts them well into the majority in comparison to the other groups' present there.
Source: https://www.city-data.com/city/Elmont-New-York.html
(Very Diverse Long Island and Upstate towns where Blacks are not the majority but still have a significant presence are, North Valley Stream [36.1% Black], Baldwin [30.3%],
MAJORITY MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASS BLACK NEW YORK CITY NEIGHBORHOODS
(Very Diverse New Jersey towns where Blacks are NOT the majority but still have as significant presence are; Hackensack, NJ [24.3% Black/$62,257 Median Income], Teaneck, NJ [28.8%/$94,558], South Orange, NJ [30.4%/$102,514], West Orange, NJ [22.2%/$84,911], Montclair, NJ [26.5%/$91,826], Maplewood, NJ [32.9%/$97,641]
MAJORITY MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASS BLACK CALIFORNIA TOWNS
- Cascade Heights, Atlanta, Georgia
- Sandtown, Atlanta, Georgia
- Collier Heights, Atlanta, Georgia
So.. Tell me how often you hear about these towns in the news? You hear about Compton, Harlem, South Bronx but not about the above. Wonder why?
You don't hear about these places because if you did, it would challenge the myth of white supremacy and the media/govt. does not want that.
Here is another one, Baldwin Hills CA. It's very black and I think the homes say the rest: baldwin hills ca - Google Maps
Location: An Island off the coast of North America
449 posts, read 1,132,952 times
Reputation: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkmatechamp13
That makes sense (not that I necessarily agree with it, but it makes sense).
I mean, to me, those numbers would be more working-class than poor.
East Orange and Orange are far from being considered desirable. If you put them on Long Island, they'd be the Black version of Hempstead.
It's only West Orange and South Orange that are considered desirable, and those aren't majority Black (I think both towns have a slight White majority. The city-data pages say so, but I think West Orange might have slipped under 50% White as of the 2010 census)
What we call "ghetto" or "poor" on Long Island is working class on a national standard.
When the term "ghetto" is used on Long Island, it usually has little to do with income but more to do with ethnicity. Because there are areas with median household incomes of over $100,000 on LI that some others still refer to as "ghetto".
I do agree that many people who are called "poor" on Long Island would be working class in other places. But it depends on what level of "poor" you're talking about. Like a welfare mom in LI would still be poor if they were in another state.
Last edited by LongIslandPerson; 01-10-2012 at 06:54 PM..
What we call "ghetto" or "poor" on Long Island is working class on a national standard.
And in some cases, it's middle class or even more than middle class (look at areas like Baldwin and Lakeview)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIslandPerson
When the term "ghetto" is used on Long Island, it usually has little to do with income but more to do with ethnicity. Because there are areas with median household incomes of over $100,000 on LI that some others still refer to as "ghetto".
I do agree that many people who are called "poor" on Long Island would be working class in other places. But it depends on what level of "poor" you're talking about. Like a welfare mom in LI would still be poor if they were in another state.
Sort of. I mean, a lot of people still regard areas like southern Freeport and Wheatley Heights as decent areas despite having a large minority population, and Mastic Beach is considered "ghetto" and it's predominantly White.
But yeah, generally if you talk about 2 comparable towns (say, Baldwin vs. Farmingdale), people usually think of the one that has more minorities as "ghetto".
To be fair, ghetto doesn't necessarily have to refer to poverty: It also refers to crime, and while generally higher-income areas tend to have less crime than lower-income areas, there unfortunately is a tendancy for Black areas to have higher crime rates than White areas, even both areas are similar in a socioeconomic sense. I mean, in NYC, middle-class Black areas do tend to have higher crime rates than middle-class White areas. Of course, those areas generally don't have crime rates that are too high (I mean, there's a big difference between Cambria Heights and South Jamaica)
And in some cases, it's middle class or even more than middle class (look at areas like Baldwin and Lakeview)
Sort of. I mean, a lot of people still regard areas like southern Freeport and Wheatley Heights as decent areas despite having a large minority population, and Mastic Beach is considered "ghetto" and it's predominantly White.
But yeah, generally if you talk about 2 comparable towns (say, Baldwin vs. Farmingdale), people usually think of the one that has more minorities as "ghetto".
To be fair, ghetto doesn't necessarily have to refer to poverty: It also refers to crime, and while generally higher-income areas tend to have less crime than lower-income areas, there unfortunately is a tendancy for Black areas to have higher crime rates than White areas, even both areas are similar in a socioeconomic sense. I mean, in NYC, middle-class Black areas do tend to have higher crime rates than middle-class White areas. Of course, those areas generally don't have crime rates that are too high (I mean, there's a big difference between Cambria Heights and South Jamaica)
True. Just keep in mind that the main reason why middle class black areas tend to have higher crime rates than middle class white areas on average, is b/c almost every middle class black area is directly outside of a lower-income/higher crime area. So, there is a considerable amount of spill-over. Like in Elmont, there was a crime wave early last year and almost every criminal came from a troubled part of Queens.
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.
