City of Philadelphia gets richer as some suburbs get poorer (York: tenants, schools)

[cpomp]

[quote=HeavenWood;32150808]Here are my results (using 2012 inflation adjusted dollars):

[scribd]182706829[/scribd]

For anyone who doesn't care to go through the entire spreadsheet, the following changes met/surpassed the margin of error (90% confidence interval):

I wonder why Chester County households making over 200k in 2012 dropped from 2011, and Montgomery increased a decent amount? Or am I interpreting the spreadsheet wrong?

[ElijahAstin]

^Keep in mind that this version of the ACS is a year-to-year survey with a not insignificant margin of error. The only increases/decreases I'd give much credence to are those that meet/surpass the margin of error (bolded on the spreadsheet and listed in text form below). The one county that saw significant change (decrease) in $200k+ households is Delaware. Whether that's a survey abberation, short-term trend, or longer-term projection remains to be seen.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

^Keep in mind that this version of the ACS is a year-to-year survey with a not insignificant margin of error. The only increases/decreases I'd give much credence to are those that meet/surpass the margin of error (bolded on the spreadsheet and listed in text form below). The one county that saw significant change (decrease) in $200k+ households is Delaware. Whether that's a survey abberation, short-term trend, or longer-term projection remains to be seen.

Exactly -- and great work compiling these numbers!

One year is definitely not long enough to determine a trend. DelCo also saw a pretty significant increase in the 100-200K bracket, in addition to an increase in lower-income households, so there's no reason to think that affluence is just abandoning Delaware County.

Although the individual household income brackets are interesting to look at, I think overall it's most important to look at (statistically significant) changes to Median Household Income and Per Capita Income. It looks like those are only positive changes, particularly for Bucks, Chester and Philadelphia Counties.

[phillies2011]

Originally Posted by cpomp

There was no part of my post that was not true. Insinuate what you want.

Oh I'm sorry. It is suddenly a scientifically proven fact that the majority of the poor people in philadelphia cannot function in society? Because I'm pretty sure you're confusing truth with the garbage that spews from your mouth.

I've insinuated nothing, I straight up called you a racist.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by phillies2011

Oh I'm sorry. It is suddenly a scientifically proven fact that the majority of the poor people in philadelphia cannot function in society? Because I'm pretty sure you're confusing truth with the garbage that spews from your mouth.

I've insinuated nothing, I straight up called you a racist.

Umm no I was stating how moving the deeply impoverished people from Philadelphia to the suburbs is not going to suddenly enlighten them to try harder. Not how it works.

[soulsurv]

Originally Posted by phillies2011

You don't exactly come off rude as you do consistently classist and frequently racist. I knew this topic would draw you out and give you the opportunity to say something gross about poor people.

Okay, so name the neighborhoods that have IMPROVED by having the poor move there? These are not the days of pre-welfare, poor immigrants who lived in poverty then worked their fingers to the bone, two and three menial jobs at a time, in order to improve the lives of their children. Perhaps there are still a few remnants, but for the most part, those days are long gone.

[phillies2011]

Originally Posted by cpomp

Umm no I was stating how moving the deeply impoverished people from Philadelphia to the suburbs is not going to suddenly enlighten them to try harder. Not how it works.

Right, because the main problem facing deeply impoverished people in Philadelphia is a lack of effort. If only they'd try harder I'm sure everyone from the hood could get a phd. I mean honestly what challenges could they face when striving for success? If only they'd give it the old college try.

[ColdAilment]

The rich get richer.

However, interesting article. Over the late 20th century the opposite was very much true. Suburbs thrived as the cities decayed. This is still true in a lot of sunbelt cities.

[phillies2011]

Originally Posted by soulsurv

Okay, so name the neighborhoods that have IMPROVED by having the poor move there? These are not the days of pre-welfare, poor immigrants who lived in poverty then worked their fingers to the bone, two and three menial jobs at a time, in order to improve the lives of their children. Perhaps there are still a few remnants, but for the most part, those days are long gone.

I don't claim that shuffling poor people around the Philadelphia metro will somehow benefit the poor people or whatever place they end up.

I don't disagree with cpomp's arguement that relocating impoverished people from Philadelphia to it's suburbs will make those worse places to live. I simply disagree with the fact that this situation is then being used as an excuse to bash the impoverished people of philadelphia.

He says that a significant amount of Philadelphia's poor cannot function in society and then claims that determining who's fault this is would be an "endless debate." It's the assertion that these people are somehow innately stupid or incapable and shoulder the full amount of blame for their failure. Zero acknowledgement is given to situation they find themselves within society at birth.

You too make similar judgements. You seem to think of the poor people of the past as hardworking and driving towards the American Dream while the poor people of today are lazy and refuse to work hard enough to achieve it. What you fail to realize is the people have not changed, today however the dream is gone.

Immigrants of the 19th and early 20th century undoubtedly worked extremely hard. But that ability to work hard was actually a privilege. Because back then immigrants could actually find respectable jobs in the manufacturing industry or in agriculture. They never got rich and they likely worked at least 60+ hours a week but those hours were at least there for the taking and they made enough money to provide their family will food shelter and clothing. They made enough money so that one parent could stay home and raise their children. And the children had the opportunity to receive a public education that was the envy of the world.

Today in america industry is dead, our school system is crap, and we apparently value the ability to get a cheap flat screen than give everyone in this country the opportunity to work hard and make a living.

[soulsurv]

Originally Posted by phillies2011

I don't claim that shuffling poor people around the Philadelphia metro will somehow benefit the poor people or whatever place they end up.

I don't disagree with cpomp's arguement that relocating impoverished people from Philadelphia to it's suburbs will make those worse places to live. I simply disagree with the fact that this situation is then being used as an excuse to bash the impoverished people of philadelphia.

He says that a significant amount of Philadelphia's poor cannot function in society and then claims that determining who's fault this is would be an "endless debate." It's the assertion that these people are somehow innately stupid or incapable and shoulder the full amount of blame for their failure. Zero acknowledgement is given to situation they find themselves within society at birth.

You too make similar judgements. You seem to think of the poor people of the past as hardworking and driving towards the American Dream while the poor people of today are lazy and refuse to work hard enough to achieve it. What you fail to realize is the people have not changed, today however the dream is gone.

Immigrants of the 19th and early 20th century undoubtedly worked extremely hard. But that ability to work hard was actually a privilege. Because back then immigrants could actually find respectable jobs in the manufacturing industry or in agriculture. They never got rich and they likely worked at least 60+ hours a week but those hours were at least there for the taking and they made enough money to provide their family will food shelter and clothing. They made enough money so that one parent could stay home and raise their children. And the children had the opportunity to receive a public education that was the envy of the world.

Today in america industry is dead, our school system is crap, and we apparently value the ability to get a cheap flat screen than give everyone in this country the opportunity to work hard and make a living.

Phillies, I do get what you're saying...but there is a reason why these "judgments" come to mind. If I may relay a personal story: When my parents were dying in 2010, I called upon the help of local private agencies to aid my brother and I in their care. Mom stayed with me; Dad stayed at their home with my brother. The agencies sent women who lived in Upper Darby to help us. They were from West Africa, positive God-sends and truly amazing. One of them was a single mother who worked for two agencies, many hours; the other worked for an agency and was getting her accounting cert in taxation as well. THEY were outraged by the people in their neighborhoods who traded in food stamps for drugs and hung in the streets all day. One of the ladies said to me, "Where I come from, if you don't work, you don't eat."

I KNOW that public assistance helps the struggling, and I also feel a personal call to help when I can. But you can't tell me that gov. assistance has not created a wayward mentality and low personal expectations among the abusers of the system. How do we fix it?