Why is Oaklands crime rate higher than most? (Los Angeles, Long Beach: transplants, tenants)

[Senno]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Socio-economic demographics aren't about "feeling" what you are. A homeless person can find $100, and claim to feel like a king. That doesn't mean they become part of the top income earners in the city.

It's about COL, and income, that's it. If someone makes enough to afford certain amenities and goods, then they are middle class. If not, then they aren't. According to this graph:



There are far more low income earners in Oakland than is normal in the state and in the U.S.

Doc, as an alleged Doc you should be knowing that from a total health perspective happiness is self-defined and important. And if people feel they are happily middle class, I'm happy to agree with 'em.

And the Feds define low income as $44,000 or so. Your chart seems to be off some as far as being accurate.

And the poverty rate isn't out of whack with other areas of CA as Montclair keeps on a showin ya.

[18Montclair]

Yes, he tries in vain to paint Oakland as poor. Its hilarious.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

At 26% of the population, you might expect Oakland to account for 26-35% of the violent crime in Alameda County at the most. But no, it is 65%! It's the only city in the county that has such a disproportionate amount of violent crime compared to its population out of any of the other 10 cities in the County. It has the highest violent crime rate in Alameda county by OVER TRIPLE the next city.

But let's pretend your theory is right, and it's simply because "Oakland has the most population" even though the stats show that Oakland disproportionaly has more crime.

Here's Santa Clara County where we can all agree, San Jose has the most population and is the seat of the county government. According to your theory, San Jose should have the highest violent crime rate, like Oakland does in Alameda:



Oh wow, looks like Morgan Hill and Gilroy are actually ABOVE San Jose, which has the most population in Santa Clara County. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM. It seems like your theory fails when applied to Santa Clara County since San Jose only ranked THIRD in violent crime rate.

Could it be because your theory doesn't work, or is Santa Clara County "special"? What say you JSBA?

In all fairness... Oakland is where the majority of criminals are released. I even questioned this with someone in Law Enforcement in Pleasanton and he said Oakland is better equipped to serve the needs of this population...

[DocGoldstein]

First off, those statistics aren't even current (I'll post the REAL stats in a bit).

Secondly, Oakland vs L.A means nothing! L.A is the 2nd largest city in the U.S. NYC's poverty rate hit 21% in 2012. It's simply exponentially harder to keep the poverty rate low in cities that large. Poor people flock to the cities to make it, there are more social services, etc, and many of them have no jobs, or income when they arrive.

Why not post a valid comparison of cities of similar size?

For instance, let's do Irvine vs Oakland:

Irvine 10.6%
Oakland 19.6%

Oakland (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Now that's a VALID comparison, and as you can see, Oakland's poverty rate is nearly double of a city of similar population size.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

In all fairness... Oakland is where the majority of criminals are released. I even questioned this with someone in Law Enforcement in Pleasanton and he said Oakland is better equipped to serve the needs of this population...

If that were true, why isn't San Jose following this theory?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

For instance, let's do Irvine vs Oakland:

Irvine 10.6%
Oakland 19.6%

Oakland (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Now that's a VALID comparison, and as you can see, Oakland's poverty rate is nearly double of a city of similar population size.

Yes, Irvine is 1 in 10 persons and Oakland is 2 in 10.

So that means that 8 in ten Oaklanders are not poor. Meanwhile 800,000 people in the city of LA are poor. WOW.

Thank you for sinking your own battleship. Yet again.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yes, Irvine is 1 in 10 persons and Oakland is 2 in 10.

So that means that 8 in ten Oaklanders are not poor.

No, it means 8 in 10 Oaklanders are not BELOW the poverty line. Words like "poor" and "rich" aren't real metrics.

[18Montclair]

A few pages ago, it was totally okay to liken Oakland to Chicago even though Chicago has 2.8 Million people but suddenly now, LA is somehow off limits? LOLOL

I dont think so.

2011 Census Data

Median Household Income
Oakland $50,500
Los Angeles $46,148

Families Living Below Poverty Line
Los Angeles 18.4%
Oakland 17.2%

Median Earnings, Full time Employed Males <<<
Oakland $50,289
Los Angeles $36,413

[Senno]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

First off, those statistics aren't even current (I'll post the REAL stats in a bit).

Secondly, Oakland vs L.A means nothing! L.A is the 2nd largest city in the U.S. NYC's poverty rate hit 21% in 2012. It's simply exponentially harder to keep the poverty rate low in cities that large. Poor people flock to the cities to make it, there are more social services, etc, and many of them have no jobs, or income when they arrive.

Why not post a valid comparison of cities of similar size?

For instance, let's do Irvine vs Oakland:

Irvine 10.6%
Oakland 19.6%

Oakland (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Now that's a VALID comparison, and as you can see, Oakland's poverty rate is nearly double of a city of similar population size.

I don't disagree with the bolded really.

However we do have people flocking to Oakland to make it as the housing is cheaper there than anywhere else in the bay area generally relative to the rest of the Bay Area. So while we point out that the housing is cheap and a draw, you think it's not a desirable place to live. It's desirable partially due to that very same cheap housing, Doc, which compensates for the crime rate for some people. In addition to the other fine things that you enjoy to talk about sometimes. Including that little sandwich shop.

And there are still safe and desirable places to live in Oakland. While crime may be random on a personal basis, I'm pretty certain it's more concentrated in some areas than others.

I'm not going to count up every crime as I'm lazy.

But like I say, in Fresno the further north you go, the safer you are generally. I'm in Sunnyside (technically the county) in the SE and 5 miles from the Bulldog gang territory and I'm OK over here.

[jsba]

Irvine really isn't comparable in size, it has a population of a little over 200k, 215 to be exact. Oakland is at what? 390K+ thats almost twice the size. a better comparison would be a city like Fresno, Long Beach, or Bakersfield. Lager cities by maybe a 100K or so but much more similar in size than Irvine.

Though this below the poverty line jazz is interesting. Do you think that maybe Oakland based on its central location attracts more people to it of low economic status because it is easier to move around the Bay Area from its central location? This is just a thought I actually have no input on that issue that is statistical.