San Francisco, Oakland Among America's Most Unequal Big Cities (Exeter: real estate market, unemployment)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Funny how those are three of the greatest cities in the country, where some people can only dream of living. Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

LOL exactly.

Despite the sum of all the issues anyone wants to bring up, Oakland is a magnet of the creative class, yuppies and hipsters and has long list of desirable and trendy neighborhoods that are attracting the caliber of newcomer that tend to go the NYs and SFs of the world. LA not so much. or wherever really arent anymore. And that fact just boils the blood of some folks. And that makes me HAPPY.

HA.

HA.

HA.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Even if manufacturing jobs do return to the U.S., it'll never be like it was.

Of course it will never be back to the way it was, the way it was is not and never was sustainable. Just look at the UAW and Detroit, or Hostess Cakes and the Bakers Union. That is not a business model that has any chance of being sustained in a modern capitalistic society.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Disappearance of middle-class jobs, an increase in (very) wealthy people, increase in real estate prices. The middle class has been priced out and left for places that are more affordable and/or where they can get work.

There is also a massive trend to want to live in urban centers of metros (particularly with younger people), driving demand higher (and therefore rental/real estate prices upward).

This is happening in SF and Oakland. It's actually pretty simple.

That doesn't mean that all areas of both cities have gentrified, though. In both SF and Oakland there are large areas filled with poor(er) people that have less options for mobility. As each city gains more wealth, and more people from the middle leave, the income gap rises.

Don't waste your time arguing with him. He constantly moves the goalposts to fit whatever absurd argument he's trying to make. The second you point out facts, he'll just cherry pick whatever data points he wants and spin it around.

He's doing it again, right here:

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Of course it will never be back to the way it was, the way it was is not and never was sustainable. Just look at the UAW and Detroit, or Hostess Cakes and the Bakers Union. That is not a business model that has any chance of being sustained in a modern capitalistic society.

Detroit and Oakland have relatively few things in common- aside from crime and poverty among blacks. It's an exceptionally poorly run city that's steadily lost over 40% of its population over the last several decades- 25% of it in the last one alone! It's a stupid comparison and we're all dumber for having it to even address it. When there are no jobs, miserable weather, bad crime, and relatively few cultural amenities, people take off. It's happened in St Louis, Cleveland, and lots of other rust belt cities, and some, like Pittsburgh, have recovered. It's far more complicated than you're suggesting.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Of course it will never be back to the way it was, the way it was is not and never was sustainable. Just look at the UAW and Detroit, or Hostess Cakes and the Bakers Union. That is not a business model that has any chance of being sustained in a modern capitalistic society.

I meant in the number of jobs. We have more people in the country than we did in the 1980's and we'll never have the amount of manufacturing jobs that we had then (for a variety of reasons).

It will be harder for people in the middle to make it with less opportunities. If that continues, we as a country will continue to sag, as a whole. We'll probably continue to lead in innovation and many of the brightest people and biggest inventions will likely still come out of the U.S., but it will continue to get harder for the "average person" to make it. Sure we can "re-purpose" the middle towards other types of jobs...but will it be enough to offset the loss in types of typical/traditional middle class employment like manufacturing? Tough to say.

This trend is hitting the "middle" the most in the most affluent/most expensive cities in the country (hence the list). But is a theme that exists in all cities throughout the country (including the very affordable Great Lakes region where I was born and grew up). I know many people want to use this list as a way to disparage "liberals" (or whatever), but it's a bit more complicated than that. It goes way beyond liberals/conservatives.

I have faith we can turn it around as a country, but at this point it's hard to say how we'll do it.

[MrWillys]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Really?

Baltimore - Median household income $40,803
Oakland - Median Household income $51,683

And? Calexico's median income is 30k.

My point was that if you look at the list it reflects some of the most expensive areas too live in the nation. Therefore, it should be understood there will be a greater separation between the wealthy, and poor.

Oakland for example is a strange place. You can go from San Pablo avenue where drugs, and prostitutes are for sale up the hill in to Montclair which reminds me of a very affluent area. Are you saying these wealthy should be punished for what they have?

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

The middle class has been priced out and left for places that are more affordable and/or where they can get work.

According to the link Stephen provided, 41% of Oakland is affordable to Middle class earners, and only 14% for San Francisco.

Your theory doesn't seem to fit both cities at all. I can see the middle class being priced out of SF, it certainly fits the "desirable, lots of jobs, vibrant urban center" description you've thrown out. 14% tells me there is tough competition for middle class who want to live and stay in S.F.

But for Oakland? If nearly half the city is affordable to "middle class" people, that doesn't tell me "the middle class has been priced out", it tells me something else.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

I meant in the number of jobs. We have more people in the country than we did in the 1980's and we'll never have the amount of manufacturing jobs that we had then (for a variety of reasons).

It will be harder for people in the middle to make it with less opportunities. If that continues, we as a country will continue to sag, as a whole. We'll probably continue to lead in innovation and many of the brightest people and biggest inventions will likely still come out of the U.S., but it will continue to get harder for the "average person" to make it. Sure we can "re-purpose" the middle towards other types of jobs...but will it be enough to offset the loss in types of typical/traditional middle class employment like manufacturing? Tough to say.

This trend is hitting the "middle" the most in the most affluent/most expensive cities in the country (hence the list). But is a theme that exists in all cities throughout the country (including the very affordable Great Lakes region where I was born and grew up). I know many people want to use this list as a way to disparage "liberals" (or whatever), but it's a bit more complicated than that. It goes way beyond liberals/conservatives.

I have faith we can turn it around as a country, but at this point it's hard to say how we'll do it.

No one is disparaging liberals, that would be a personal attack.

But to deny that liberal policies ruined cities like Detroit, and Oakland is a tough point to defend. No one in this thread has put out a convincing, let alone well constructed argument, in defense of that side of the equation. Mostly snarky, somewhat subdued, personal attacks, but that's not a true argument.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by MrWillys

And? Calexico's median income is 30k.

What's the COL in Calexico like? I'm pretty sure it's a lot lower than the SF Bay Area, or Los Angeles Coastal.

[MrWillys]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

No one is disparaging liberals, that would be a personal attack.

But to deny that liberal policies ruined cities like Detroit, and Oakland is a tough point to defend. No one in this thread has put out a convincing, let alone well constructed argument, in defense of that side of the equation. Mostly snarky, somewhat subdued, personal attacks, but that's not a true argument.

How did liberal policies ruin Detroit? Is the city government responsible for outsourcing, and a 50% loss in population? Sounds to me like the car manufacturers are responsible? You make this claim with only innuendo to support said claim. Would you say Bush is responsible for the 08 crash, and the millions of families who lost everything? My guess is you have an unsubstantiated excuse for that too. My answer would be too many factors contributed for any single individual, or political ideal, and the same for Detroit. What's really scary is your complete bias to a single party, and being incapable of reason other than a regurgitated party mantra.

[MrWillys]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

What's the COL in Calexico like? I'm pretty sure it's a lot lower than the SF Bay Area, or Los Angeles Coastal.

Absolutely, and it shows how a study of class separation can be skewed.