U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2011, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
10,833 posts, read 12,864,039 times
Reputation: 7068

Advertisements

OK, now I am offended. Slum living Clevelander here.

I don't personally agree that NYC or CLE are slums.

BUT I do take issue with this myth that if the cost of living in ANY city is 3 times higher then it is in any other city that I will be paid accordingly.
That's just not true in the least.

Salaries are NOT higher then the cost of living in NYC. That's crazy talk. Maybe for 10% of the population but come on now.....

If you lived in Cleveland, NJBest and did make a 3rd of what you make now you would be living the high life in CLE my friend. O yea.
You can get by on $25K a year here.
You can live a good life on $50K here.
And you can live like a king at $70K here.
6 figures??? Pffft.. you can live like Lebron James...

$70K in NYC> . You still need a rommmate.

Apologies... bit off topic here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2011, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
Oh, so we are basically saying slum = skyscrapers. FWIW, I think Cleveland is more "slum" than NYC.
Just exactly how do you quantify that? Every city has a slum. If you go and look at NYC slums, and then go and look at Cleveland's slums, just driving through, or even getting out and waling around for a while, how do you judge whether one is worse than the other?

Tell us your magic formula for calculating the "slumminess" of each city?

From the US Census Bureau:

Percentage of families below the poverty line (2009):

New York City (all 5 boroughs) = 18.7
Cuhahoga County (incl Cleveland) = 18.6

The poverty line is defined exactly the same in both cities, so if it costs more to live in NYC, more people with the same income will be unable to live above the "slum" level.

Last edited by jtur88; 04-11-2011 at 03:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 10:14 AM
 
14,777 posts, read 34,516,591 times
Reputation: 14278
I guess I'm missing the point, the OP's English is decent, but not great. It sounds like the only conclusion that is being drawn here is that overpopulation is bad and large metro areas are the best example of this. It was stated that large high concentration metro areas = slums compared to less concentrated metro areas, hence the NYC vs. Cleveland comment. The implication was that Cleveland is "better" than NYC. Obviously there are slums and ghettos everywhere, but by your own statistic, Cleveland is no better in that regard for its lower density than NYC.

Again, I really don't know what we are arguing it seems that the OP is trying to prove the issue of overpopulation in regards to the sustainability of large metro areas and categorizes all of those metros as slums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
29,730 posts, read 47,507,271 times
Reputation: 17582
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I guess I'm missing the point, the OP's English is decent, but not great. It sounds like the only conclusion that is being drawn here is that overpopulation is bad and large metro areas are the best example of this.
Whether good or bad, I would consider it fairly obvious that localized 'over-population' would be at the most extreme in large urban metro areas.

Any time you cram 100,000 people into a square mile it would seem obvious that it will get crowded. Pack a bunch of these high density square miles next to each other, and from the point-of-view from standing in the center it would seem over-populated.

But none of that subtracts from the fact that huge open expanses of wilderness exist ready to be made into productive land whenever the need arises.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Bike to Surf!
3,080 posts, read 9,691,255 times
Reputation: 2977
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShiftFn View Post
besides I can bet that Hong Kong and Singapore looks like slum
Are you kidding? Have you ever been to these places? Hong Kong is one of the most beautiful and developed locations in the world! There are tons of natural recreation areas, hiking trails, beautiful beaches right next to towering skyscrapers and bustling shopping districts.

The same goes for the other major metropolitan areas you've cited: Shanghai, Beijing, plus Taipei, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur.

Dense population does not mean slum. I am currently stuck in a low-density area in the midwest of the USA, and there are plenty of slums and environmental destruction here, perpetrated by a much smaller population base. The gully near my place is full of garbage and old tires dumped by careless inhabitants over the years. The fields have abandoned cars rusting and leaking toxins into the soil, the woods are filled with old barbed-wire fencing abandoned and left to rust. It's a pretty ugly place, compared to a lot of metropolises I've visited.

Major cities have their problem areas, but overall they are a more efficient way to house a large number of people and minimize their environmental impact. Mass transit systems minimize the energy necessary to move people from place to place (compared to AWD SUV's necessary in the countryside). Everything is utilized to capacity in a city, and wastes are concentrated and easier to contain and treat. Nobody leaves their car to rot in Central Park, NYC.

Quote:
then tell me why Cleveland is looking so much better than New York
It's not. I'll take LA or NYC over Cleveland any day.


However... the world IS over-populated considering current rates of consumption. Stabilizing the world population through a reduced birth rate (a natural side-effect of improved economics and education) and the natural movement of people into population centers, due to increased economic opportunities, will alleviate resource shortages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
10,715 posts, read 22,335,286 times
Reputation: 5137
anything over 7 billion then they should become the pioneers of a space colony on mars and the moon and maybe saturns moon uropia so human population of 50-60 billion people could be possilble
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 01:57 PM
 
4,987 posts, read 7,764,903 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTOlover View Post
anything over 7 billion then they should become the pioneers of a space colony on mars and the moon and maybe saturns moon uropia so human population of 50-60 billion people could be possilble
A slight correction: Europa is a moon of Jupiter. It's also thought to have a surface of ice covering a possible ocean. Probably not the best location for colonization. Regardless, the main drawback at the present time is that we don't yet know if such colonization of the Moon or Mars could actually be made to be indefinitely habitable for multiple generations to survive and thrive.

If a population of 7 billion is a point where colonization of space should begin, I'm not sure how you would cram 50-60 billion people combined on the Earth, Moon and Mars. The Moon and Mars are pretty small compared to the Earth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,437,159 times
Reputation: 7702
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShiftFn View Post
and what do you think ?
Human beings are like a plague of insects. They just multiply and devour everything in their path. It defies logic to believe that we can continue to chop down forests and develop farm land to build more housing, for the every increasing population, and still maintain any normal quality of life for future generations.

More people + less resources = lower standard of living and increased cost of living. You can already see the trend. 60 years ago, people could attain the American dream, live in a nice house in the suburbs, with a big yard and lots of trees. Drive to work on newly constructed uncontested freeways. And best of all, on just one family member's income.

Now just to survive it takes two family members incomes, just to live in a crap house with little or no yard, and it takes hours to drive to work through all the congestion. While the kids a left to fend for themselves.

In the future the kids will have to start working, so the families can have enough income just to buy food, and they will live in houses stacked on top of each other, and never see a blade of grass or a tree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Bike to Surf!
3,080 posts, read 9,691,255 times
Reputation: 2977
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Human beings are like a plague of insects. They just multiply and devour everything in their path. It defies logic to believe that we can continue to chop down forests and develop farm land to build more housing, for the every increasing population, and still maintain any normal quality of life for future generations.

More people + less resources = lower standard of living and increased cost of living. You can already see the trend. 60 years ago, people could attain the American dream, live in a nice house in the suburbs, with a big yard and lots of trees. Drive to work on newly constructed uncontested freeways. And best of all, on just one family member's income.

Now just to survive it takes two family members incomes, just to live in a crap house with little or no yard, and it takes hours to drive to work through all the congestion. While the kids a left to fend for themselves.

In the future the kids will have to start working, so the families can have enough income just to buy food, and they will live in houses stacked on top of each other, and never see a blade of grass or a tree.
You are way off-base. 60 years ago was 1950. Check out the typical 1950's home, car, life expectancy, literacy rate, etc, and you'll see that things were not so rosy as you imagine.

If you want a typical 1950's sqft home, single car, and time home with the kids it is quite achievable on a single income:

Just give up your computer, cell phone, sat/cable tv, second car, 2500+ sqft Mcmansion in the exurbs, health insurance, modern medications, charter schools, college fund, etc. Move to a 700-900 sqft home or townhouse within walking distance (or carpool to) your workplace and VIOLA, it's the 1950's for you all over again!

Don't forget your suit and tie. Sorry about the price of cigarettes (and the inability to chain-smoke them at work), that IS different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 03:37 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,527 posts, read 29,246,638 times
Reputation: 21264
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-boy-80 View Post
I think Global Stupidity is of a bigger concern than Global Overpopulation.

The World is not overpopulated. And if it was, then something natural would happen to cull the population. The problem is that economic disparity is big and we have the modern tech to observe it better. We should not be complaining about the size of the human population but instead we should be focusing on turning the world into a fairer place. Just because someone is black or brown does not mean they could not come up with the cure for diseases or invent material that we would all benefit from.
Every country has the right to make their own rules whether we like it or not. Obviously, the planet has the ability to sustain 6+ billion people or even considerably more, if politics did not play such an integral part in life or death for so many.

Alas, we cannot control how the rest of the world thinks or behaves. Life has never been fair. We all must fight tooth and nail to survive. Yes, there are many good, decent and wonderful people with worlds of potential that suffer and die because of inequality.

We all must simply try to do the best we can and help if and when we are able.

20yrsinbranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top