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.
This idea has come to me after examining many demographics and statistics on cities. I've come to see that many cities with demographics that are majorly black, i.e. 60% or more are usually poverty stricken cities with high crime, deteriorating downtowns and inner city neighborhoods, abandoned buildings, etc.
As a quote from another thread's poster read:
Baltimore's poor are overwhelmingly Black American and their behavior exacts a tremendous social and economic toll on the city. Baltimore is hurtling towards Tamar Jacoby's "tipping point" of 70% Black. This is the point where she says cities experience an irreversible decline.
This seems to be overwhelmingly accurate. Cities that are vastly slanted in the black population are often times much poorer and much worse off. Examples:
Detroit - 83% black
36% below poverty line
Flint - 57% black
38% below poverty line
Baltimore - 64% black
23% below poverty line
Memphis - 63% black
26% below poverty line
Newark - 53% black
26% below poverty line
Jackson - 79% black
28% below poverty line
Birmingham - 73% black
27% below poverty line
Cleveland - 54% black
33% below poverty line
Gary - 85% black
36% below poverty line
East Saint Louis - 98% black
42% below poverty line
Do you see the trend here? It seems in most major cities, the higher the black population the higher the poverty rates. Some cities are able to manage it while keeping overall poverty rates at a median. But it seems that over 50% spells problems, and over 70% spells inevitable and long term decline.
Aren't all of those cities that had major white-flight? Basically if the residents who can support the city choose not to live there, the cities fall apart.
Many of them were single or dual industry cities. When those industries moved or not longer became economically feasible, they wouldn't have an easy time to reposition themselves economically.
I think the high poverty rate is more of a reflection of people moving in that couldn't afford to live in a nicer locale and could take advantage of the falling prices and/or the people left behind unable to maintain a good job over time.
Atlanta was 61% black in 2000, yet it seems to have done well. I mean, yes, it's losing it's black majority, but how come it didn't decline then?
Atlanta is one of the very few exceptions to this rule, and arguably it never reached the 70% point, where things begin to go into serious decline. Areas of Atlanta are still seriously impoverished. Atlanta ranks as the second most separated city between rich and poor in the nation. Only in D.C. is the gap between the haves and have nots greater.
Atlanta is one of the very few exceptions to this rule, and arguably it never reached the 70% point, where things begin to go into serious decline. Areas of Atlanta are still seriously impoverished. Atlanta ranks as the second most separated city between rich and poor in the nation. Only in D.C. is the gap between the haves and have nots greater.
Show me a source of this because it's hard to believe. NYC seems like it would be worst then Atlanta just because of the high costs of living. I can understand D.C. because it also cost a lot to live at.
And every city has serious impoverished areas. Is this anything new?
This idea has come to me after examining many demographics and statistics on cities. I've come to see that many cities with demographics that are majorly black, i.e. 60% or more are usually poverty stricken cities with high crime, deteriorating downtowns and inner city neighborhoods, abandoned buildings, etc.
As a quote from another thread's poster read:
Baltimore's poor are overwhelmingly Black American and their behavior exacts a tremendous social and economic toll on the city. Baltimore is hurtling towards Tamar Jacoby's "tipping point" of 70% Black. This is the point where she says cities experience an irreversible decline.
This seems to be overwhelmingly accurate. Cities that are vastly slanted in the black population are often times much poorer and much worse off. Examples:
Detroit - 83% black
36% below poverty line
Flint - 57% black
38% below poverty line
Baltimore - 64% black
23% below poverty line
Memphis - 63% black
26% below poverty line
Newark - 53% black
26% below poverty line
Jackson - 79% black
28% below poverty line
Birmingham - 73% black
27% below poverty line
Cleveland - 54% black
33% below poverty line
Gary - 85% black
36% below poverty line
East Saint Louis - 98% black
42% below poverty line
Do you see the trend here? It seems in most major cities, the higher the black population the higher the poverty rates. Some cities are able to manage it while keeping overall poverty rates at a median. But it seems that over 50% spells problems, and over 70% spells inevitable and long term decline.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, blame Black folk for your failed cities. Black folk did not create these conditions. Who in their right mind, wants to live in impoverished conditions? Right being the operative word.
Black people in general, Black men in particular, are no longer the economic necessity that our enslaved ancestors once were. If you can find it, read Sidney Wilhelm's Who Needs the Negro? There was a time in this country when a strapping, young Black man was an economic necessity in the factories, mills, and foundries of the North. Certainly, it would have been to the country's advantage to leave those factories put. It was NOT Black folk who decided to close or to move those factories, for whatever the reason.
"Economic toll..." Drivel! That which you call crime, is an economy! Prison are the new factories! However, they are built not to punish or rehabilitate. They are warehouses!
Black people are always reacting to well thought out, wicked plans. Read about the counter intelligence program (COINTELPRO).
I could go on. However, I doubt that you have any interest in the problem or solutions.
This is hardly a city vs city topic.
Last edited by ThreeSides; 03-11-2013 at 11:01 PM..
There's plenty of ghost towns that are worse off than the towns you posted. Plenty of towns that were once bustling at one point, and now are nothing more than empty outpost in the middle of nowhere. Their decline had more to do with certain industries or lack-there-of in those cities.
here are a few indicators
-the % of college educated ppl is low, particularly those who are younger; similar logic applies to % with post-grad degrees
-reliance on manufacturing and/or natural resources that are suffering from low prices/demand, or possibly dwindling supply
Many of them were single or dual industry cities. When those industries moved or not longer became economically feasible, they wouldn't have an easy time to reposition themselves economically.
I think the high poverty rate is more of a reflection of people moving in that couldn't afford to live in a nicer locale and could take advantage of the falling prices and/or the people left behind unable to maintain a good job over time.
Exactly, the implication of the question is somewhat racist, imo. Blacks did not cause those cities to decline.
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.
