Not Good News: Austin #3 in overall economic segregation in the nation (Howe: sales, crime)

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by ImOnFiya

What do you think?

I'm not sure what the problem is. Please tell us.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by pop251808

I see. I assumed that my fellow Americans thought that a widening discrepancy between rich and poor was bad, as I do. .

Why is it bad? Why are you so concerned with what other people have?

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by roadking2003

i'm not sure what the problem is. Let them eat cake.

fify

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by atxcio

fify

Libertarian/conservative types always assume the person bringing up this topic is "jealous" or some such: "Why do you want Mike Dell's house, etc." Apparently, it doesn't occur to them that one might be concerned looking the other way on the scale, or looking down the greasy pole, as it were. In short, one might have a bit more difficulty enjoying a 13 dollar hamburger in East Austin when they look around and see ongoing examples of poverty all around. But I guess not; there's a line in front of the new 13 buck burger joint.

[Aquitaine]

In short, one might have a bit more difficulty enjoying a 13 dollar hamburger in East Austin when they look around and see ongoing examples of poverty all around.

The 13 dollar burger joint can pay its employees a heck of lot more than the two dollar burger joint. Oh right, I forgot - just force the two dollar burger joint to raise its wages and the money will magically materialize. You can't have it both ways.

I don't assume you're jealous; but you don't appear to understand market economics.

[scm53]

Libertarian/conservative types always assume the person bringing up this topic is "jealous" or some such: "Why do you want Mike Dell's house, etc."

Pretty omniscient to be able to know what others are thinking. I'm the guy with the Michael Dell house observation, and I said nothing of the sort (which didn't prevent the twisting into something else ...). Serious question -- how is anyone made better if someone else has less?

This handwringing over the plight of others would be more sincere if it didn't always focus on taking away from those at the top, and instead truly focused on helping those on the bottom. I've got two great ideas to help those on the bottom -- how about we don't tell them that they have to now compete for low skill/low wage positions with eleven million people that aren't citizens? Econ 101 -- constrain supply, prices go up. Or how about the four steps the Brookings Institution has shown will reduce poverty by 71%.

Would love to hear other ideas.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by scm53

Pretty omniscient to be able to know what others are thinking. I'm the guy with the Michael Dell house observation, and I said nothing of the sort (which didn't prevent the twisting into something else ...). Serious question -- how is anyone made better if someone else has less?

This handwringing over the plight of others would be more sincere if it didn't always focus on taking away from those at the top, and instead truly focused on helping those on the bottom. I've got two great ideas to help those on the bottom -- how about we don't tell them that they have to now compete for low skill/low wage positions with eleven million people that aren't citizens? Econ 101 -- constrain supply, prices go up. Or how about the four steps the Brookings Institution has shown will reduce poverty by 71%.

Would love to hear other ideas.

You are correct. I don't care anything about a gap. I do care about people who are poor and we should focus on them, not the rich. The solution is jobs. As your link says, poor people work (on average) a lot fewer hours than upper income people.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by pop251808

I barely know or care who Richard Florida is, but it shouldn't take a social scientist to notice there is a serious gap between rich and poor in Austin (and all of Texas) and that that gap has real repercussions for most of us.

What are those repercussions?

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

The 13 dollar burger joint can pay its employees a heck of lot more than the two dollar burger joint. Oh right, I forgot - just force the two dollar burger joint to raise its wages and the money will magically materialize. You can't have it both ways.

I don't assume you're jealous; but you don't appear to understand market economics.

What are you going on about? Where do you get the idea that a new place with more expensive prices a)pays its employees more, or b)can afford to pay them more?
Maybe the differential between what they charge and what other places charge could be explained entirely by the different product, more expensive ingredients, etc, that are meant to appeal to the more upscale clientele that has moved into the area. And, quite possibly, just the fact that the place is new, meeting all of the new higher development costs imposed by the COA and exacted in higher rents, eats up a good bit of that new burger's price. I'd be willing to bet that the wages aren't significantly different than wages at other eateries in the area; market economics and all.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by scm53

Pretty omniscient to be able to know what others are thinking. I'm the guy with the Michael Dell house observation, and I said nothing of the sort (which didn't prevent the twisting into something else ...). Serious question -- how is anyone made better if someone else has less?

This handwringing over the plight of others would be more sincere if it didn't always focus on taking away from those at the top, and instead truly focused on helping those on the bottom. I've got two great ideas to help those on the bottom -- how about we don't tell them that they have to now compete for low skill/low wage positions with eleven million people that aren't citizens? Econ 101 -- constrain supply, prices go up. Or how about the four steps the Brookings Institution has shown will reduce poverty by 71%.

Would love to hear other ideas.

Again, I never said anything about taking anything away from anyone; just the opposite, I'd like to see those on the bottom of our city's economy bring up their standard of living. And again, I haven't read the Florida report, just glanced at the link. It mentions that the largest Texas cities seem to have some of the largest differentials between rich and poor, not to take anything away from NYC, of course.
Either the condition exists, or it doesn't. I entered this debate with the observation that blaming the news on "yankees, californians and journalists" is one of the oldest, and least valid, complaints offered up when someone points up an unpleasant truth about our great state. So we have to get that out of the way: which is it, a real condition meriting our attention, or a yankee smear job?
As for the Brookings Institution: I glanced at it and I'll offer my first reaction which is, changing people's basic social conditions, such as their marital status, etc. strikes me as an amazingly paternalistic and retrograde attempt at social engineering in an era when we can't even ask people to get dressed properly before they leave the house or to turn down their car stereo or to teach their children to respect their teachers, etc. In other words, good luck with all that. It flies in the face of all that's changed about society since, when, VJ day?