Nearly 156 People Leave Chicago Daily: Demographic Trends (Bridgeport: sale, 2013)

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by smegmatite

so your one-off situation overrides the entire city and its aggregate data? Just a heads up snowflake, the world doesn't revolve around you
and yeah, you probably should move if your landlord is jacking up your rent that much...

Read much? It's not just me, or just me landlord, it's entire neighborhoods like Pilsen, Humboldt, and Bridgeport. (I'm looking at rents everywhere-- why would I only look at my own apartment or landlord?) Before that it was Logan. Before that it was Bucktown and Wicker Park. Before that it was Lakeview. Once upon a time it was even Lincoln Park and Old Town that were affordable and then weren't. My point being, more and more neighborhoods are going from affordable to gentrified, and I'm not seeing any going the opposite direction in recent years. If that doesn't indicate an increasing demand to live in the city, I don't know what does.

Originally Posted by smegmatite

$800 a month is practically secion 8 rent though so who knows...

*Now* it is, perhaps. That's my point. Five years ago it was a pretty decent place in a prime location in Pilsen ($850, not $800). And it wasn't just my place-- that was the market rate. Only really large or recently remodeled places were near $1000. Other places in less-prime locations, or slightly smaller (but still decent and in a hip neighborhood) were more like $650.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by paytonc

No.

Not one poster noticed that the original article was about the metro area.

Oops-- You're right, I failed to notice that. That actually make the numbers make sense now. Thanks for catching that. Demand to live in many of the suburbs (and for younger demographics and single people, to even live in the suburbs at all) is definite decreasing, and when the burbs account for 2/3 to 3/4 of the metro area (depending on which definition of the metro area you use), that's obviously going to paint a much different picture.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

Ed, who in your opinion would meet that qualification? Are they currently running, or do you think someone new will enter the race before the general? Please don't say Bill Daley, I would hate to see another Daley get his hands on the throat of the city, he'd probably bulldoze the Museum campus into the lake in the middle of the night. Preckwinkle has failed Cook County, it's hard to see why she'd do any better in Chicago. Mendoza is in Madigan's pocket, his getting the city as well as the state wouldn't turn out well. Ms. Brown has too big a chance of sending herself to prison, so she's out. All-in-all, I'd rather see a grass-roots candidate come in before the general (where's Oprah when you need her) vs. the field currently running.

Great question...and I wish I had an answer. The field is just too big at this point to whittle down to one likely No, you definitely won’t get Bill Daley out of me. Bushes, Clintons, Daleys....I’m pretty much dynastied out.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Master Jay

Even Archie Bunker had his funny as well as his serious/tender moments! Some would argue that I am actually insensitive, because I use phrases like, "I treat everyone the same." They might feel that because of that, I am exuding an attitude that everyone should be the same... But actually, I never once said that we shouldn't celebrate all languages, religions, customs, etc.... I'm Mexican and Croatian. I speak English and Spanish. I learned Korean as a student of Tae Kwon Do for 24 years. I've worked with people from all kinds of backgrounds as a Social Worker. Every group that has lived on this land has suffered at some point in history. Some have climbed the ladder higher than others. Perhaps if we focus on our similarities versus our differences, we might put away feelings of fear and egoism, and actually make progress together as PEOPLE. I'm open to feedback. Take care- Master Jay in Milwaukee

Perhaps if the 1% didn’t put so much effort into dividing us into groups and making us into enemies, the old divide and conquer, we’d have the very unity you suggest and we desperately need. Black Americans were used from the get go to create a divide between the two races....because if that divide wasn’t put in place, those white Americans would realize that black Americans are their allies....and would have been able to stand up to the psychopathic oligarches who rule us today and destroy everything in sight. Monsters.

Comprehensive health care for all Americans? That was the goal way back in the 1940s for Harry Truman. And why didn’t it come to fruition? Southern states were not about to integrate their hospitals, a requiement for a federally mandated program.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Perhaps if the 1% didn’t put so much effort into dividing us into groups and making us into enemies, the old divide and conquer, we’d have the very unity you suggest and we desperately need. Black Americans were used from the get go to create a divide between the two races....because if that divide wasn’t put in place, those white Americans would realize that black Americans are their allies....and would have been able to stand up to the psychopathic oligarches who rule us today and destroy everything in sight. Monsters.

This is the most accurate statement on an important topic that I've seen on this forum in a long time.

Besides race, another way the ruling class often pits the underlings against each other is by convincing the middle class and working class that the poor are the source of their struggles, rather than the rich-- even though most lower-middle and working class folks in the US are only a paycheck or two away from being completely broke themselves. In reality, people at the 10th percentile and 50th percentile have a lot more in common with each other than they do with those at the 99th percentile, but so many in the middle want to believe they are aligned with the rich.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

This is the most accurate statement on an important topic that I've seen on this forum in a long time.

Besides race, another way the ruling class often pits the underlings against each other is by convincing the middle class and working class that the poor are the source of their struggles, rather than the rich-- even though most lower-middle and working class folks in the US are only a paycheck or two away from being completely broke themselves. In reality, people at the 10th percentile and 50th percentile have a lot more in common with each other than they do with those at the 99th percentile, but so many in the middle want to believe they are aligned with the rich.

well, Skylark, we wouldn't really want to let the people know that the Real Welfare Queens live off of capital gains, inherited fortunes, and pay no taxes, would we?

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by Manterro

In Chicago, New York and Los Angeles, the three areas with a triple-digit daily exodus, people are fleeing at a greater rate than just a few years earlier. Soaring home prices and high local taxes are pushing local residents out and scaring off potential movers from other parts of the country.

https://www.bloombergquint.com/busin...graphic-trends

According to the LA Times, California is trading people with limited education for highly educated transplants, even if at a slight loss that has to be good for the state. We’re sending people with HS diplomas to Texas and Arizona and getting people with BS and graduate degrees in return. Maybe the same is true for Chicago.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...221-story.html

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

According to the LA Times, California is trading people with limited education for highly educated transplants, even if at a slight loss that has to be good for the state. We’re sending people with HS diplomas to Texas and Arizona and getting people with BS and graduate degrees in return. Maybe the same is true for Chicago.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...221-story.html

Simple math: blue states put more federal taxes in than they get back from Washington. Red states put less federal taxes in than they get back from Washington. To me one of the most telling stat's about the divide.

So where do more productive people live? Yep, blue states, like CA and IL.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Simple math: blue states put more federal taxes in than they get back from Washington. Red states put less federal taxes in than they get back from Washington. To me one of the most telling stat's about the divide.
So where do more productive people live? Yep, blue states, like CA and IL.

Ed, I don't argue with your premise, although I'd like to dig more deeply into this assertion and find out why this is so - one of the reasons, I believe, is that "red" states tend to have a greater percentage of rural-to-urban populations, and also have more military installations and federal lands within their borders. Again, need to dig in and understand it better.

But, my gripe is with identifying a state as "blue" or "red" at all. In reality, all fifty states are "purplie", it's just that some are a redder or bluer shade of purple. Typically, urban areas are largely blue, and rural areas are largely red. But even there, the mix is at most probably 70:30 one way or another on average. Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and South Dakota are typically the reddest states, while Illinois, New York, California and Minnesota are probably the bluest; if one were to judge them as being "most likely to vote red or blue in national elections". But you can't discount the minority political party in any state. My guess would be that people likely to vote "red" in Illinois are responsible for paying a percentage of taxes that is likely larger than their representative percentage of the population as a whole, wouldn't you agree? If true, that more or less stands the whole "red state/blue state" argument on its head. Again, I would like to understand all this on a deeper level.

[smegmatite]

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

Read much? It's not just me, or just me landlord, it's entire neighborhoods like Pilsen, Humboldt, and Bridgeport. (I'm looking at rents everywhere-- why would I only look at my own apartment or landlord?) Before that it was Logan. Before that it was Bucktown and Wicker Park. Before that it was Lakeview. Once upon a time it was even Lincoln Park and Old Town that were affordable and then weren't. My point being, more and more neighborhoods are going from affordable to gentrified, and I'm not seeing any going the opposite direction in recent years. If that doesn't indicate an increasing demand to live in the city, I don't know what does.



*Now* it is, perhaps. That's my point. Five years ago it was a pretty decent place in a prime location in Pilsen ($850, not $800). And it wasn't just my place-- that was the market rate. Only really large or recently remodeled places were near $1000. Other places in less-prime locations, or slightly smaller (but still decent and in a hip neighborhood) were more like $650.

you're whining about increasing rents in gentrifying neighborhoods... why don't you BUY A PLACE and become a millionaire if its so easy

there is an absolute crap ton of affordable housing in this city.. now its not usually in hipster neighborhoods with brewpubs and coffee shops on every corner but to say rents are increasing drastically when the data shows that they are NOT, is just self centered whining

complaining about gentrification and increasing rents is a fools errand... every freaking city in the US is coming off from the urban decay of the 1970's and is improving as a place to live, in certain areas, Chicago is not unique to this trend. Inflation will price some people out, if you want protection against that buy a place... well at least until the morons raise your property taxes so much you can't afford it any longer...