Apples (Bay Area) vs Oranges (Philly) and poverty (live, state, better)

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Report Finds Poverty In Bay Area Doubles Government Estimates « CBS San Francisco

Census reveals lower Bay Area incomes, rising poverty - Inside Bay Area

Santa Cruz County poverty rate highest among Bay Area counties - Santa Cruz Sentinel

These links are simply emblematic of the current economic crisis, and its a interesting that the 2010 Census occurred during a terrible economic downturn, so the data is skewed by that.

On the other hand, the levels of poverty in the many undesirable areas in places like Philadelphia(and Oakland and the like) deals with is ongoing and goes back several generations.

Apples and Oranges really.

//www.city-data.com/forum/21248653-post250.html

Sadly being unable to respond to your post (link above) I thought why not make a comparative thread that discusses issues of poverty in the Bay area and Philly. I did want to understand your premis and pose the question to the masses. So maybe you can help clarify on the apples and oranges comment.

Similar to your notion of apples (you seeing it fit to laugh at poverty) while oranges (not seeing it fit to laugh at homosexuality) is poverty only an issue for Philly (apples) and not the Bay Area (oranges)?

Further in your above linked post and to the further point of this thread are you suggesting that NO poverty exists today in the Bay area outside of that caused by the economy and no real poverty has been displaced from areas like SF or Oakland that have gentrified to other bay areas. And that poverty is a Philly area issue and not at all impacting the Bay area? Well with the exception of the economy. Maybe you can further clarify or can the masses...

[Mezter]

Oh no..here we go again..lol

[Slyman11]

Poverty mostly is an abomination, especially when its associated with a city's reputation. Gentrify and price out poverty and have it move some place else, likely further away by pricing out the entire metro.

I wouldn't laugh at every case of poverty but I can understand the strong feelings against it. I have respect for people who grow up in poverty but make something of their lives, educating themselves and adopting a sophisticated cultured lifestyle and helping their family out of poverty in the process. It's unwarranted to laugh at poverty when it cant be helped and when one desires and works towards building a better life.

My apathy towards poverty comes from the scums and degenerates that poverty can create the rapists, murderers, thieves, kidnappers, welfare abusers, drug inducers, lazies that live off government assistance with no ambition. This type of poverty leads to unwarranted spending and the governments loss of money not to mention a high increase in diseases and obesity. Its ok to laugh at that type of poverty, they're known as losers. Unfortunately most of the poverty in urban settings gravitate towards this type, so price them out and kick them as far away.

Laughing at homosexuality is apples to oranges in comparison to poverty, you cant help being homosexual while you can help being poor and uneducated and can work for a better suited life. Laughing at homosexuality is narrow minded behavior IMO

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

//www.city-data.com/forum/21248653-post250.html

Sadly being unable to respond to your post (link above) I thought why not make a comparative thread that discusses issues of poverty in the Bay area and Philly. I did want to understand your premis and pose the question to the masses. So maybe you can help clarify on the apples and oranges comment.

No, you posed this out of context thread to the masses in the hopes that the ridiculous philly mob would ride to your defense and engage in the rabid attack posting you've all become collectively famous for.

Look for mysterious new users to start popping up out of nowhere folks.

Similar to your notion of apples (you seeing it fit to laugh at poverty) while oranges (not seeing it fit to laugh at homosexuality) is poverty only an issue for Philly (apples) and not the Bay Area (oranges)?

Where in MY POST quoted by you did I make mention of homosexuals? WHERE?

Ah! That's right, I didnt.

Colossal Fail at attempting to connect two totally separate points from another thread---have fun trying to explain that attempt at defamation of character.

Further in your above linked post and to the further point of this thread are you suggesting that NO poverty exists today in the Bay area outside of that caused by the economy and no real poverty has been displaced from areas like SF or Oakland that have gentrified to other bay areas. And that poverty is a Philly area issue and not at all impacting the Bay area? Well with the exception of the economy. Maybe you can further clarify or can the masses...

I already answered you quite succinctly in the last thread and it needs no further clarification as its self explanatory and any reasonable person with even a small knowledge of history and the economy should have no trouble understanding.

This is what you quoted above:

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

These links are simply emblematic of the current economic crisis, and its a interesting that the 2010 Census occurred during a terrible economic downturn, so the data is skewed by that.

On the other hand, the levels of poverty in the many undesirable areas in places like Philadelphia(and Oakland and the like) deals with is ongoing and goes back several generations.

What exactly about this do you not understand?

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

No, you posed this out of context thread to the masses in the hopes that the ridiculous philly mob would ride to your defense and engage in the rabid attack posting you've all become collectively famous for.

Look for mysterious new users to start popping up out of nowhere folks.


Where in MY POST quoted by you did I make mention of homosexuals? WHERE?

Ah! That's right, I didnt.

Colossal Fail at attempting to connect two totally separate points from another thread---have fun trying to explain that attempt at defamation of character.


I already answered you quite succinctly in the last thread and it needs no further clarification as its self explanatory and any reasonable person with even a small knowledge of history and the economy should have no trouble understanding.

This is what you quoted above:


What exactly about this do you not understand?

No I actually just wanted a reponse from you but as per usual you elude the question and fail to address the points

And do you I care about any poster from anywhere coming in, come on Montclaire. I guess I give you too much credit at times, as usual not addressing your key points

SO SLOWLY

Is poverty in the bay different than poverty in Philly (apples to oranges). Is there only impacts of the economy on poverty levels in the Bay area (apples) and none in the Philly area (oranges)

And you know damn well what my earlier reference is to, dont try to act coy

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

No I actually just wanted a reponse from you but as per usual you elude the question and fail to address the points

And do you I care about any poster from anywhere coming in, come on Montclaire. I guess I give you too much credit at times, as usual not addressing your key points

SO SLOWLY

Is poverty in the bay different than poverty in Philly (apples to oranges). Is there only impacts of the economy on poverty levels in the Bay area (apples) and none in the Philly area (oranges)

And you know damn well what my earlier reference is to, dont try to act coy

Ive already answered.

You still have not told me what about the comment below you dont understand:

Originally Posted by 18Montclair
These links are simply emblematic of the current economic crisis, and its a interesting that the 2010 Census occurred during a terrible economic downturn, so the data is skewed by that.

On the other hand, the levels of poverty in the many undesirable areas in places like Philadelphia(and Oakland and the like) deals with is ongoing and goes back several generations.

Furthermore, in my own post I clearly point out that I am not talking about the entire city of Philadelphia but areas that have been poor for several generations--AND I EVEN ADDED OAKLAND to that because OAKLAND and other inner cities everywhere have similar areas.

This is not an issue of the Bay Area vs Philadelphia which is what you densely assumed it to be, but its an issue of middle class suburban areas that has residents who have fallen on hard times due to the current state of the economy and ghettos which have been poor for a long long time.

[slo1318]

Do we really need this? Perhaps a private conversation.....

[phillies2011]

Originally Posted by Slyman11

Poverty mostly is an abomination, especially when its associated with a city's reputation. Gentrify and price out poverty and have it move some place else, likely further away by pricing out the entire metro.

I wouldn't laugh at every case of poverty but I can understand the strong feelings against it. I have respect for people who grow up in poverty but make something of their lives, educating themselves and adopting a sophisticated cultured lifestyle and helping their family out of poverty in the process. It's unwarranted to laugh at poverty when it cant be helped and when one desires and works towards building a better life.

My apathy towards poverty comes from the scums and degenerates that poverty can create the rapists, murderers, thieves, kidnappers, welfare abusers, drug inducers, lazies that live off government assistance with no ambition. This type of poverty leads to unwarranted spending and the governments loss of money not to mention a high increase in diseases and obesity. Its ok to laugh at that type of poverty, they're known as losers. Unfortunately most of the poverty in urban settings gravitate towards this type, so price them out and kick them as far away.

Laughing at homosexuality is apples to oranges in comparison to poverty, you cant help being homosexual while you can help being poor and uneducated and can work for a better suited life. Laughing at homosexuality is narrow minded behavior IMO

odd that at one point you acknowledge that poverty causes these people to become the horrible people that can turn to rape and murder, etc and then later they're just losers that should be laughed at.

Laughing at homosexuality is no more narrow minded than laughing at those who are poor. People are so quick to blame the poor for their own misfortunes. However so many have already lost by the time they are born into the broken homes with rampant drug use and crime and an awful school system which gives them no chance at redemption.

I think the people who should be laughed at are those who trivialize how hard it is to climb out of generational poverty when they themselves have no idea what such a climb feels like as they've never had to do it themselves.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Do we really need this?

No, we dont need this at all.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

No I actually just wanted a reponse from you but as per usual you elude the question and fail to address the points

And do you I care about any poster from anywhere coming in, come on Montclaire. I guess I give you too much credit at times, as usual not addressing your key points

SO SLOWLY

Is poverty in the bay different than poverty in Philly (apples to oranges). Is there only impacts of the economy on poverty levels in the Bay area (apples) and none in the Philly area (oranges)

And you know damn well what my earlier reference is to, dont try to act coy

I'm really hoping you know the answer to your own question... I don't believe I should have to explain something really, really basic to you.