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.
You seem to be deviating from the subject and going on about how charitable Americans can be--which I don't dispute.
What I was trying to get across to you is that regardless of your political beliefs or you concept of fairness, income inequality cannot be ignored. If it gets to the point where its so pronounced that say 3% of Americans control 95% of the wealth and land -- then we will likely also get to the point where that 3% will have to flee the country or end up with their heads on spikes.
It's in everyone's interest to reduce income inequality. Of course it can't be eliminated and some people deserve higher income without a doubt--but the disparity is far too high right now and its getting worse.
So start with what you can control. Professional sports and entertainment. If enough people stop buying those season tickets and movie passes and instead support their local farm team and community theater, soon enough the salaries that pro athletes and movie stars command will be reduced by default.
So start with what you can control. Professional sports and entertainment. If enough people stop buying those season tickets and movie passes and instead support their local farm team and community theater, soon enough the salaries that pro athletes and movie stars command will be reduced by default.
Professional sports, entertainment, facebook and google founders, etc are good places to start. Instead of boycotting, it is much easier to double/quadruple their taxes. But again, the taxed money will disappear in the political loopholes.
Professional sports, entertainment, facebook and google founders, etc are good places to start. Instead of boycotting, it is much easier to double/quadruple their taxes. But again, the taxed money will disappear in the political loopholes.
Adding taxes is not the answer. If people stopped spending the money that pays their salaries, salaries and ticket prices would both be reduced. This would be an immediate redistribution of wealth without more taxes and in a way that would have a positive effect on the spending ability of the general public.
The data was taken from here, the ACS two years later.
Also keep in mind that sometimes the margin of error on these things is huge, and also keep in mind that the data is for an arbitrary tract (if it's on the border of two or more tracts, they just pick one, rather than averaging them together)
You seem to be deviating from the subject and going on about how charitable Americans can be--which I don't dispute.
What I was trying to get across to you is that regardless of your political beliefs or you concept of fairness, income inequality cannot be ignored. If it gets to the point where its so pronounced that say 3% of Americans control 95% of the wealth and land -- then we will likely also get to the point where that 3% will have to flee the country or end up with their heads on spikes.
It's in everyone's interest to reduce income inequality. Of course it can't be eliminated and some people deserve higher income without a doubt--but the disparity is far too high right now and its getting worse.
well u can post about it. point out the inequality. but i came here from france with $150 and 2 suitcases in dec 1977.
i am now retired and very prosperous. dont say it cant be done friend. the people that i served for so years that complained about income inequality are still right where i found them complaining about it still. if they had done any of what i pleaded with them for years to do, there would not be so much income inequality.
I thought this article was very interesting. One of the Williamsburg L stops had the lowest income of any train station in all of NYC...who knew! I also found it interesting that on the 2 and 5 line in the Bronx, Jackson Ave station, which is literally surrounded by housing projects, has the highest income south of 180th street $28K (on the 2 and 5 lines).
I thought this article was very interesting. One of the Williamsburg L stops had the lowest income of any train station in all of NYC...who knew! I also found it interesting that on the 2 and 5 line in the Bronx, Jackson Ave station, which is literally surrounded by housing projects, has the highest income south of 180th street $28K (on the 2 and 5 lines).
Sutter ave? I'm no expert on Brooklyn but that's either East NY or Brownsville. It probably runs through both.
Interesting that on the 4 line the two lowest incomes are found in Mott Haven.
I thought this article was very interesting. One of the Williamsburg L stops had the lowest income of any train station in all of NYC...who knew! I also found it interesting that on the 2 and 5 line in the Bronx, Jackson Ave station, which is literally surrounded by housing projects, has the highest income south of 180th street $28K (on the 2 and 5 lines).
Interesting that the first two 6 train stops in Mott Haven has a doubler higher income than 125th street in Harlem. What gives? Especially since both these stops are surrounded by depressed tenements and housing projects. I find it retarded that 161st street BD4 train stops all register different incomes.
I hope nobody's taking these numbers as gospel. I hope everybody realizes is that they just took the census tract that the station is in, and just used that number. Aside from the fact that these ACS numbers are just estimates, if somebody lives two blocks away from a station, but in a different census tract from that station, their income isn't considered. Not to mention that if a station borders two or more tracts, they just pick one at random (or maybe if an extra entrance is in one tract, they list the whole station as that tract).
Not to mention the fact that the people using the stations don't necessarily live in the immediate area. For a lot of Manhattan stations, the majority of the users are outer borough residents. For some stations that are big hubs (Flushing, Jamaica, Broadway Junction, etc) you have people coming from miles away to use that station.
So in other words, these numbers are basically worthless. If you want anything of substance, look at the ACS data that the map was derived from. Not that it's 100% accurate either, but this infograph or whatever is just the product of lazy reporting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy
I thought this article was very interesting. One of the Williamsburg L stops had the lowest income of any train station in all of NYC...who knew! I also found it interesting that on the 2 and 5 line in the Bronx, Jackson Ave station, which is literally surrounded by housing projects, has the highest income south of 180th street $28K (on the 2 and 5 lines).
Montrose Avenue is in East Williamsburg, and there are plenty of stations with median incomes lower than $23K.
If you're referring to Sutter Avenue, I'd like to know what real estate publication you're reading that calls it Williamsburg. Or do they call it "East East East Williamsburg" or something stupid like that?
As for Jackson Avenue, they used a tract that includes a lot of non-project housing. (Tract 75)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese
Interesting that the first two 6 train stops in Mott Haven has a doubler higher income than 125th street in Harlem. What gives? Especially since both these stops are surrounded by depressed tenements and housing projects. I find it retarded that 161st street BD4 train stops all register different incomes.
Actually, the (D) & (4) have the same income, but the (B) has a higher income. I could understand it if the (B) & (D) had a different income from the (4), since they stop on different platforms and might be registered in different census tracts. Apparently, the (B) is registered in the tract east of River Avenue Tract 195), while the (D) & (4) are registered in the tract west of River Avenue (Tract 63).
As for the (6), they used the tract north of 138th Street (Tract 75), which has fewer housing projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMario
Sutter ave? I'm no expert on Brooklyn but that's either East NY or Brownsville. It probably runs through both.
Interesting that on the 4 line the two lowest incomes are found in Mott Haven.
The (L) tracks divide Brownsville from East NY. East of the (L) is East NY, west of it is Brownsville. I don't feel like re-opening the map, but there's a tract southwest of it that's mostly projects, so I assume they just used that.
Its a pity that they don't show the Urban Jersey Network that just as wild ranging from 40k along the Newark lines up to 160k in Jersey City...
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.
Or do they call it "East East East Williamsburg" or something stupid like that?
