Why are Southern Calfornians so Rude and Nasty? (Los Angeles, San Diego: low crime, buy)

[Spikett]

Originally Posted by taydigga

It's not Socal homie, it's the money. Most people with money, I mean real money act this way, no matter what neighborhood it is. I've seen it all over. It's just that SoCal has a lot of people with money but don't generalize it to SoCal.

^^^^This.

[BarcelonaFan]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

That is just your distorted opinion. I have lived all over California and you are just wrong period. You have obviously never lived in SE Florida which I did for 8 years.

I not only go by my own little subjective experience but I also read a lot about what the LA Times says about its own city. The whole country is an unequal mess but considering the size of LA and the vast disparity in income it's a whole ball game on its own.

So please spare me the Ive been to X city and it looks worse talk.

[BarcelonaFan]

I think a lot of you guys are under this impression that I mean CA cities remind me of backwoods regions in Appalachia or Sub-Saharan Africa or even the deserted cities of Camden and Detroit.

What I mean is these cities remind me of functional but highly unequal cities like Prague, Moscow, and Santiago, Chile. LA for one reminds me more of a Latin American city and I don't mean that because of the immigrants but because of the large income gap and very visible working class population. It's probably the most working class city I've ever been to in the US.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by BarcelonaFan

I think a lot of you guys are under this impression that I mean CA cities remind me of backwoods regions in Appalachia or Sub-Saharan Africa or even the deserted cities of Camden and Detroit.

What I mean is these cities remind me of functional but highly unequal cities like Prague, Moscow, and Santiago, Chile. LA for one reminds me more of a Latin American city and I don't mean that because of the immigrants but because of the large income gap and very visible working class population. It's probably the most working class city I've ever been to in the US.

But we're still wondering how are other American big cities, Chicago, New York, Houston, Boston supposedly so different.

What my post earlier was about, I was suggesting that LA looks like the disparities are greater. Because the climate makes homelessness more of a way of life, and the rich live a car and house lifestyle, as opposed to a Manhattan/downtown Chicago/Boston lifestyle of expensive condos, and taking public transit, because its the most logical choice.

Give us some examples. How is River Oaks, Houston so different from the 3rd ward Houston? than between Beverly Hills and South LA?

[BarcelonaFan]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

But we're still wondering how are other American big cities, Chicago, New York, Houston, Boston supposedly so different.

What my post earlier was about, I was suggesting that LA looks like the disparities are greater. Because the climate makes homelessness more of a way of life, and the rich live a car and house lifestyle, as opposed to a Manhattan/downtown Chicago/Boston lifestyle of expensive condos, and taking public transit, because its the most logical choice.

Give us some examples. How is River Oaks, Houston so different from the 3rd ward Houston? than between Beverly Hills and South LA?

Disparities are in every major American city, but esepcially in LA and NYC. Chicago, Houston and Boston have disparities but they also have sizeable middle class populations and just outside the city limits people can find really affordable housing (Boston may be the exception).

To use Houston as an example, you have your River Oaks and you have your third ward but just inside the loop you also have Montrose, Westheimar LoWe, Midtown, Rice Village, Museum, Greenway, Kirby etc. These areas are relatively affordable for a lot of people and they're nice areas. Contrast that with Beverly Hills to South Central, MacArthur area, Koreatown, East Hollywood, Echo, and even gentrified Silverlake. The cost of living is way higher in LA and incomes have barely caught up. In Houston the cost of living remains relatively lower while incomes are rising. It's just easier to live over there and why you see so many CA plates on TX streets.

This also isn't about the amount of homeless even though I think LA has the most homeless people I've ever seen but the vast canyon size gap between people. Like I said before while every city has disparity they still have somewhat retained a sizeable and noticeable middle class. In LA, I see it but they're not as large as the vast working class I've seen that dominate the city.

So that is my point that the income disparity is very polarized in comparison to other cities. You can name others of course but in my personal opinion I think LA looks and is more unequal than other American cities.

[oddstray]

Originally Posted by BarcelonaFan

... So that is my point that the income disparity is very polarized in comparison to other cities. You can name others of course but in my personal opinion I think LA looks and is more unequal than other American cities.

Perhaps because it's more spread out, you simply haven't seen the LA neighborhoods and suburbs where the middle class are living. I'd counter your "Montrose, Westheimar LoWe, Midtown, Rice Village, Museum, Greenway, Kirby etc." with "Glendale, Monterey Park, Arcadia, Glendora, San Dimas, Clairmont, Whittier, etc."

[JohnSoCal]

The greatest disparity I have ever seen in the US was in SE Florida where I lived for 8 years. Los Angeles doesn't begin to compare with the contrast between rich and poor in that area. You liteally have people living in areas with dirt floors to the richest zip code in the US at Palm Beach. It was a quite a shock to me when I moved from California to Florida to see this disparity, not only in that area but other parts of Florida as well.

Actually, Los Angeles does not have the obvious ghetto areas that many cities do. Yes, it has many poorer sections but nothing like the projects of some cities.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by BarcelonaFan

Disparities are in every major American city, but esepcially in LA and NYC. Chicago, Houston and Boston have disparities but they also have sizeable middle class populations and just outside the city limits people can find really affordable housing (Boston may be the exception).

To use Houston as an example, you have your River Oaks and you have your third ward but just inside the loop you also have Montrose, Westheimar LoWe, Midtown, Rice Village, Museum, Greenway, Kirby etc. These areas are relatively affordable for a lot of people and they're nice areas. Contrast that with Beverly Hills to South Central, MacArthur area, Koreatown, East Hollywood, Echo, and even gentrified Silverlake. The cost of living is way higher in LA and incomes have barely caught up. In Houston the cost of living remains relatively lower while incomes are rising. It's just easier to live over there and why you see so many CA plates on TX streets.

This also isn't about the amount of homeless even though I think LA has the most homeless people I've ever seen but the vast canyon size gap between people. Like I said before while every city has disparity they still have somewhat retained a sizeable and noticeable middle class. In LA, I see it but they're not as large as the vast working class I've seen that dominate the city.

So that is my point that the income disparity is very polarized in comparison to other cities. You can name others of course but in my personal opinion I think LA looks and is more unequal than other American cities.

I live in Palms, and it generally feels middle class. At least the single family homes areas do, (west of Charnock and south of Overland). As well as Mar Vista. Sure you don't get a lot of house for you money, compared to other parts of the country. But 60 years ago, people living in these small ranches would have been considered middle class. Same goes for other nearby areas, like Westchester or El Segundo.

North of Downtown, you have places like Eagle Rock, and foothill communities, Then you have the west valley, which has nice areas, but again you don't get as much house for your money,

thats the thing about California, is that one has to except a more west European definition of middle class, which means less space, and most Americans aren't willing to do that. But a place can still be expensive, yet affordable, as long as you are willing to not have as much space. But they can still have a middle class vibe.

[BarcelonaFan]

Originally Posted by oddstray

Perhaps because it's more spread out, you simply haven't seen the LA neighborhoods and suburbs where the middle class are living. I'd counter your "Montrose, Westheimar LoWe, Midtown, Rice Village, Museum, Greenway, Kirby etc." with "Glendale, Monterey Park, Arcadia, Glendora, San Dimas, Clairmont, Whittier, etc."

Something told me to put a disclaimer in there about the Valley but I didn't include all the surrounding neighborhoods of Houston, but somehow I knew someone would include the Valley.

[shmoov_groovzsd]

Originally Posted by BarcelonaFan

Society is way too abstract to generalize I agree and many different factors play a part, I agree. Where I disagree is that you cannot pinpoint disparity related largley and mostly to economics, which I think you can do because here we are talking something much more concrete; the means of production and their relation to society. In the workplace there is disparity within income and this disparity within the workplace translates into disparity outside the workplace. When the share of those at the bottom is lowered this also translates into social inequalities. The antagonisms seen in the workplace translate into social antagonisms between people. Our relationships at work translate into social relationships between people.

Whereas other epochs stressed racial, religious, clan, feudal or tribe relations between people, in this epoch the dominate relationship is the one we have is economic. Economics becomes a large determinative factor, while race, religion and creed a close second. This is a common feature in most if not all nations with a market economy.

Yes, that is a given in modern industrialized society as it stands now, but historically has worked hand in hand with faith based factors and segregation as you mentioned. But this is an obvious deduction of the human condition in a group based society, which at its core still has never changed over the years regardless of economics. The economics IMHO are only an enhancement to those core values, so yes, you will see further disparity amongst certain groups due to this enhancement. But this is really talking in circles because ultimately the conditions humans live within groups has not changed, just the rules.
This argument is purely academic in nature, sterile in its parameters and really doesnt account for historical breadth of how these groups in society will ultimately head, in the grand scheme of things.

In other words, I dont think there will be upheaval in American society (which is our perceived generalization bout American) from financial lower 'caste' groups because of financial oppression and lopsidedness in industrialized nations.
I think your 'caste' argument is focusing on a dynamic aspect of society which is money, not a static like creed or color of ones skin. So the argument will perpetually never come to a conclusion because its based on that fact alone. If money were spread more evenly, there would be another anomaly that would take its place.

As far as this thread goes, its only valid to the individual that decided to extrapolate their perceived negative treatment in SD. If others share that sentiment then so be it, but so far its not appearing to be that popular

The whole CA v TX argument is an entirely different thread...