San Francisco, Oakland Among America's Most Unequal Big Cities (Sacramento: real estate, public schools)

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

LOL

Point taken. The thing is, the way I see it, the issue of income inequality is not one that 'expensive' cities can even tackle on their own because this is the reality of the capitalist society/nation in which we live.

Sure, these cities can push for more moderately priced housing, but I can't even fathom how any city in the US can foster a sharp decline in income inequality without gentrification.

It's just that it's got so out of whack, and continuing the trend, that it can't be sustainable. Cities like SF and Oakland can't operate with little other than rich elites in ivory towers, and a mess of poor people trundling around down on the sidewalks. Take a lot more than that to keep a city going.

Capital Investment Income Drives Income Inequality « Data Driven Viewpoints

[04kL4nD]

People should just work harder!

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

People should just work harder!

Lazy ingrates!

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by sav858

I'm surprised you see nothing wrong with glaring inequality even at the local level as if it can't lead to problems. You really don't think inequality can lead to any negative issues at the local level?

Okay, but what can Jean Quan or Ed Lee do promote greater income equality?

It would be awesome to retain the middle class, but they are being priced out. Should we seize control of Rockridge and Trestle Glen and Montclair and force homeowners and landlords to lower their asking prices so that middle class families can afford to stay?

Not sure why you're getting so defensive about this report, it really shouldn't come as a surprise and it's just simply a study stating some facts. Would you rather just pretend inequality isn't a problem in the Bay Area?

No, but I also don't want to pretend that any city has actually decreased income inequality so much that everyone is now earning exactly the same amount and everything is perfect. It doesn't exist because our economic system isn't set up for everyone in large cities to be the same. Unfortunately.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

It's just that it's got so out of whack, and continuing the trend, that it can't be sustainable. Cities like SF and Oakland can't operate with little other than rich elites in ivory towers, and a mess of poor people trundling around down on the sidewalks. Take a lot more than that to keep a city going.

I agree completely.

So what can Oakland and SF do to change the tide? I ask because I really don't know.

[18Montclair]

On the other hand, I would love to see examples of areas in major cities with low incomes that have low crimes or have greatly decreased their crime rate over an extended period, and have great schools and where residents have exhibited a real pride of ownership meaning the place is clean, homes are neatly kept, and the experience driving through or walking is pleasant.

If those areas exist, then I think we have an example that we should try to emulate and that might, just might increase the probability of middle income people staying.

[mini_cute]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

I don't know what they want us to do about this. So we have a lot of very wealthy people and a lot of very poor people living in the same city. Is there something inherently wrong with that? I don't think so. I mean, rich and poor both need somewhere to live and if it happens to be in the same city, then that's just the way it is. Do they want us to hoard the bank accounts of the richest people and distribute it to the poorest?

The thing is, a person may be poor, but that doesn't mean that they or their kids will always be that way. Sure this is a way to see how we can better spend to help those who need it, but other than that, I don't see the really big deal.

There is new research that points out that there are some negative consequences for societies that have high income inequality. There is strong correlation among countries and US states that those that have high income inequality also have worse social ills. Of course correlation doesn't mean causation, but it has not been ruled out that causation can be at work here.

Also want to note that it was shown that even the rich in high income inequality countries don't do as well as the rich in less unequal countries.

Watch this TED talk which explains it all:

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies


Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies - YouTube

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by mini_cute

There is new research that points out that there are some negative consequences for societies that have high income inequality. There is strong correlation among countries and US states that those that have high income inequality also have worse social ills. Of course correlation doesn't mean causation, but it has not been ruled out that causation can be at work here.

Also want to note that it was shown that even the rich in high income inequality countries don't do as well as the rich in less unequal countries.

Watch this TED talk which explains it all:

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies


Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies - YouTube

Thank you and I agree with your premise, this is a country-level issue.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Okay, but what can Jean Quan or Ed Lee do promote greater income equality?

It would be awesome to retain the middle class, but they are being priced out. Should we seize control of Rockridge and Trestle Glen and Montclair and force homeowners and landlords to lower their asking prices so that middle class families can afford to stay?

I don't think this report was some meant as some urgent call to action for US Mayors to enact radical policies like the ridiculous stuff you're suggesting so I'm not sure why you're being so dramatic about the report.

More housing options, better schools, lower crime, etc.. would obviously help keep the middle class but yeah that's not exactly an easy thing to accomplish either.

No, but I also don't want to pretend that any city has actually decreased income inequality so much that everyone is now earning exactly the same amount and everything is perfect. It doesn't exist because our economic system isn't set up for everyone in large cities to be the same. Unfortunately.

Nobody, including this report, was ever suggesting that be the case or was the case anywhere, again with the dramatics. Does't change the fact that some cities don't have as much inequality as others though. Lots of reports similar to this come out and it's just interesting and good to be aware of and informative, I don't really see what's so bad about the report itself.

[18Montclair]

Well Im not saying the report is evil or anything, I like stats, but I just want to know what we're supposed to do with it?