San Francisco, Oakland Among America's Most Unequal Big Cities (Los Angeles: for sale, high crime)

[ExeterMedia]

Umm, I was talking about Oakland, unless there is a large black population in S.F that I'm not aware of.

Both cities, Detroit and Oakland, suffered greatly when manufacturing jobs left (Oakland used to have a sizable amount of ship building and auto manufacturing jobs). The liberal response to the economy and the policies on crime are very similar, and have both failed in the same way. The effect is undeniably the same, middle class have left both cities in droves.

S.F is only a liberal city by reputation now days anyway. The demographics have shifted more moderate during this recent tech boom 2.0.

[04kL4nD]

The previous poster was mentioning SF/SV, not Oakland. But we can still play this game of moving the goal posts if you want. SF no longer a liberal city? LOL

Oakland's population has experienced NOTHING like the decline of Detroit. Not even close. It lost manufacturing jobs 50 years ago, yet people still stuck around. In fact, its population began to increase steadily during the 90s up until around 2010 where it lost around 2% of its population. Based on the recent boom of Uptown, my guess is that the small decline was temporary. In fact, foreign investors are coming to the table with BILLIONS of dollars to redevelop the waterfront.

I know you find it hard to believe, but a lot of people enjoy living in Oakland. It has some of the country's best weather and scenery and it's still seen as a desirable place for many people who like SF (food, art, culture, etc). It has horrible crime in many parts and god-awful leadership, yet somehow it has yet to become the Detroit of the west, declining from nearly 2 million people to under a million- more people live in SF today than Detroit actually. Keep trying

[18Montclair]

He's just trying to be controversial as usual. Yawns.

[LunaticVillage]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Umm, I was talking about Oakland, unless there is a large black population in S.F that I'm not aware of.

Both cities, Detroit and Oakland, suffered greatly when manufacturing jobs left (Oakland used to have a sizable amount of ship building and auto manufacturing jobs). The liberal response to the economy and the policies on crime are very similar, and have both failed in the same way. The effect is undeniably the same, middle class have left both cities in droves.

S.F is only a liberal city by reputation now days anyway. The demographics have shifted more moderate during this recent tech boom 2.0.

Um, the same thing happened with the black population in San Francisco when the Naval yard in Hunter's Point shutdown back in the day. SF does have a deceivingly sizable black population tucked away in areas like Hunter's Point. Since blacks are so segregated to a handful of areas in SF, many neighborhoods and blocks in the city are majority to overwhelmingly black and poor in demographics. Mind you that SF is the second most densely populated major city in America behind only NYC, so one block can be a different universe from the next:

//www.city-data.com/neighborhoo...ncisco-CA.html

//www.city-data.com/neighborhoo...ncisco-CA.html

//www.city-data.com/neighborhoo...ncisco-CA.html

Historically, SF had about 100K black folks living in the city limits at its peak in the 70's. The black population in SF is actually much more marginalized, as a whole, than the black population in Oakland. Blacks in SF are largely confined to decaying public housing areas in the south eastern outskirts of SF. Unfortunately, the relatively small population of native blacks in the city represent the most weathered faces of poverty and oppression in SF. Black people have gotten the shortest end of the stick in glaringly unequal SF. It has been discussed at length on this forum how blacks in SF had a higher murder rate than blacks in Oakland and how SF projects are among the most unlivable and violent of anywhere in America. You might not even see more than one or two black people out and about in SF unless you are in the Fillmore, pockets of Downtown as well as the historically black neighborhoods in the far out southern fringes of SF, where tourists and wealthier SF residents rarely if ever tread, in places like Lakeview, Sunnydale and Hunter's Point.

Affluent whites and poor black folks in SF are so profoundly segregated from one another that whites don't even know that really bad ghetto areas even exist in their city. It also doesn't help that too many wealthy white folks in SF weren't born and raised there and don't really know the city like the back of their hand like natives of all races do. But the closet racist white liberals who call SF home rarely come into contact with the poor black people who live in the far out polluted no man's land areas of what they proclaim to be the "most progressive city on the planet" . What a bunch of fart sniffers. This is coming from a real SF native born and bred. Not someone from Utah living in SF who doesn't know what time it is.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

The previous poster was mentioning SF/SV, not Oakland. But we can still play this game of moving the goal posts if you want. SF no longer a liberal city? LOL

Oakland's population has experienced NOTHING like the decline of Detroit. Not even close. It lost manufacturing jobs 50 years ago, yet people still stuck around. In fact, its population began to increase steadily during the 90s up until around 2010 where it lost around 2% of its population. Based on the recent boom of Uptown, my guess is that the small decline was temporary. In fact, foreign investors are coming to the table with BILLIONS of dollars to redevelop the waterfront.

I know you find it hard to believe, but a lot of people enjoy living in Oakland. It has some of the country's best weather and scenery and it's still seen as a desirable place for many people who like SF (food, art, culture, etc). It has horrible crime in many parts and god-awful leadership, yet somehow it has yet to become the Detroit of the west, declining from nearly 2 million people to under a million- more people live in SF today than Detroit actually. Keep trying

That's cool. If Oakland is so great, where did all the middle class people go in this city of 400,000? Why is it on the top 10 of this list?

Oh guess you forgot to explain that part. Let me know when you do. I'll be waiting.

[04kL4nD]

I guess you didn't get the memo. High inequality doesn't mean that EVERYBODY is either poor or rich. It just means that the superwealthy have more money than the poorest residents. While this isn't necessarily a good thing that's there's an imbalance, it doesn't mean that no middle class exists like you've claimed.

Just so you know, the largest gain in Oakland's population during the last 10 years was white middle class folks- NOT the superwealthy. Most of them are moving closer to downtown because they want an urban lifestyle.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by LunaticVillage

Um, the same thing happened with the black population in San Francisco when the Naval yard in Hunters Point shutdown back in the day. SF does have a deceivingly sizable black population tucked away in areas like Hunter's Point.

I lived in SF for 6 years working in the tech industry. I know the city, it doesn't have a large poor black population comparable to Oakland, let's not kid ourselves.

Anyway let's get back to my actual point; how liberals chased the middle class out of Oakland and how it's similar to Detroit.

1) Unions crippled both cities. In Detroit, it was the UAW, in Oakland it was both the UAW and Ship Builder's Union. Eventually jobs from both industries simply left for greener pastures taking their jobs with them.

2) White middle class were literally chased out of the city by anti-white sentiment. In Detroit you had Coleman Young. In Oakland, you had the birthplace of the Black Panther's movement. Those whites were business owners, and tax payers, and they never came back.

3) Out-of-control crime: Both Oakland and Detroit suffer from state topping crime year after year. Both cities have severely underfunded police departments. Still didn't stop Oakland from funding a program to give illegals debit cards.

4) Reckless government spending: Oakland has one of the highest property tax rates in Alameda County (which is already high). I'm sure Oakland citizens feel it's worth it though since the Violence Prevention Assessment was so successful right?

5) Incompetent liberal city leaders: Coleman Young in Detroit. Ron Dellums and Jean Quan in Oakland. Need I say more?

That's why Oakland is #8 on that list, and that's why the middle class has virtually disappeared from the city.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I guess you didn't get the memo. High inequality doesn't mean that EVERYBODY is either poor or rich. It just means that the superwealthy have more money than the poorest residents.

Right, right, that's why Oakland has a healthy middle class population?

[04kL4nD]

Go back and read the article. Oakland actually made the list of cities with the smallest increase of inequality LOL.

You keep trying to say that the middle class of Oakland are leaving in droves, but the reality is that the only people who have really left are blacks, and they are leaving big cities all over the country.

Notice how SF is at the top of the list for not only inequality, but increasing inequality? That DOES suggest that the middle class is being squeezed out. The same isn't quite true for Oakland though. Again, keep trying.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

I lived in SF for 6 years working in the tech industry. I know the city, it doesn't have a large poor black population comparable to Oakland, let's not kid ourselves.

Actually it does, because SF has very limited income diversity in the black population and zero social mobility in the black population. As Lunatic Village alluded to, the average San Franciscan rarely comes in contact with someone black, unless they are the homeless guy on the street or one of the pot smoking teenagers hanging out at BART. You could easily go through many neighborhoods and not see a black face. Or 2. (Ahem Marina!!!)

In SF, the overwhelming majority of the black population is in poverty and tucked away in the corner. In Oakland there are places with middle class and affluent black people visible in the community.

That's why Oakland is #8 on that list, and that's why the middle class has virtually disappeared from the city.

Actually, the Bay Area has no middle class. SF and Oakland are just the biggest cities so there are actually still poor people. San Jose is an overgrown suburb, and didn't grow like a typical city so it doesn't have entrenched poverty like a typical city does.