San Francisco, Oakland Among America's Most Unequal Big Cities (Los Angeles: middle-class, section 8)

[Stephen1110]

Highest Inequality

1. Atlanta, GA
2. San Francisco, CA
3. Miami, FL
4. Boston, MA
5. Washington, DC
6. New York, NY
7. Oakland, CA
8. Chicago, IL
9. Los Angeles, CA
10. Baltimore, MD

http://www.brookings.edu/research/pa...unequal-berube

[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.

[Natural510]

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.

It generally means the middle-class is being pushed out by the wealthy, with only poor people in the projects & section 8 housing, or homeless, remaining. Certainly more informative than boasting which metro has the most billionaires per capita

[04kL4nD]

History has taught us lessons about what happens when wealth becomes super concentrated in the hands of very few...

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

History has taught us lessons about what happens when wealth becomes super concentrated in the hands of very few...

They create jobs for everybody. Isn't that how it goes? (With so many job-creators, there soon will be no more unemployment or poverty in SF or Oakland, yes?)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Natural510

It generally means the middle-class is being pushed out by the wealthy, with only poor people in the projects & section 8 housing, or homeless, remaining.

And so therefore what?

Certainly more informative than boasting which metro has the most billionaires per capita

Okay, but that has nothing to do with this thread.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

They create jobs for everybody. Isn't that how it goes? (With so many job-creators, there soon will be no more unemployment or poverty in SF or Oakland, yes?)

I was picturing a violent uprising in which heads will (quite literally) roll, but this trickle-down proposition of yours sounds so much better!

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

They create jobs for everybody. Isn't that how it goes? (With so many job-creators, there soon will be no more unemployment or poverty in SF or Oakland, yes?)

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.

[sav858]

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.

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?

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?

[sav858]

Seems like the middle class are the one's really being shut out some of these cities, not the poor.