Misconceptions about Texas's border towns?

[Foamposite]

Originally Posted by homeinatx

Really... This cannot be a serious question

The per capita income in McAllen is around 22K. The per capita income in Mexico City is 39K. The state of Campeche has a per capita income of 48K. And COL in Mexico is generally much lower than in the U.S.

https://www.oecd.org/cfe/MEXICO-Regi...ities-2018.pdf

Mexico City is the 7th richest city by GDP in the world . . . While there is not insignificant poverty in Mexico, there is a large middle class and spectacular concentrations of wealth.

A neighborhood like Las Llomas in the southwest quadrant of Mexico City is more like Beverly Hills, CA than anything in the RGV. Polanco, also in Mexico City, while newer and greener and a little more spread out is more like the upper east side of Manhattan than anything in the RGV - handful of the best restaurants in the world, world-class art museums etc.

I know Mexico but but I have not been everywhere and I can think of an overwhelming number of places with as high and nearly as many with a higher standard of living than the RGV. For starters: a good third of Mexico City, most of Campeche, nearly all of Merida (the safest city in Mexico and safer than most U.S. cities), a large chunk of Monterrey, Guadalajara, Puebla, Cuernavaca, and while South Padre is nice, the resort parts of any number of Caribbean and Pacific cities - Puerta Vallarta, the tourist trap of Cancun, then there are pretty fancy mountain towns like San Miguel de Allende.

Then there are the colonias of the RGV, some of the worst slums in the U.S. and entirely comparable to the worst slums of Mexico.

I like the RGV fine, but this is really not a fair comparison, an impoverished region of a middling state against an entire country.

But to answer your question, there are MANY MANY places in Mexico with a higher standard of living...

The link you gave showed GDP per capita, that's not the same thing as income.

And the safety disparity between the Texas border areas and Mexico as a whole (especially the border towns on the Texas side) is much too high to ignore (especially considering violence is getting worse under their current administration).

And I'm surprised to read Puebla. I thought it was pretty impoverished, considering here in New York we get a lot of immigrants from there and they're very poor even here.

[Foamposite]

Originally Posted by homeinatx

Really... This cannot be a serious question

The per capita income in McAllen is around 22K. The per capita income in Mexico City is 39K. The state of Campeche has a per capita income of 48K. And COL in Mexico is generally much lower than in the U.S.

https://www.oecd.org/cfe/MEXICO-Regi...ities-2018.pdf

Mexico City is the 7th richest city by GDP in the world . . . While there is not insignificant poverty in Mexico, there is a large middle class and spectacular concentrations of wealth.

A neighborhood like Las Llomas in the southwest quadrant of Mexico City is more like Beverly Hills, CA than anything in the RGV. Polanco, also in Mexico City, while newer and greener and a little more spread out is more like the upper east side of Manhattan than anything in the RGV - handful of the best restaurants in the world, world-class art museums etc.

I know Mexico but but I have not been everywhere and I can think of an overwhelming number of places with as high and nearly as many with a higher standard of living than the RGV. For starters: a good third of Mexico City, most of Campeche, nearly all of Merida (the safest city in Mexico and safer than most U.S. cities), a large chunk of Monterrey, Guadalajara, Puebla, Cuernavaca, and while South Padre is nice, the resort parts of any number of Caribbean and Pacific cities - Puerta Vallarta, the tourist trap of Cancun, then there are pretty fancy mountain towns like San Miguel de Allende.

Then there are the colonias of the RGV, some of the worst slums in the U.S. and entirely comparable to the worst slums of Mexico.

I like the RGV fine, but this is really not a fair comparison, an impoverished region of a middling state against an entire country.

But to answer your question, there are MANY MANY places in Mexico with a higher standard of living...

Also, this is comparable to the worst slums of Mexico?

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2807...7i13312!8i6656

I browsed the Colonias and they just look like lower end suburbs, and the houses themselves really aren't that bad. I doubt the slums of Mexico City look that nice, but I haven't seen them yet.

[homeinatx]

I would not call living without running water and electricity "lower end suburbs"

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/loc...as-6389187.php

[Foamposite]

Originally Posted by homeinatx

I would not call living without running water and electricity "lower end suburbs"

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/loc...as-6389187.php

Yeah I did some more research and found that some of them are worse than the ones I saw.

However Mexico is still much more dangerous than the border towns on the US side

[homeinatx]

Originally Posted by Foamposite

Yeah I did some more research and found that some of them are worse than the ones I saw.

However Mexico is still much more dangerous than the border towns on the US side

The border towns in Texas are indeed much safer than the border towns in Mexico. Juarez and Tijuana are the most dangerous cities in Mexico, but not ALL of Mexico is dangerous . . .

[Foamposite]

Originally Posted by homeinatx

The border towns in Texas are indeed much safer than the border towns in Mexico. Juarez and Tijuana are the most dangerous cities in Mexico, but not ALL of Mexico is dangerous . . .

Mexico's murder clearance rate is only 1 to 2%, which is god awful for the country as a whole. It seems there are no consequences for committing homicides which is a strong deterrent against me ever wanting to live there.

At least in even the poorest parts of Texas, the statistics are nowhere near that grim + you can legally defend yourself.