Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not exactly true for all low-income areas in America. Many places that are or were very dangerous look very deceivingly middle class. Many California ghettos look very pleasant, suburban and middle class. This is because upper middle class White folks used to live in these places before a few Black people moved in and they said "There goes the neighborhood!" and up and left and took all the jobs with them. There aren't even any stereotypical signs of blight in many dangerous California ghettos. Can you believe this place used to be the epicenter of a city officially dubbed as the murder capital of the United States in 1992?! There are many neighborhoods in the richest counties in America that look similar to this:
In addition, the average American "poor" person living in a trailer enjoys a higher disposable income and more "creature comforts" than a person representative of the middle class of many European countries.
Not to keep picking on your post, but have you ever been inside a trailer for a lengthy period of time? They're built badly, much worse than most apartment buildings. The insulation is poor so they are fairly drafty. They're metal boxes, heat up really fast. I remember it was in the low 70s out and the trailer got too hot. Dangerous in high wind or a severe storm like a hurricane or tornado. Also aren't built to last.
Again, I really base my general assumptions on Google street view surfing of Western Europe vs the USA (especially more rural areas)
Of course there are many exceptions to the rule, but do y'all generally agree that rich areas usually look better than poor areas?
And if so, apart from the obvious differences in actual resources, is there a real, tangible reason why this is the case?
Do rich people have a better sense of style? Can they afford to dedicate more time and effort into asthetics? Do we subconsciously respond to displays of wealth that rich people put on to "advertise" their supposed superiority? What gives here? Why is it apparently a different dynamic in Western Europe?
Again, I really base my general assumptions on Google street view surfing of Western Europe vs the USA (especially more rural areas)
Of course there are many exceptions to the rule, but do y'all generally agree that rich areas usually look better than poor areas?
And if so, apart from the obvious differences in actual resources, is there a real, tangible reason why this is the case?
Do rich people have a better sense of style? Can they afford to dedicate more time and effort into asthetics? Do we subconsciously respond to displays of wealth that rich people put on to "advertise" their supposed superiority? What gives here? Why is it apparently a different dynamic in Western Europe?
I'm just curious. Have you ever drove through a poor neighbourhood, one where it is fairly obvious most of the residents are unemployed, on welfare, or a combination of the two, and wondered how it is they never have time to mow the lawn? Most of them don't even take the time to water the lawns.
I don't think wealthy people are trying to advertise their superiority. There are a few who try to make whatever impression they want others to think of themselves, but you will see this in any middle-class neighbourhood as well.
Those buildings in other countries could not pass the ridiculous regulations they have for Atlanta Code Enforcement. My own house probably couldn't. Saying this needs an electrical socket, no peeling paint,this and that.
I had a roof like one of the buildings in Europe. I was cited for it and they made me put a new roof on.
I'm just curious. Have you ever drove through a poor neighbourhood, one where it is fairly obvious most of the residents are unemployed, on welfare, or a combination of the two, and wondered how it is they never have time to mow the lawn? Most of them don't even take the time to water the lawns.
I don't think wealthy people are trying to advertise their superiority. There are a few who try to make whatever impression they want others to think of themselves, but you will see this in any middle-class neighbourhood as well.
Who would water their lawn so it can grow again? Also, since when were lawnmowers cheaper than $150 a pop?
Srsly?
Maybe they can't afford the luxury of getting a hose & some sprinklers to water grass that will grow anyways. Maybe they are looking for jobs to afford the lawn mower.
Maybe you should think about why some foreclosed properties with two owners ever have anyone to clean the mosquito infested pools or cut their lawns.
Maybe if the "poor" had more job opportunities (even if you need a bachelors for it), then they would have the income and the time to worry about their "lawns", rather than if they can afford the basics.
And before you talk about food stamps, you have to have less than $5000 or material possessions in order to qualify so that leaves home ownership out of the picture.
Who would water their lawn so it can grow again? Also, since when were lawnmowers cheaper than $150 a pop?
Srsly?
Maybe they can't afford the luxury of getting a hose & some sprinklers to water grass that will grow anyways. Maybe they are looking for jobs to afford the lawn mower.
Maybe you should think about why some foreclosed properties with two owners ever have anyone to clean the mosquito infested pools or cut their lawns.
Seriously!. Since there are often DirecTV dishes on the side of the house, new chrome wheels on the car and someone sitting on the porch talking on a cell phone it just seems to me they should have the ability to scrape up enough change for a used lawnmower or borrow one from a neighbour.
Your second paragraph is unintelligible. I see something regarding foreclosed homes. However, we aren't talking about foreclosed homes. We are talking about residents who don't care enough make the place they live in look like it is located in the United States and not some third-world hole.
nei: Yes, my earliest memories were of growing up in a trailer. They're really not that bad, at least in areas where the hurricane threat is low or non-existent. However, in terms of what you get for what you pay, I think "trellers" are a good value.
KC6ZLV: We have a renter right next to our business. They at the time (a widow, her disabled adult daughter, her able adult son, and her able but suffering from mental problems adult son) did not mow their miniscule front lawn, and hence the grass grew two or three feet. I'm not ragging on all poor people, but this seems to be a pattern. Far from being a moralistic faux judge, I would guess that many poor people suffer from depression or similar mental illnesses. An excuse? Maybe in some cases, but probably not in all.
Who would water their lawn so it can grow again? Also, since when were lawnmowers cheaper than $150 a pop?
Srsly?
Maybe they can't afford the luxury of getting a hose & some sprinklers to water grass that will grow anyways. Maybe they are looking for jobs to afford the lawn mower.
Maybe you should think about why some foreclosed properties with two owners ever have anyone to clean the mosquito infested pools or cut their lawns.
Srsly?
You see some low-income neighborhoods where people do care. The houses aren't fancy, they don't go out and spend a lot of money on annuals each spring to make their yards colorful, but the laws are watered and mowed, the exterior maybe could use paint but is clean without trash and weeds growing everywhere. They're basic and maybe a bit long in the tooth, but well kempt for all that. Then you have the trashy neighborhoods. They've got the money for wheels that cost more than the cars, but the houses are dilapidated wrecks. Some people just don't care.
Hell, you'll see the old-timer out there in his 70s who refuses to leave out there pushing his 40-year-old lawn mower every weekend, nailing up a shutter that's hanging, trimming the hedges, sweeping. Maybe he doesn't have the physical ability to paint the house anymore or the money to pay to have it done (labor costs a lot more than material for painting). Then you've go the worthless urchins infesting the rest of the neighborhood. My next door neighbor is in his 80s and we needed a new fence. My landlord was willing to go in halves, but my neighbor is on a fixed income. So I built the fence and my landlord subtracted the cost of the materials from my rent. I'll probably be gone in a year or two, but that's kind of what not useless people do -- help one another, feed each other's dogs when on vacation, whatever. If you don't have a mower, you borrow the neighbors and mow both your lawns.
And why was this on the first page anyway? It's ancient...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
