Posted on 10/24/2016 8:24:54 AM PDT by Lorianne
Though Republican candidate Donald Trump has used the term "inner-city" to exemplify poverty, "lost opportunity" and "hell," the reality is that majority of America's poor aren't in inner-cities. They live in the suburbs.
"Between 2000 and 2011, the number of poor residents in the suburbs of the nation's largest metropolitan areas grew by 64 percent — more than twice the growth rate in cities," the report found. "For the first time, suburbs became home to more poor residents than America's big cities. Today, one in three poor Americans — about 16.4 million people — lives in the suburbs."
While there are a host of reasons why this occurs, a contributing factor is that those who are poor are simply priced out of urban housing, said Scott Allard, a professor at the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington,
The phenomenon is especially acute in cities where more more affluent individuals are moving back into cities to be closer to jobs and city amenities.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
that’s because the government has purposely been spreading around the results of their failed policies, by forcing good communities to accept section 8 losers....then they turn around and say, ‘see, it’s everywhere’, not just in minority america....’
president ubama’s policies are working exactly as he had hoped. Republicans should be proud of assisting so ably.
SOB’s all.
Wait a second. So then the other two out of three live where?
“So then the other two out of three live where?”
the cities and rural areas
We need a "poverty" number for people who are self-sufficient to be able to make ends meet.
That’s the truth, I see it everywhere in my neighborhood and surrounding areas. Like locus
Additionally, as I’ve sold my home and was initially looking to buy a smaller townhouse/condo, I see tons of foreclosures. That housing crash of ‘08 is still crippling people and add in this booming *spit* economy and yep, there are ‘poor’ people everywhere.
Our government is so sick and lame, it should be put out of it’s misery.
Depends on your definition of “suburb” I guess.
Here in Pittsburgh it would include run-down former mill towns lining the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers. Not what you would typically think of as suburban (though since they are not part of the city, they technically qualify).
Meanwhile formerly run-down parts of Pittsburgh like East Liberty and Lawrenceville continue to gentrify. If you are looking for a cheap floor I suppose Duquesne or McKees Rocks or Braddock would be options.
I think I’ve seen evidence of this. I’ve lived in a few different cities around the country. And its heartbreaking to go back and visit, and see how some formerly nice suburban neighborhoods have become bad neighborhoods.
Modern Cities = Welfare holding pens for democrat voters.
In the old days democrat ward bosses sent out their underlings with fists full of cash to buy votes for a dollar or two or five.
Now they buy their votes with tax money redistributed as welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing payments, Ombama-care, Obama-phones, college tuition.
the cities and rural areas
I understand that. The question was rhetorical. What is implied is that more poor people live in rural areas than in either the cities or the suburbs, which I find surprising.
Gentrification? Do you honestly think those neighborhoods like east liberty and Wilkinsburg are attracting tennis playing yuppies driving beemers?? I think it’s the thug culture that’s growing. I’m not sure if it’s rap music or drugs or what, but those ghettos are still ghettos with black babies running in the street wearing nothing but diapers and boarded up houses every block. And it’s spilling into the eastern suburbs. I remember when Monroeville mall used to be a nice place to shop. Now you’ll get knockout gamed by the “youts” congregating there.
The 32 MS 13 gang members they just arrested on Long Island is proof of that.
Not at all, as they are likely using a national poverty level based on income, and skewed towards the cost of living in a suburban or urban area.
Thus those making 50k in an urban area would be considered in poverty and their reality would be poverty. And those living in a rural area would be considered living in poverty, but their reality would not be poverty.
Cities are expensive.
That's exactly what has been happening where I live.
The government has been tearing down the government housing in the nearby city and sending the residents to suburban housing developments with their section 8 housing payments.
But as soon as they move in the neighborhoods go into decline. Crime goes up, property values go down and home owners who can afford it move out.
Remember the recent government B.S. that it is the living in an environment of dense high poverty that causes people to remain low income, high crime, etc.?
And that by moving them from ghettos into higher income neighborhoods they will magically change their ways?
Except they don't change - they remain the same and drag their new neighborhoods down.
The government has used our tax money to destroy America's cities.
Now they are using it to destroy the suburbs.
It's like an onion rotting from the inside out, layer by layer.
What is implied is that more poor people live in rural areas than in either the cities or the suburbs, which I find surprising.
*****************************
Go exploring through Appalachia or rural Mississippi or hundreds of Indian reservations.
Communism destroys the middle class.
The middle class live in suburbs.
“by forcing good communities to accept section 8 losers....”
Exactly——and we have orgs like Project Hope to thank for this disaster.
Poor is relative. Some of the urban poor have almost all their needs covered by programs; the suburban poor may make three times the income but have less left over after covering their costs just to live!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.