Thomas L. Friedman: "The World is Flat"

[pchang]

How about you tell us how much it was in Kroners and we do the conversion ourselves?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


* Imran Siddiqui points to his last post, re: HDI

* Ted Striker points to all the homeless people he encountered on the streets this weekend.

[pchang]

You should probably try walking on different streets. I don't remember seeing any homeless people in XXXXX XXXXX.

[Ted Striker]

Oh you're a funny guy, but your logic is apparently flawed

Secondly please remove the personal info, jackass

Finally, I was referring to downtown LA, moron

[pchang]

Happy now? As for logic, don't let anecdotes get in the way of your innumeracy.

[Ted Striker]

Whoah! Innumeracy! Your superior reasoning skills, mathematical ability and intellect abound!

Even DanS notices the problem:

Originally posted by DanS
On the other hand, the US has areas of acute poverty, unlike many European countries.

Thanks for another personal shot though.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, I'm sure New York City has really high numbers of broadband users and quality.

IN Manhattan businesses and homes, certainly. In the public sector and in the outer boroughs and in homes, not as much, not nearly as much.

[DanS]

Ted: Let's be clear. The streets that you and I may walk are not the same streets that a vast majority of Americans drive. Most Americans live in the suburbs, which by and large are concentrations of wealth rather than poverty.

Most European countries just aren't organized in this fashion, so it doesn't make sense to compare the two directly. The comparisons are sometimes begged by casual visitors to the US, which is unfairly unflattering to the US.

[GePap]

Not all suburbs are "concentrations of wealth". Heck, many of the exburbs exits cause of the very cheap housing. Bottom dollar housing does not seem to me to be a "concentration of wealth", and then you have your first ring suburbs as well. If homeless don;t hang out in the suburbs is because there things are too spread out. You don;t see homless men either in the depressed rural areas.

That being said, I did see homeless in Vienna-thought it seems in Vienna beggars must take some sort of pre-assigned position, cause all of them begged in the same way.

[DanS]

Not all suburbs are "concentrations of wealth". Heck, many of the exburbs exits cause of the very cheap housing.

I never said all of them are. See, for instance, some parts of Prince George's County here in the Washington area. But if you look at the acute poverty of some inner cities, your view of the entire US may easily become warped. Consider that the nice parts of DC are about 2/3rds of the city, and that the Washington suburbs dwarf DC in size by about 10:1.

As you say, the exurbs exist partly for cheap living. Money goes a long way in these areas -- much longer than in any part of the EU-15 with which I am familiar. You can live like a king on a downright modest paycheck. Lower middle class, a 2,000 ft^2 house and a couple acres of land. They're not really familiar with this type of living in Europe (they might not even prefer it, but to each his own).

[GePap]

Well, you can live like a king in Latin America with 20,000. I have an uncle who makes about 100,000 (successful doctor), and he has about 4 properties (a beach house, an apartment in the City, a house in the hills, and a 8 room, 4 bathroom giant house where he lives with his family). In fact, someone middle class in Panama hcan get a lot. You don;t see many homeless either in Panama, but it sure isn't due to a lack of poverty, when 40% of the country is poor.

Besides, there is the idea of what is "living like a king". Lots of space is an American idea of living like a King, but how often do those people travel worldwide, or even within the US for example?

[DanS]

What's your point?

[GePap]

Low cost of living is fine, but the question is how much are you making anyways. Someone with a small space in Manhattan making 75,000k a year on Wall Street is still probabably better off than someone with a cheap but roomy house making 35,000k outside of Phoenix. Especially if some sort of medical emergency comes up.

Also, the lack of homeless does not mean lack of real poverty.
I would say the urban poor have it better than the rural poor-at least you can walk to a food pantry.

[DanS]

Low cost of living is fine, but the question is how much are you making anyways. Someone with a small space in Manhattan making 75,000k a year on Wall Street is still probabably better off than someone with a cheap but roomy house making 35,000k outside of Phoenix. Especially if some sort of medical emergency comes up.

You're out of touch, dude. You can raise a family in Phoenix on $35k. My sister raises 6 kids on roughly that amount in Ohio, including parochial school tuition. Try that in Manhattan on $75k.

[GePap]

You don't think there are countless families raising kids in Manhattan making 75,000k a year? Have you ever been outside of midtown and the tourist areas in NYC?

I can teel you form my own neighborhood, facing a ongoing Jewish orthodox baby boom, that these families are sure not all making even 75,000K a year.