Interesting way to measure a glass half full.How about a
"study" showing class mobility from poor to rich (and rich to poor?What about the number of people on welfare, and how long they have been there
(months, years, generations?)How about showing some other
demographic factors, not that there is necessarily a correlation with causation,
but that may indicate cultural values. Perhaps some people are just comfortable
with waiting to be given some of the "rich guy's stuff" instead of
working hard in school and striving for better jobs and longer hours.One factor has already been mentioned, and that is that most of the
"inequal" cities seem to be run by "progressives." Translated,
this is just proof that their policies do not work.
"Looking down and westward at West Jordan, Utah from the Oquirrh
Mountains."If you're looking down and westward from the
Oquirrh Mountains, you're looking at somewhere near Tooele and not West
@tosmartforyou Your analysis is correct. The homogeneity of income in the two
Utah towns comes as no surprise.A much bigger issue is global income
and wealth inequality. The world's population is what, about 6.5 billion?
Of that number there are 1600 to 1700 billionaires (1,000 X $1 million). This
global system is a travesty based on any system or morality I know of.
The "income gap" is an illusion. Incomes are a full spectrum with no
holes, or "gaps," in it. The trend is that the entire spectrum is
moving upwards. The poor today are a lot wealthier than the poor a generation
ago. Those are the facts, and they are good!
Income equality is significant on a nationwide basis. As you may remember, Marie
(Let them eat cake) Antoinette lost her head after starving peasants rose up and
became a power in France. Similarly the Russian Revolution in 1917 established
former serfs in positions of authority as it put big capitalists, landowners,
and the entire royal family in early graves . . . all due to income
disparity.Of course in progressive nations, where the poor are
offered enough assistance to subsist, you won't have the likelihood of the
peasants rising up in rage and literal hunger.On a city wide basis,
income disparity doesn't mean that much. A city with low income
disparity may be one that cold-bloodedly forces the poor to move to another
city.A city with high income disparity may mean it offers low cost
public housing for the poor.In other words, a large income disparity
isn't necessarily a bad thing. It may mean that the wealthier people in
that city are decent people and TRUE Christians.
West Jordan doesn't have very many rich people and their housing stock
isn't exactly grandiose on the top of the scale so the fact they are #1
isn't any surprise. The same is true for West Valley except they have more
poor folks than West Jordan. If Kearns were a city I'm sure it would
over-take West Jordan in the income equality category.
One possible reason larger cities have greater income inequality may be because
there is greater business opportunity for entrepreneurs while similarly greater
charitable opportunity for those wanting or needing to live off the success of
others. Also, larger, and therefore older, cities have areas in decay while
simultaneously springing off newer or re-emergent sectors which attract higher
incomes. It's not necessarily a bad thing because such diversified cities
accommodate people in a wide spectrum of social development.What would be
really interesting is a list of cities where matriculation from poor to
middle-class to wealthy is greatest. I'd like to see that list.
I think income equality is a misnomer. The real phrase should be income
homogeneity. Perhaps one reason that some of these cities are listed is because
people higher incomes choose not to live in that location, or those with lower
incomes can't afford to.
Soviet Union was a world leader in income equality. Nobody had anything. What an
idiotic way to measure success! Why not say - X% of the population have a car,
Y% have a computer with Internet access, Z% can afford to eat balanced diet, etc
to measure economic well-being?
So, according to this study a city full of equally poor residents could be
considered a "best" city for income equality?
Of course we inequality! We're all different.The resources for
success is equal.
The income equality lovers are happier when the whole nation suffers rather than
when half suffer and half get rich.