4 ms·

For the most part, the US is still income-segregated. Detroit is the classic example, where the city houses poor, often dark-skinned inhabitants while their lig

by yarou 11y ago

For the most part, the US is still income-segregated. Detroit is the classic example, where the city houses poor, often dark-skinned inhabitants while their lighter-skinned counterparts live in the surrounding suburbs. The greatest irony now is that traditionally undesirable areas like Oakland are being reclaimed, further marginalizing those low-income people who are unable to adjust to the increased cost of living. It's true we all want thieves to live elsewhere, but at some point elsewhere runs out, and you're left with a class of people that are permanently enserfed as the underclass. I'm not sure which way is better.

tptacek 11y ago
If you take SFBA out of the picture, the story behind gentrification and its impact on minorities gets very blurry. There are studies showing that gentrified neighborhoods have lower minority turnover than non-gentrified neighborhoods: people leave poor non-gentrified areas more often than they do gentrified ones. This sort of makes sense when you realize that people who don't make much money aren't a different species, and like many of the same benefits and services as rich people: parks, grocery stores, schools accountable to active and engaged (busybody) parents, &c.