4 ms·
That's a weird statement. Residential neighborhoods of major cities might tend to be slums, and rural areas might tend to be slums, but most suburbs of major ci
by freehunter 9y ago
That's a weird statement. Residential neighborhoods of major cities might tend to be slums, and rural areas might tend to be slums, but most suburbs of major cities are nice upper middle class areas. Sure if your city has five suburbs, one might be the slums, and over the decades that might switch from one to another to another as they cycle around, but by-and-large actual suburban cities exist because of the middle class.
- baybal2 9y ago>suburbs of major cities are nice upper middle class areas. Yes, they are for sure. I'm not speaking about the at all. What is a slum? A place where lots of people whose socioeconomic peculiarities prevent them from engaging in a meaningful economic activity. They can't get education, meaningful job locally, or have enought money to relocate. Eventually, overconcentration of such people weeds out all remaining economic activity out of the area and drives value of whatever is there down. https://www.amazon.com/Great-Inversion-Future-American-City/dp/0307474372 https://www.amazon.com/Great-Inversion-Future-American-City/...
- freehunter 9y agoYou said "I fail to see how most US suburbs are different than slums" and then when challenged on it, you say "no no, I'm not talking about that". So what exactly are you talking about? Or are you just making the claim that the upper middle class don't go to college, don't have jobs, and don't make any money? Because that's even more ridiculous.
- baybal2 9y agoWell, I have lost the point here. It was better to say that 1. a notable lot of 'middle class' neighborhoods are middle class in name only, 2. average suburb of non-first tier cities got worse off over the years 3. genuine slumification did occur in few cities, 4. more are approaching that borderline