3 ms·
> As cities grow in size, the poor 'get nothing at all': study This is wrong As cities get bigger everyone benefits as expected confirmed by the study - "We
by aaron695 5y ago
> As cities grow in size, the poor 'get nothing at all': study
This is wrong
As cities get bigger everyone benefits as expected confirmed by the study -
"We show that income in the least wealthy decile (10%) scales close to linearly with city population, while
income in the most wealthy decile scale with a significantly superlinear exponent."
"We repeat our analysis after adjusting income by housing cost, and find similar results"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349682590_Scaling_of_Urban_Income_Inequality_in_the_United_States https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349682590_Scaling_o...
- Clewza313 5y agoIt's not "wrong", you're just parsing it differently. The title means that the poor don't enjoy any additional benefits from that growth, since their expenses scale accordingly; thus theie net growth in disposable income is "nothing at all".
- arc-in-space 5y agoThat is certainly the original meaning, but do you think that after seeing the headlined "nothing at all" before reading further, most people will arrive at this exact understanding? There is a very good reason the title used quotation marks, and it's not because it's a quote.
- aaron695 5y agoExpenses don't change with city size with a few exceptions. Housing being the only one they look at, which I think is fair. With housing costs removed they say - "The poorest two deciles in bigger cities make about the same income as their counterparts in smaller cities" Which does match the title. I think there are a few obvious problems with this. But as a paper it's a good start. I object to the strongly worded title, but it's not wrong from the paper.