3 ms·

But using TV shows as evidence is better?

• eesmith 4y ago
  What evidence do you have to support your comment? If "Apartments are associated with low-income ghettos" is meaningful, then how come there are many more TV shows taking place in middle- and high-income apartments than in "low-income ghettos"? If we do a GIS search for "apartment building", why are so few of them "low-income ghettos"? If we look at the population of people living in apartments, why are relatively few of them actually living in "low-income ghettos"? (Or does the US really have that many low-income regions?) If we strip away the term "ghetto", with its racist and pejorative history, and its built-in bias for urban living, and instead look at "low-income households", we can easily see there are many poor people who live in houses, including houses with a lawn and back yard. Rural poverty is a serious issue - rural poverty rates in the US are higher and more persistent than in urban areas - and those people are not living in apartments. https://www.nmhc.org/research-insight/quick-facts-figures/quick-facts-resident-demographics/household-incomes/ https://www.nmhc.org/research-insight/quick-facts-figures/qu... shows that households who rent a house (or building with 4 or fewer units) and households in apartments have almost the same income; only slightly less for households in apartments. While those who own a house are significantly richer. Which means there are more likely to be able to buy a house. This would seem to reduce your original comment to saying there's a strong association of having a large house with middle to high income families, and of low-income people living in smaller residences. Which I have no serious disagreement with.