USA cut up, a cool chart, click me!

maybe this is wrong or I cant read it, but check it out.

Debunk the Myths

 

 

Myth: "Standard of living" equals "quality of life." Once we have enough for survival and comforts, quality of life suffers when we continue to focus on quantity of stuff. Studies show that good relationships, meaningful work and restorative leisure are core components of quality of life.

 

Myth: Overconsumption is natural. No, it isn't! It began in this century as a deliberate strategy on the part of business, media and government to educate people to want what they don't need in order to increase markets for American products. Overconsumption is selling your life and mortgaging your future so the economy can grow. Now that's unnatural.

 

Myth: The US (or any) economy is dependent upon overconsumption. Respected economic observers like Lester Thurow of M.I.T., Charles Schultze of the Brookings Institute and Alfred E. Kahn of Cornell all assert that economic health in the 90's depends on consuming less and saving more.

 

Myth: Government programs, revolutionary business practices or new technologies will take care of it. Green taxes! Renewable energy! Fuel efficient cars! Clean industry! Better living through chemistry! All are valuable -- but, even all together, they are not sufficient. Creating a sustainable future requires a new way of thinking. We must re-examine our desires, transform our perceptions and develop a new ethic. Only then can the larger systems within which we operate be transformed.

 

Myth: One person can't make a difference. There is no "they." There is only us, a society of individuals making personal and collective choices. Legislators, CEOs and consumers are all people who can change their minds and thus change the world, no matter what they did yesterday. Lowering consumption happens one transaction at a time.

http://img26.photobucket.com/albums/v79/diverse/yes.bmp'>

yeah uhhh, I think that map is a little to complicated for you

and its county, not countie...what are you British?

its not, its a message board.

bump

what the fuck? my only thread isnt worthy of replies? Its not like you see charts like this everyday, dammit, I found it interesting, especially you political rebellious anarchist activist democrat republican party loyal catch all underdog oppressed revolutionary communist motherfuckers should reply and say

"damn, see, I told you most of us were poor!, see!!"

and then someone else replies by saying "yeah, well, compared to what other country?, cause next to Bangladesh were ballers if were on unemployment"

It's we're, not were... what are you, American?

Originally posted by TheoHuxtable

http://img26.photobucket.com/albums/v79/diverse/yes.bmp'>

according to that chart up there.... compton and all of south (central) los angeles is all middle class.

Originally posted by nomadawhat

according to that chart up there.... compton and all of south (central) los angeles is all middle class.

Yeah. That chart is bogus. Maybe they mean by property value. People who actually own the property in South Central usually got $$. It's the people who live there that are usually broke. Property value in more dense areas is almost always more valuable than propertly value way out in the countryside.

wow, my area has alot of rich folks. you wouldnt know it by the way my town looks...

Originally posted by PalestineOne

what the fuck? my only thread isnt worthy of replies? Its not like you see charts like this everyday, dammit, I found it interesting, especially you political rebellious anarchist activist democrat republican party loyal catch all underdog oppressed revolutionary communist motherfuckers should reply and say

"damn, see, I told you most of us were poor!, see!!"

and then someone else replies by saying "yeah, well, compared to what other country?, cause next to Bangladesh were ballers if were on unemployment"

http://www.siatlanta.com/forumpics/6thsense.jpg'>

funny thing about the US is the very rich and very poor dont live very far from one another. the poor usually in the out skirts of the the downtown area and the rich in the downtown area of suburbs outside the city. jersey for one is just like that. very financially segregated. i remember back in the day i use to live in this working class neighborhood in union county with like ugly oldschool townhouses and rowhouses and like 20 feet away behind some trees was this new age richie rich neighborhood with houses starting at $200,000.thats america for ya.

yes.. every city in America is like that. The rich live downtown and in the suburbs right out of the city, and the poor live in the city closer to downtown

but with gentrification, the rich are now kicking the poor out of the cities by moving in to the city. its like the reverse of white flight. yuppies are moving deeper and deeper in the city, and the poor are moving farther and farther. but it still remains that the inner city is where the poorest of the poor live. And unfortunatley, the blacks and latinos are the ones who live in the inner cities, and the whites live in the rest of the city or suburb or downtown. thats america, racist as shit.

Originally posted by Brownbread?

funny thing about the US is the very rich and very poor dont live very far from one another. the poor usually in the out skirts of the the downtown area and the rich in the downtown area of suburbs outside the city. jersey for one is just like that. very financially segregated. i remember back in the day i use to live in this working class neighborhood in union county with like ugly oldschool townhouses and rowhouses and like 20 feet away behind some trees was this new age richie rich neighborhood with houses starting at $200,000.thats america for ya.

It's very different in Los Angeles. Most of downtown and nearby areas surrounding downtown is inhabited by below-middle-class people, with the exception of a few extravagant hotels and some apartment/condo complexes. The outskirts of L.A. and the areas far from downtown are inhabited by the upper and middle class. South Central and Compton are kind of far from downtown but it's still inner city compared to like Beverly Hills, Bel Air, or Malibu.

Originally posted by TheoHuxtable

It's very different in Los Angeles. Most of downtown and nearby areas surrounding downtown is inhabited by below-middle-class people, with the exception of a few extravagant hotels and some apartment/condo complexes. The outskirts of L.A. and the areas far from downtown are inhabited by the upper and middle class. South Central and Compton are kind of far from downtown but it's still inner city compared to like Beverly Hills, Bel Air, or Malibu.

kinda lost at what you're saying. when you say downtown you mean the center of L.A. city or the urban section of LA county?? thats seems kinda odd, but then again you cant compare LA with east coast type cities cause LA is really fuckin huge in size. apples&oranges.

Originally posted by Brownbread?

kinda lost at what you're saying. when you say downtown you mean the center of L.A. city or the urban section of LA county?? thats seems kinda odd, but then again you cant compare LA with east coast type cities cause LA is really fuckin huge in size. apples&oranges.

Well downtown specifically. Where all the skyscrapers are at. Most of the apartments and homes in the downtown area are low-income housing. The majority of the people who work in the downtown offices that have money drive from long distances from the outskirts. And plus the "urban" section surrounds downtown which is for the most part low-income. The farther out beyond that, either going toward the beaches or mountains is where the people who got money live...

plus east coast cities were built abd active waaaaaaaaaaaay before LA

Originally posted by PalestineOne

plus east coast cities were built abd active waaaaaaaaaaaay before LA

Yes, that's true. L.A. is relatively new compared to East Coast cities. It didn't really start to become a real city until the 1920's... There were people who settled there since the 1700's back when it was part of the Spanish Empire and then eventually Mexico, but it was really just farms and scattered homes and missions...

for some reason, I never like sociology, but Im always caught thinking and talking about it. hmmm...

anyway, L.A. being so new compared to East coast cities is also a reaosn for theire locals poltics being pretty different than ours in NY. I think the mayors have different roles and theres less corryption because they had time in LA to figure out how to keep corruption out before the city became a city.

the city is also so big and seperated because it was built during the automobiles boom days, like you said. unlike NY, which was during walkng and horsey times.

Originally posted by PalestineOne

for some reason, I never like sociology, but Im always caught thinking and talking about it. hmmm...

 

anyway, L.A. being so new compared to East coast cities is also a reaosn for theire locals poltics being pretty different than ours in NY. I think the mayors have different roles and theres less corryption because they had time in LA to figure out how to keep corruption out before the city became a city.

 

the city is also so big and seperated because it was built during the automobiles boom days, like you said. unlike NY, which was during walkng and horsey times.

That last paragraph was very interesting and true. Of course, another valid theory to explain why NY is so packed in and LA is so spread out is the geography and topography of both cities. NY is built on a series of islands, which means limited availability to spread out and become "sprawling". L.A. is built in a wide-open flat basin surrounded by mountains to the North, East, and South with an ocean to the West.

heres a map of the US population density

Re: heres a map of the US population density

Originally posted by PalestineOne

http://europa.nvc.cs.vt.edu/~ctlu/Project/SoftwareTools/usa-pop-den.jpg'>

Hey, somebody explained to me why the farther west you go the bigger the states and counties get. I forget why though. Look how everything on the right side is all small and everything on the left is all big.

http://www.kak.ru/images/archive/13-14/earls/color5.jpg'>

Theres no any reason for that, just the way boudaries are drawn anywhere else. Every state has its own simple reasons.

Originally posted by PalestineOne

Theres no any reason for that, just the way boudaries are drawn anywhere else. Every state has its own simple reasons.

There has to be a reason. Obviously you can see the pattern if you look at the map. Someone explained it to me in Jr. High years ago... I forget why though.