What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

On May 28, 11:18 am, Bolwerk wrote:
George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
Joe the Aroma wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...
"Anymouse" none wrote in message
...
"george conklin" wrote in message
news "John Mara" wrote in message
m...
george conklin wrote:

As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the
New
Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree
to
walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in
time.
Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has
enacted regulations for them.

http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap...,2759553.story

--
John Mara

Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of
workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past
used
to be.

"exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's
not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time.
George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes
anyway...
Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to
encourage
"things you like".
Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted
endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification?
They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow.

Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price
of food down, down, down.

In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx?

I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you
obviously do not.

Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society:

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm

Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.

I don't see any reason to open that URL. Even if "poverty today is
concentrated in rural areas," you have to do better than call me stupid
if you want to find a way to blame it on cities.

Yes, there's a lot of poverty in rural areas. And Yes, it is probably
a disproportional amount. But I think there are reasons for it. Some
are directly related to "the city" but some aren't. I'll give you a
few examples that you can use are you would like.

Say you have an anti-poverty program, such as a HUD Section 8
program. Say the program targets families at or below 50% of median
income. What exactly is median income and how are income limited
based on it? Some college professor, somewhere, is immediately going
to try to give me a definition of median income being a number where
half the families earn more and half earn less. Then, I would be
forced to point out that that is wrong. Median income has nothing to
do with what half or families earn. Wake up and smell the computer
program.

For a rural area, income limits based on "median income" use the
HIGHER of the county's median income OR the statewide, non-metro
median. So for very many rural counties, it's is the statewide median
that is used. Therefore, a significantly larger group than "half" is
below median income. In rich counties, like Westchester, a limit
kicks in so that under half of families are below AMI.

Another difference the gov't's "poverty" number is a national number.
In rural areas, it is cheaper to live and companies pay less. So
incomes are lower, even for the same lifestyle. So more people in the
rural areas are below poverty.

Saying all of that, I do agree that there's a LOT of poverty in rural
America. There's way too much of it. Come out here and visit the Rez
and see for yourself. Come here to Appalacia and take a look around.

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:45:56 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit
"George Conklin" wrote in
k.net:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit
Bolwerk wrote in
:
George Conklin wrote:
...
Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven
the price
of food down, down, down.

In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The
Bronx?

George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can.

I just know demographic facts, unlike the ignorant like you.

And you selectively simplify them to the point that they are no longer
accurate.

You are wrong again. You need to use some of the international data sources
which are out there. But, for the United States, poverty is now concentrated
in rural areas, and there are more poor people in the suburbs than in the
city. You are the one with old data.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"George Conklin" wrote:

"Bolwerk" wrote
George Conklin wrote:

I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which
you
obviously do not.

Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological
Society:

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm

Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.

I don't see any reason to open that URL.

Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity.

He can't help it... it's chronic.

Agreed. He should open the URL and look at the real facts. Ron gave a
presentation of several hours with even more current data in April in
Atlanta. He had cartograms of USA counties which were amazing. They will
be in Social Forces in a few months.

"Pat" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 28, 11:18 am, Bolwerk wrote:
George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
Joe the Aroma wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
...
"Anymouse" none wrote in message
...
"george conklin" wrote in message
news "John Mara" wrote in message
m...
george conklin wrote:

As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with
the
New
Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you
agree
to
walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go
back in
time.
Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council
has
enacted regulations for them.


http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap...,2759553.story

--
John Mara

Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such
exploitation of
workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the
past
used
to be.

"exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and
it's
not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this
time.
George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes
anyway...
Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to
encourage
"things you like".
Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted
endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification?
They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow.

Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the
price
of food down, down, down.

In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The
Bronx?

I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which
you
obviously do not.

Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological
Society:

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm

Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.

I don't see any reason to open that URL. Even if "poverty today is
concentrated in rural areas," you have to do better than call me stupid
if you want to find a way to blame it on cities.

Yes, there's a lot of poverty in rural areas. And Yes, it is probably
a disproportional amount. But I think there are reasons for it. Some
are directly related to "the city" but some aren't. I'll give you a
few examples that you can use are you would like.


Imagine someone in this day and age (see below) who does not know what a
median is. Pitiful.


Say you have an anti-poverty program, such as a HUD Section 8
program. Say the program targets families at or below 50% of median
income. What exactly is median income and how are income limited
based on it? Some college professor, somewhere, is immediately going
to try to give me a definition of median income being a number where
half the families earn more and half earn less. Then, I would be
forced to point out that that is wrong. Median income has nothing to
do with what half or families earn.

Such confusion. It must be the pills.

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
george conklin wrote:
wrote in message
.net...
In article k.net,
says...

In the third world they view the entire industry as exploiting.
We
should
be ashamed of ourselves bringing the pedicab back. It shows how
morally
bankrupt the New Urbanism is.
Do you consider all manual labor morally inferior
Pedicabs are not manual labor. It is considered to be abusive
labor.
So if I go buy a pedicab and charge willing riders to be driven around
in it, I'm abusing myself?

You are abusing the driver. But then you are an expert at self-abuse
too.

If the driver is making $20/hour, he's being abused? What if I drive it
myself?

BTW, that "you are an expert at self-abuse" quip almost amounted to
"faggot!"

Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a viable
goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, then you
are abusing yourself.

On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:20:05 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit
"George Conklin" wrote in
.net:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:45:56 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit
"George Conklin" wrote in
k.net:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit
Bolwerk wrote in
:
George Conklin wrote:
...
Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven
the price
of food down, down, down.

In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The
Bronx?

George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can.

I just know demographic facts, unlike the ignorant like you.

And you selectively simplify them to the point that they are no longer
accurate.

You are wrong again. You need to use some of the international data sources
which are out there. But, for the United States, poverty is now concentrated
in rural areas, and there are more poor people in the suburbs than in the
city. You are the one with old data.

Since when do you get to redefine suburban as rural?

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
...
"exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and
it's
not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this
time.
George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes
anyway...

Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to
encourage
"things you like".

Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted
endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification?
They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow.

Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the
price
of food down, down, down.
I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which
you
obviously do not.

The US government and chains like Wal-Mart drive the food prices down.


The price paid to the farmer is down in all nations, and they don't
have
Wal-Mart to blame. Cities are the problem. Politicians are afraid of
urban
riots in the third world, and as a result poverty ends up being in rural
areas.


Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological
Society:

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm

Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.

I think it's really funny that the implications of the paper are that
people
should do the very things you're against--that cities should become more
sustainable by encouraging urban farming, that people should buy local
and
pay the true price of things rather than an artificially low price caused
by
subsidies and other policies.


Wimberley is not in favor of urban gardens and the other such silly
proposals.

Regardless, such "silly proposals" are the logical conclusion to be drawn
from the work. If one shies away from drawing the conclusions that follow
from such findings, one would do better to avoid publishing them.

-Amy

"George Conklin" wrote in message
hlink.net...
....
George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can.


I just know demographic facts, unlike the ignorant like you.

Too bad you're unable to draw conclusions from your precious FActs...

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...
Pushing the labor laws back to those of the third world is not a viable
goal. Such work is abusive, and if you pull the pedicab yourself, then
you
are abusing yourself.

George believes that everyone in the US should be free...
to do things George approves of.

Pat wrote:
On May 28, 11:18 am, Bolwerk wrote:
George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
Joe the Aroma wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...
"Anymouse" none wrote in message
...
"george conklin" wrote in message
news "John Mara" wrote in message
...
george conklin wrote:
As Calcutta outlaws pedicabs, they are now fashionable with the
New
Urbanist crowd. You can take home some stuff on one, if you agree
to
walk next to it. That ought to please those who want to go back in
time.
Pedicabs are popular enough in New York that the city council has
enacted regulations for them.
http://www.newsday.com/search/sns-ap...,2759553.story
--
John Mara
Yes, just as the third world is getting rid of such exploitation of
workers, NYC is starting up with its hazy visions of great the past
used
to be.
"exploitation of workers"? Ridiculous! It's called capitalism and it's
not exploitative. I sometimes agree with you but your wrong this time.
George only likes market forces when they encourage things he likes
anyway...
Well doesn't everyone? That's the purpose of market forces... to
encourage
"things you like".
Amy's characterization of George is hilariously apt. He's posted
endorsing wealth redistribution away from cities. The justification?
They apparently steal from the hinterlands. Somehow.
Poverty today is concentrated in rural areas. Cities have driven the price
of food down, down, down.
In the U.S., places like Compton don't have poverty? Detroit? The Bronx?

I suggest you understand the demography of poverty these days, which you
obviously do not.
Here is an article by the President of the Southern Sociological Society:
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/wim.htm
Read it and stop blessing your own stupidity.
I don't see any reason to open that URL. Even if "poverty today is
concentrated in rural areas," you have to do better than call me stupid
if you want to find a way to blame it on cities.

Yes, there's a lot of poverty in rural areas. And Yes, it is probably
a disproportional amount. But I think there are reasons for it. Some
are directly related to "the city" but some aren't. I'll give you a
few examples that you can use are you would like.

That there's disproportionate poverty in rural areas is well known, and
nobody is denying it, near as I can tell. The point was that George
blames urban areas for failings of rural economies. Many of these
failings go back generations.