What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands



G

George Conklin

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> george conklin wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> [email protected] 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.
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]

....
>> >>> "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.

> 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.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]

> ...
> >> >>> "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.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eek:[email protected]
>>>>>> "John Mara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>>> 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-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.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.
 
F

Free Lunch

Guest
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit
Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>George Conklin wrote:
>> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eek:[email protected]
>>>>>>> "John Mara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>>>> 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-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.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?


George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can.

>> 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.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> Joe the Aroma wrote:
> >>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]
> >>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message
> >>>> news:[email protected]
> >>>>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:eek:[email protected]
> >>>>>> "John Mara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:[email protected]
> >>>>>>> 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-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.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.


Naturally. You bask in ignorance and stupidity.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Free Lunch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit
> Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
> >George Conklin wrote:
> >> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >>> Joe the Aroma wrote:
> >>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in

message
> >>>> news:[email protected]
> >>>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:[email protected]
> >>>>>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:eek:[email protected]
> >>>>>>> "John Mara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:[email protected]
> >>>>>>>> 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-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.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?
>
> George has hobbyhorses, he rides them wherever he can.
>


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

>
 
S

Scott M. Kozel

Guest
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> 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.
 
F

Free Lunch

Guest
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:45:56 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>
>"Free Lunch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit
>> Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>> >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.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> george conklin wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] 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
"******!"
 
P

Pat

Guest
On May 28, 11:18 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> Joe the Aroma wrote:
> >>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]
> >>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]
> >>>>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:eek:[email protected]
> >>>>>> "John Mara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:[email protected]
> >>>>>>> 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-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.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.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Free Lunch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:45:56 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
> >
> >"Free Lunch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit
> >> Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> <[email protected]>:
> >> >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.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> 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.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On May 28, 11:18 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > George Conklin wrote:
> > > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]
> > >> Joe the Aroma wrote:
> > >>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in

message
> > >>>news:[email protected]
> > >>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:[email protected]
> > >>>>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>>>>news:eek:[email protected]
> > >>>>>> "John Mara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>news:[email protected]
> > >>>>>>> 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-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.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.
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> george conklin wrote:
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]
> >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>> [email protected] 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
> "******!"


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.
 
F

Free Lunch

Guest
On Mon, 28 May 2007 16:20:05 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>
>"Free Lunch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:45:56 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit
>> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>> >
>> >"Free Lunch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]
>> >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:18:36 -0400, in misc.transport.urban-transit
>> >> Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> <[email protected]>:
>> >> >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?
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> >
>> > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]

>> ...
>> >> >>> "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
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
....
>> 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...
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]ink.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.
 
B

Bolwerk

Guest
Pat wrote:
> On May 28, 11:18 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> Joe the Aroma wrote:
>>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>> "Anymouse" <none> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:eek:[email protected]
>>>>>>>> "John Mara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>>>>> 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-pedaling-rides,0,2759553.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.