NYC worse than Brazzaville!

[Travis]

From this Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/22/un-cities-mega-regions) on a UN world cities report (http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2562):

The US emerged as one of the most unequal societies with cities like New York, Chicago and Washington less equal than places like Brazzaville in Congo-Brazzaville, Managua in Nicaragua and Davao City in the Phillippines.


Why do I get the feeling that it should be pointed out that not all inequality is equal? US cities have mega-billionaires and compared to them someone who makes $70,000 a year is dirt poor but in actuality that person making 70k can live very well compared to almost everyone in Brazzaville.

Or did their metric take that into account? Some careful reading of the actual report might be necessary.

[lionking]

The Guardian is a rag.

I would like to see anyone, anywhere profess to a desire to live in equality in Brazzaville rather than inequality in NYC.

[Beerina]

So Congo is better because everybody is in grinding poverty? But maybe that's the point. Even if you accept "inequality" as a valid social measure, which I do not (try actual measurements of the quality of life for a novel scientific basis) it has its problems.

[Ron_Tomkins]

In that respect, yes. New York is very "unequal". I certainly hate it walking down an expensive neighborhood such as the Upper West Side, near Lincoln Center and seeing people in clear poverty and misery, only to later see a millionaire couple coming out of a building with a bunch of groceries and shopping bags. It makes me feel very weird.

[shuize]

Socialism: "Let's all be poor together."

[Travis]

I think the big problem is just failing to recognize that while equality where everyone is impoverished is not good equality where everyone is doing pretty good is.

[Slayhamlet]

I think the big problem is just failing to recognize that while equality where everyone is impoverished is not good equality where everyone is doing pretty good is.

Did you even read the article?

"Latin American, Asian and African cities were generally more equal, but mainly because they were uniformly poor, with a high level of slums and little sanitation. Some of the most the most egalitarian cities were found to be Dhaka and Chittagong in Bangladesh."

This whole thread is silly. You've taken one sentence and made it out to be the main thrust of the article, but completely ignored the rest of it. Why?

[lionking]

Did you even read the article?

"Latin American, Asian and African cities were generally more equal, but mainly because they were uniformly poor, with a high level of slums and little sanitation. Some of the most the most egalitarian cities were found to be Dhaka and Chittagong in Bangladesh."

This whole thread is silly. You've taken one sentence and made it out to be the main thrust of the article, but completely ignored the rest of it. Why?
The problem is the article's use of the word "egalitarian" is ridiculous.

[Travis]

Did you even read the article?

"Latin American, Asian and African cities were generally more equal, but mainly because they were uniformly poor, with a high level of slums and little sanitation. Some of the most the most egalitarian cities were found to be Dhaka and Chittagong in Bangladesh."

This whole thread is silly. You've taken one sentence and made it out to be the main thrust of the article, but completely ignored the rest of it. Why?

Well, the rest of the article is about megacities. Do you want to discuss that?

The sentence I highlighted annoyed me in that it seemed to be implying that "equality" was always good and that, by that measure, New York was a worse city than Brazzaville.