|
|
|
|
|
|
by danielrm26
3222 days ago
|
|
|
You're describing small pockets of wealth that are scattered all over, surrounded by poverty. Look at the surface area and the percentages of the population. That's what the article is about. It's pretty clear that it's hard to live on even 100K as a family in the Bay Area, and if you look at the median incomes for most of the cities around the Bay Area they're nowhere near that. I don't see how you counter that by naming off a few more rich microclimates. -- Also, I wrote the article, and I'm born and raised here. I didn't drive down a street and come up with this. I've been here for four decades, watching it change, and this is what I'm seeing. Sorry you didn't like it. :) |
|
|
"The more I pay attention in the Bay Area the more I’m noticing that it’s a place of absolute poverty."
"Much of the East Bay is extremely poor."
You really need to quantify absolute poverty and extremely poor. Without some numbers to back it up the article comes off as out of touch.
Also with you living in San Francisco when you write all these things about large areas of the Bay Area as being extremely poor the article feels a little like you are looking down your nose at the "rest of the people". Sorry but that's what it comes across as.