▲ | doctorpangloss 3 days ago | |||||||
While I wholly support density and bike everywhere myself, I don’t know if “people are getting poorer in Seattle” is the win “The Urbanist” thinks it is. | ||||||||
▲ | epistasis 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
I can only guess what you mean here, but if you assume that people who don't own cars are poorer than those with cars, you are wrong and don't understand wealth. Those who move to cities and can live without cars have far higher incomes than median, and because they are not burning the average of $700/month on a car, they accumulate wealth far faster. If I have misunderstood your assumption, please correct me, but the "only poor people don't have cars" fallacy is the only way I can make sense of your comment, and the only people I have heard express it are deeply out of touch with the modern world. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
▲ | smugma a day ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
Median income growth slowing or decreasing does mean things are working well. We don’t want middle class families being shut out of our housing markets and working class folks needing two hour commutes to come support our cities. Every affordable housing project that gets built slows the growth of the area AMI. |