Wealth gap creating a social time bomb

First, if you drop something in your first comment, more can find your seed.

Second, I really like this seed and wish more would find it.  One of the arguments I have been having lately is directly related to this general idea.  I am rural right now, but we are having to consider movign closer to an urban setting to find work.  Don't want to do it with so many other issues plagueing the urban setting.

This article rings true to me. The disparity is growing, and, as happened in Rome, the mob could become a serious threat to society.

Gotta love the UN - that place has more crooks and scammers per square foot than any other place on Earth. They are EXPERTS on lying with statistics.

"In western New York state nearly 40% of the black, Hispanic and mixed-race households earned less than $15,000 compared with 15% of white households."

As you move away from urban centers, it is my experience that in the USA, the numbers of blacks declines as a percentage of population. So if you take that fact and apply it to the statement in the UN "report" - then this is how it lies.

Let's say that in rural XYZ county in upstate NY you have 50,000 whites and only 5,000 blacks. If you said that 20% of the people in XYZ county make less than $15K an year, then that would be 10K whites and 1K blacks. In that statistic, there is straight across comparability. If actual research indicated that only 500 blacks made less than $15k a year - then per-capita, the blacsk would be doing TWICE as well as the whites.

However - if you say that in XYZ county, 10% of blacks but only 5% of whites make less than 15K, that would be 500 blacks and 2500 whites - then FIVE TIMES the number of whites are doing badly than blacks. Play with the numbers and you can make them say pretty much anything you want.

I believe it was Samuel Clemmons (Mark Twain) who said, "There are three kinds of liars. There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians."

Completely left out of the above "results" are the cultural histories, resultant historical trends, and differences in the various cities. For example - Japan is arguably the most racist country/people in the world. They not only discriminate against non-Japanese, but they discriminate against Japanese who have worked in other countries as if they were non-Japanese. Peking in China is listed as the most "egalitarian" city in the world - leaving out the fact that there is essentially no equality there except all but the ruling elite are pretty much peasants. When everyone's poor - everyone is equal, but does any aspire to poverty outside of a religious cloister? (Things have been changing since the government allowed the beginnings of the emergence of a middle class - which I find highly amusing and interesting since China has never HAD a middle class and won't know what to do with it. ;-) )

And I LOVE the phrase "could lead to increased mortality" It's so SCARY!!! But in the real world you have a constant 100% mortality due to the fact that everything living will someday die. So the statement just tossed in there like that is meaningless. Even if they said "mortality rates' it would be stupid because, as I just stated, there is a constant 100% mortality rate also.

This "report" tells you nothing meaningful about anything. UN "reports" are pretty much worthless. Reports from all other sources should be examined for biases and the "results" viewed accordingly.

There's no doubt that the energy crisis worldwide will lead to massive influx of people to mega cities. This will constitute a massive demographic shift, even if there are many "small towns and villages" within the megacity or statistical metropolitan area in U.S.

Once gasoline reaches $4.00 - $5.00 per gallon - and stays there ... there will be an enormous shift into cities and towns. Here, in rural SW New Mexico, the land area would surely dwarf the New York-Newark, NJ, area of habitation by thousands of square miles. Yet, the area's population of say, 220,000 (if that), will become more urbanized. Right now, there are three separate areas associated with Silver City, NM, which have nodes of population who prefer more rural to less. Most if not 98% of those folks work in Silver City, but do not live here. As such, they commute. Two areas represent approximately 25-30 mile commutes, one way. There are needs for many of those commuters to own trucks, sometimes 4-wd trucks, sometimes 4-wd diesel trucks.

Ranches do exist that are remote enough that their owners and inhabitants live miles off the best "county maintained road." Those folks rarely come to town more than once a week, but even then, with gasoline and diesel increasing in prices travel patterns will definitely change. Those who work here will have to decide when to jettison trucks, or SUVs that get appalling mileage. At some point, they will simply have to move closer to town, or, rent apartments and go home on the weekends. 50-60 mile round trips, six times a week (shopping, religious practices, social gatherings) will not be affordable.

The demographic changes will lead to a better tax base, in many cases, for cities, towns and villages. There finally will be a revitalization of city school systems. And police, fire, legal, judicial services, as well as water, sewage, electricity networks, will have to be expanded, to service more clients. However, if these infrastructure systems are already nearly complete for existing populations, then we will probably see an increase in population density.

Gentrification of neighborhoods will drive the poor-er farther out -- but they will likely still be i the cities, towns, villages. There will be a shift to node cities, as well. And, mass transit funding will begin to increase, as more voters simply will demand more mass transit to handle increased populations. Light rail and "interurban" rail will return. So will monorails. And higher speed trains for longer distances.

The movement of the poor farther away from city centers, will mean they have to absorb more cost for transportation, if cities fail to institute more mass transit. If one looks at many bus stops in many cities, it will be clear that whoever has established the bus systems in the U.S., often simply don't give a @!$%# about those who ride ... the shelters for inclement weather are often missing for such transit lines. But, when the middle and upper income people begin to take mass transit, then boy oh, boy, will you see nicer bus shelters built based on loud cries and demands. Again: the poorer people will be edged out of core city neighborhoods. And houses may flood the market as people simply give up individual houses for coops, condos, etc.

In the end, of course the poor will be shunted aside again.

If there is a positive side, it will be improved services for those who live in cities, towns and villages, and, so will education. But somewhere out there, on the fringes of most population centers, will be growing slums. A reverse of what we have today. I'd look at Science Fiction as most predictive, for such social changes. "Bladerunner," for instance, seems bleak to me. So does "The Matrix," and frankly, many science fiction takes on demographics. "Soylent Green" doesn't look too appetizing, nor does say, "Children of Men," and many more. The deterioration of cities and towns will occur if they fail to stay up with the demographics. I sure as hell don't see a lot of really wonderful scenarios in sci-fi films so far as how our living will be someday soon.

The poor, you see, will "always be with you." Ignore them, and hell yes, look at those crowds of angry citizens, in some of those films. Of COURSE there will be more threat of urban violence which is based on urban ills. Everyone should keep this in mind. And if a Katrina natural disaster strikes, trust me, there will be a very ugly side to those who survive, as they scramble in a highly digitized, highly electrified society that loses it's power source overnight, and continues to be "down" for days, weeks, months. Or, perhaps a catastrophic break down due, say, to a massive tsunami hitting our coastal cities; a massive and very destructive hurricane year; earthquakes that are masssive in scale; floods or fires (as in Australia). This are real scenarios that could easily precipitate an urban revolt.