Feb
23
Blog Post #4
February 23, 2015 | Leave a Comment
I really liked the interactive subway map, and spent quite some time on all the lines to compare the incomes. I generally expected the results – higher incomes in the more affluent areas of NY, such as the UES/UWS, Wall Street, etc; and lower median incomes in the Bronx and Brooklyn. There were a few places that surprised me, though. I didn’t expect the income for Astor Place ($139,236) as well as Canal Street ($135,573)* on the 6 line to be so high. The abrupt change from Mets-Willets Point ($100,000) to Main Street-Flushing ($39,861) also shocked me, since I didn’t think the median income at Mets-Willets would be so high. Seeing these facts makes me reconsider what I originally thought about the wealth of different areas in NY. Other than those points, I wasn’t that surprised with what I saw. It’s interesting to think how we could be sitting next to someone with a $100,000+ income or $20,000 income on the subway and not even realize it.
*The Canal Street stations at different lines also have high incomes ($100,000+), but I only focused on the one on the 6 line as an example.
“Even in the predawn hours, the train crowds with people, showing how confident today’s New Yorkers are that they won’t become crime victims.” I’m not so sure if the train crowds with people solely because theyre “confident” that they won’t become murder victims, but possibly because they have no other choice than to take the train.
“If you’re one of the MTA’s poorer riders, it’s a good thing you might find yourself standing next to a wealthier straphanger. It’s a sign that rich riders still have a stake in keeping up the system.” As I read that, I realized how true that was. After looking at the interactive subway map and seeing how many stations had large incomes, that reassures me that the rich probably still have a reason to improve the subway system.
“…it doesn’t harm him or her to sunbathe alongside a rich person in the park. Both have a stake in keeping the park in good shape.” I just hope that the less wealthy won’t take advantage of the wealthy’s generosity in the sense that they will continue to visit Central Park and enjoy other public events but don’t strive to learn more and become wealthy themselves, and simply rely on the wealthy to provide for them.
“Raising taxes even higher to pay for this future spending not only will squeeze middle-class residents; it will also motivate wealthy New Yorkers to start shielding their income from taxes…” It seems as if there are no good solutions to income inequality. If the wealthy are taxed extremely heavily, they might stop contributing to the city’s recreational activities; but if they aren’t taxed much at all, then the income gap can’t decrease.
The article mentions how the rich help fund the public libraries and several examples are given where people utilized the free resource, but I still wonder if enough people use such resources. As cynical as this may seem, I still feel like many people don’t take advantage of the libraries.
The second article about how the rich help New Yorkers is definitely a change of pace from what we’ve read so far. So far it was mainly discussing how the income gap was extremely large and is a problem that needs to be fixed. In the midst of all those depressing statistics, we might have forgotten how the income gap could be beneficial, and this article provides he information to put the wealthy in a better light than just the fact that they’re only earning more while the middle class and poor lag behind. Finishing this article made me appreciate the income gap a bit. If it weren’t for the large disparity and the extremely wealthy in this city, the subways could still be extremely dangerous.
One question that I have is how the more equal communities contribute to the city, if they do at all? If they are more equal, you would think the wealthier people would be less inclined to donate their earnings towards the city’s public acitivities. This makes me wonder if it’s better to be in a more equal city but less funding towards public things, or living in places with high disparities if it means the transportation, education, etc would be improved.
-Margaret Wang
