Necessity of the Rich

“Don’t Hate Them Because They’re Rich” is New York Magazine article title by Daniel Gross pleading that the non-rich see the importance of the super wealthy in our lives. (
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/11721/) Written in 2005, the article applies more aptly today than ever.

Gross points out how greatly the population of the wealthy has greatly increased in New York; there are no longer only recognizable wealthy names like Rockefeller because it appears than nearly everyone living in Manhattan these days has attained a similar amount of wealth. It had become nearly absurd for anyone of middle class to live in the city, with apartment prices soaring, as well as the daily cost of living.

Gross does not want us to blame the rich; he wants us instead to be grateful for their help in sustaining the economy. Without them, there would be no need for service jobs which employ so many people. Without the rich, there would be no need for chauffeurs, nannies, dry cleaners, restaurant workers and the like. Some of the people who hold these jobs in New York City are making six-figures a year, simply because of status of those they work for.

All of this money then goes back into the economy, and sustains it. Today, with the millionaires on Wall Street losing their jobs, service workers are being laid and no one is spending as much money as they had been. Thus, the economy is struggling and “regular” people cannot find jobs. So, I guess we need the rich afterall…?

Skid Row

Skid Rows are a natural element of a city. They are generally places for lower class, transient single men, possibly disenfranchised. The areas generally were not as strongly policed. This definition of a skid row makes it appear as if it is entirely harmless, which in many cities may be the case. It also appears to be a place where people live possibly when they are first starting out, beginning new jobs, and it is temporary because they plan on settling down in the near future, in a nicer community. All of this could very well be true in many places.

On Los Angeles’s San Julian Street, this is anything but the case. An article by Steve Lopez for an October 2005 issue of the LA Times chronicles the homeless of LA’s skid row (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez16oct16,1,2845629.column?page=1). The people he writes of are far worse off than “disenfranchised.” They are heroin addicts, crack heads, and prostitutes. The area may not be strongly policed, but paramedics are constantly there, rushing these homeless to the hospital.

I suggest reading this article for a view on how some homeless people are living. Hopefully things have gotten better since 2005, yet it is likely that the plight of the homeless has not improved in any city, just effectively hidden from view of the masses.

A Good Job?

After reading and researching the many different theories behind urban planning, I decided that Jane Jacobs’ theory of cities developing on their own for the good of the people is the most sensible and rational plan. Throughout my studies of urban sociology it seems that every time someone tries to improve upon a city by developing it, the outcome is always less beneficial to the people inhabiting the cities than it was meant to be. Haven’t people gotten the point yet? Let the cities be.

I was very surprised to find out that according to US News & World Report, “Urban Regional Planner” was voted one of the best jobs of 2009 ( http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/best-careers/2008/12/11/best-careers-2009-urban-regional-planner.html ). In an article by Marty Nemko from December of 2008, the career is highly praised and made to sound much more important than I believe it to be. It goes through “A Day in the Life of a Planner” plus a few different types of planners and their average salary range. People also made comments praising the career choice, or wishing they had opted for this career. I still wonder if it is at all necessary.