Warwick and Rogers' question
 |
| click them to enlarge images |
Warwick and Rogers' discussion question 2 is:
- Why might poverty be a greater issue in the suburbs?
You have 9:00 minutes to write your answer in the comment box below.
I suggest you spend 2:00 minutes to plan your answer. (Planning is usually a good idea.) That will leave you another 6:00 minutes to write your response to the question, stating and explaining your ideas, perhaps with relevant examples. The remaining minute can be used to edit your writing before you click the blue "Publish" button.
A helpful strategy
Imagine you are writing for someone who has not seen the question you are answering. Your job is to clearly communicate your response to that reader. Because your writing should make sense independently of the question it might be answering, it is usually helpful to give background, which can often be done by paraphrasing the question into statements that begin your answer.
Remember: sentences in paragraphs
This is response writing. You want to communicate your ideas fluently as if you were speaking for a few minutes to someone actively listening. However, that person can't stop you to ask questions or clarify, so it's important to state your ideas in complete sentences organized into paragraphs.
____________________________________
References
- Warwick, L. & Rogers, L. (2018). Skillful 4: Reading & Writing, Student's Book Pack (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education
Maybe limitations on job positions that are available in the suburbs might cause the higher level of poverty in that area. I mean suburbs are residential areas where it is difficult to find a high paid job comparing to that available in the cities. For example, in Thailand, if people want to get a high paid job, they have to move to work and stay in Bangkok, as there are many big business companies, both of Thai and foreign companies, settle down their offices.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that people tend to seek better job opportunities in big cities and urban areas might be a more interesting option for settling down a business. However, I'm still curious that why the number of jobs within a comfortable commute decreased in those areas.
DeleteI like the way that Emma compares the US statistics with the more familiar situation of Bangkok and Thailand. It's a useful approach, one I had not thought of, and Emma develops it enough to show how the local situation supports her own explanation for the difference in the US statistics.
DeleteI agree with Emma that suburb areas tend to be catered for housing and even farming. Therefore, it's is less possible to find a well-paid job or better job opportunities compare to cities. Emma using the idea of Bangkok to apply to her respond is a nice idea to elaborate a clearer picture for us.
DeleteI agree that most of major companies which pay high salary are located in cities. However, average cost of living in suburbs is higher than in cities. if we look at the infographic, we will see that the percentage of poor population in cities has risen too. I would like to ask you that is it worth to live in a city where give you higher salary, but you have to pay higher cost of living?
DeleteAccording to the statistics for the period 2000 to 2011, the number of people living in poverty in the US increased by 30% in urban areas, which is already a worrying issue, but far more worrying is that in suburban areas the poverty rate for the same period saw an increase of 65%, more than double the increase for cities.
ReplyDeleteWhy might poverty have become a more serious issue in American suburbs than in cities? It can't be Donald Trump's fault, because these negative changes to US society occurred before Trump's election in 2016. In fact, it was such declines in relative wealth that led so many, especially in suburban and rural areas, to vote for Trump in 2016.
My guess (only a guess) is that the decline in jobs within a comfortable commute in the same period reflects a more general decline in jobs in the both areas, and since that decline in jobs is greatest in the suburbs, double the drop in cities, the resulting poverty rate will also tend to be most pronounced in the suburbs. This of course leads to the question of why jobs have disappeared from the suburbs: Did they move to the city, or just disappear?
But I'm out of time!
According to your comment, certain people voted for Trump because they believed that Trump will help them to escape from poverty, leading to a question. Does this kind of issue happen in others countries?
DeleteI also have the last two questions in my mind, after reading the infographic.
After reading your comment, I cannot tell you that I agree or disagree with you since I do not know very much about the background of America. Therefore, I would like take this opportunity to ask you about the current president of America, Joe Biden. Do you think that he can or cannot solve the poverty issue in American suburbs?
DeleteNurse, I like the thoughtful questions you ask. As usual, such questions push us to think a bit more, and that's a good thing.
DeleteI think that Trump's policies were reckless and could only worsen the situation for suburban and also rural poverty: that is what tariffs tend to do, at least in the long term, by protecting inefficiency in production. That inefficiency must eventually be paid for, and in the case of businesses closing in suburbs, it puts people out of work, thereby increasing poverty.
I think Biden could do much to help, but I'm not sure that he will. Over the last few years, I've increasingly come to like the idea of a universal basic income (UBI), which the US could certainly implement, but since it sounds socialist, it might be hard to get it past the conservative obsession with rejecting anything that might be socialist, however good the people and the nation.
After publishing my comment replying to Nurse, I remembered an essay in The New York Times yesterday: "What the Rich Don’t Want to Admit About the Poor", which discusses the causes of poverty in the US and also advocates the UBI option as a solution.
DeleteA comparison of U.S. suburbs and cities shows that the percent growth of poor population in suburbs is 65 percent which is 35 percent higher than in cities. There are two factors that poverty might be a greater problems in the suburbs. First of all, the cost of living in suburbs are cheaper than the cities' cost of living. As a consequence, most of the suburbs population are poor due to the lower price effort. Moreover, most of big business are in cities, and big business give the employers more wages and stability compared to local business. As a result, the local company that most suburbs' people work do not give them much wages and stability.
ReplyDeleteYour comment gives me clear differences between working places in cities and suburbs. I see your point that people might prefer working for huge or international companies more than a local business due to better salary and stability. However, monthly expense outside of cities tends to be more affordable, do you think it might be a good incentive to work in suburbs.
DeleteI had not thought of anything like Aom's idea relating the cost of living to increased poverty, but as she explains it, it makes sense. And following that, because they are already in a more precarious financial position, any disruptions to the economy, such as a credit crunch or lockdowns due to Covid, would likely have a larger impact on the less well off. (I know Covid came after the period covered by the statistics, but it still seems a useful example here.)
DeleteBefore I learned about the statistic in the infographic, I had formed my perceptions about the people who live in the suburbs that they are rich because of Hollywood Movies. I've never been in the country, but in some of the movies uses houses in the suburb areas as the location where high income people live. In the movies, they are educated people living in a big beautiful and comfort houses. So when I look at the statistic of percentage growth in poor population in the U.S. suburb areas, I can't think of how poor they were. In contrast, developing countries such as Thailand might be a better example to discuss inequality in distribution of income between the suburb areas and the cities.
DeleteAnother point that I would like to make here is that the behaviour of Thai people is different from those in the U.S., because, according to personal experience, Thai high income class prefers to buy big houses in the suburb areas in order to escape from the polluted environment and the busy life in Bangkok, but they buy expensive condominium to rent to foreigners who can afford the luxury. In contrast, I've seen that Thai low income class and Thai labor class needs to live their home town in the suburb and rural areas and needs to live in the slum areas in Bangkok in order to get jobs that can provide enough money to support their life.
DeleteI don't think that people in the U.S. have faced the problem of income distribution like the people in Thailand.
DeleteEmma, I agree with you that the US do not faced the income distribution issue. Since the higher-incomes pay a big amount of taxes. On the other hand, the lower-incomes do not pay as much taxes as the higher-incomes. Apart from that, they still get a similar quality of life, and the lower-incomes do not have to live in the slums like Thailand.
DeleteThe given info graphic illustrates the percent growth in poor population of the US from 2000 - 2011 which are 65% in suburbs and 30% in cities. Poverty issue might be more serious in the suburbs compare to the cities. People who live in the suburbs have very limited resources and opportunities.
ReplyDeleteCities are center of the country where investment and development are located. This links to job opportunity for people who live in cities. People who live in the suburbs area need to move to town or encounter with unemployment issue.
I agree with you that cities are the center of everything that makes the suburbs populations move to cities to find a various of opportunities. But I just wonder that in the given infographic depicts that the number of jobs in both of suburbs and cities had decreased. So is moving to cities will really solve the unemployment problem?
DeleteAccording to the infographic, it's obvious that the low-income population in suburbs rocketed more than 50% in a decade. This issue is likely to be a catastrophic problem but the number of residents grew but there was no job for them, leading to a question that how they run away the poverty without a good job. Moreover, the cost of living was not that affordable.
ReplyDeleteI partly agree with the statement.Residents are influenced by people in the community. It's true that strong community relationship enrich the atmosphere. However, I think that facilities and infrastructures also have a main role in community improvment. Both of them ehnace inhabitant's quality of life in many aspects such as healther,and more comfromtable. Last but not least safer. Women travel by her self all day and night.
ReplyDelete