Quote (Black XistenZ @ Feb 9 2019 03:31pm)
bigger cities will always have some poor and some rich areas. but the percentage of a city's area/population that's deprived and in decay is just very high in cities in northern england/scotland/northern ireland. similarly, many parts of greater london are in social decline, just look at the soaring number of knife and acid attacks.
----------
about the british cities except for london being quite deprived:
http://www.nsi.bg/sites/default/files/files/pressreleases/ECP_GDP-Regional_2016_en.pdflook at this table listing the
GDP per capita (using purchasing power parity) in various EU regions in 2016, look at the last column (EU average = 100):
UK average: 108
London overall: 188
Inner London west: 611 (roflmao!!)
Inner London east: 167
Outer London east & north east: 77 (sic!)
Outer London south: 95
Outer London west & north west: 135
West Midlands (Birmingham): 86
Greater Manchester: 92
Merseyside (Liverpool): 81Northumberland and Tyne & Wear (Newcastle): 82
These numbers are very poor for regions which contain a large urban agglomeration, since this statistic skews in favor of cities at the expense of the surrounding rural areas. The authors acklowledge this right at the start:
For an example of this phenomenom, the German city of Bremen, which is widely known as one of the poorest and worst-governed cities in West Germany, is reaching a score of 155 in this statistic because it's city borders are very narrow. Even the poorest German region, largely rural and deindustrialized Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in former East Germany, is reaching 84.
Hamburg reaches a score of 200. Stockholm is at 173, Vienna at 153, Paris at 175. Dublin is at 212. (sic!)
So the poor numbers of region which are dominated in terms of population and economy by large cities, like the Manchester/Liverpool/Birmingham/Newcastle, are really quite astounding.
tldr: Manchester and Liverpool are at a score of 92 and 81, respectively, while Dublin and Hamburg are at 217 and 200. The deprived regions of London are at a shocking 77.
so to sum it up, the official EU statistics back up every claim I made in previous posts.
There is a rebuttal of the interpretations of this study here (albeit for a previous year):
https://fullfact.org/economy/does-uk-have-poorest-regions-northern-europe/Specifically, the error in your interpretation is the equation of GDP per capita to 'depravity':
Quote
GDP measures the size of economies, in this case regional economies, but not all of the income produced is claimed by people in those regions. For example, people that live overseas can make investments in London, and then claim income from them.
That means that GDP per person measures the wealth of regions, and Eurostat says it does not “measure the income ultimately available to private households of a region” - i.e. how "rich" or "poor" they are .
In addition, the extremely high prices and population in London would skew national price levels and subsequently GDP in other regions, for example Manchester or Liverpool:
Quote
Also, when producing the figures, Eurostat adjusts GDP for price differences between countries, so you can compare the economic activity of different regions, regardless of their price levels. But this amount is set at a national level, so doesn’t account for the fact that price levels in some regions may differ from other regions within the same country (London is a much more expensive place to live than the rest of the UK, for instance).
So some regions with price levels lower than the national average may appear poorer than they actually are, and vice-versa.
There is also the splitting of cities like London to highlight the rich and poorer areas in contrast to cities like Dublin or Hamburg which aren't, as well as other 'regions':
Quote
For example, London is split into five sub regions. That means that you can see the wealth difference between the richest bit of London, (Inner London – West), and the poorest bit of London (Outer London – East and North East).
But not all cities are split like this. For example, at this regional level, the largest region is the Ile-de-France with 12 million people. This includes Paris, its suburbs and surrounding areas. The GDP of this region isn’t split down further. So we can’t know whether, for example, the outskirts of Paris are poorer or richer than the outskirts of London.
Here is the actual graphic of the study's results:
The only places that are consistently green (well above average) are Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Other areas include South East England, Northern Italy and the metropolitan areas of Paris and Madrid.
tldr; the eurostat study is not applicable to the point you were trying to make. What it does show is that the UK is a highly unequal class society, which is absolutely true.