I live in the mahoning valley and work in trumbull county. I have a disability lost side vision to glacoma, but still have to survive,  house bill cut transportation for those who can not drive and wrta bus, will not go to trumbull county, soon will be out of work and evicted from my apartment if I can not get a job due to lack of transportation,  been turned down for jobs because I do not drive

You are a prime example of why we NEED good reliable public transit. There's no excuse. I'm really sorry to hear about your problem. I think everyone on this site should be flooding certain people's inboxes with nasty e-mails and threats of bad publicity.

Until the government, both state and federal, gets a clue, you might have to move to a city with better transit to be able live a productive life. Might I suggest Cleveland or Pittsburgh?

 

This discussion might fit better in an existing thread. Might I suggest:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=11534.0

somolianohio.... you may want to get in touch with the Eastgate Council of Governments in Youngstown to see if they have any transportation assistance programs.  I don't know for sure that they do, but they are the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Mahoning Valley region and they may be able to steer you in the right direction for help.

 

Would you be willing to talk to a reporter about your situation?  The Youngstown Vindicator is one of the local newspapers and bringing some publicity to your situation might not only help you but help others as well. 

How America's transportation system discriminates against the most vulnerable. http://t.co/hqOB1RxseU

The Left has a responsibility to pick up this issue and run with it.  It should be framed as a problem for business and commerce.  For example, low wage health care workers have great difficulty getting to their jobs, and these jobs simply cannot wait for them.  Employers find themselves out of compliance when workers can't get there, and are forced to spend wads of cash on overtime and agency help.  Public transport is a cheaper, more efficient way to solve the problem.  It doesn't just benefit the workers, it benefits the business owners to a larger degree.

Our exclusionary transportation and land-use policies are keeping Ohioans from reaching their American dreams...

 

Carless in Cleveland: More borrow a car or find a ride to work than take public transportation

By Alison Grant, The Plain Dealer

on October 24, 2014 at 12:45 PM, updated October 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Almost 37,000 workers in Greater Cleveland live in households with no car. And yet a surprising share of those workers – 44 percent – still get to the job by car, either by carpooling or borrowing a vehicle.

 

That's more than the share of workers in carless households who take public transit – 34 percent.

 

The findings are part of an analysis released this morning that says cars still define most commutes, even as more Americans are relying on public transit, walking or bicycling to get to work.

 

One of the study's authors, Brookings Institute researcher Adie Tomer, said the continued rate of driving to work by zero-vehicle employees is "a good barometer of transportation choice availability."

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/10/carless_but_getting_to_work_by.html

My coworkers that rely on that transportation arrangement typically get let go, or marginalized. They either can't show up reliably, or don't have the opportunity to fill more shifts, and so they still cannot afford a car despite the wages being quite good. Many of them end up picking up second jobs that pay much less, but they're able to make it to that job more reliably (usually nights shifts).

I'll admit that it was lame when I had to drive co-workers around when I had blue-collar jobs. It was a tax on my time and I felt punished for owning a vehicle.

This article is pretty thin regarding solutions.  I wish Grant had explored what infrastructure, in terms of agencies, planners and plans, that we have, or need to have, in place to move toward fixing this problem.  In particular, this:

 

"The researchers found that nearly all zero-vehicle households are in neighborhoods with transit service, but that the transit routes connect them to only 40 percent of jobs within 90 minutes."

 

I've seen roughly these numbers thrown out before... Now, what are the practical steps to addressing this problem?

^Stop sprawl...

 

50 years ago.

^It's here and well entrenched; 50+ years in the making.  The question is: what to do, now?

^It's here and well entrenched; 50+ years in the making.  The question is: what to do, now?

 

The only sustainable solution is to replace policies that promote sprawl with ones that promote development in existing urbanized areas. Attempting to "retrofit" existing auto-dependent areas into walkable neighborhoods, or extend our transit networks to serve them, will be nearly impossible outside of a handful of cases.

Job sprawl + slow/infrequent transit = poverty. Answer? Inverse: return jobs to cities, invest in hi-quality transit. http://t.co/pozotOhShP

People who really want to work, will move to where the jobs are.  Just like in the old days.

People who really want to work, will move to where the jobs are.  Just like in the old days.

 

With what money?

The money they'll have in the future after they've moved and....oh wait.

If you can move in a non-hillbilly way for less than $1000 hat's off, even in-town. And hillbilly resources certainly aren't available just anyone.

With a car that either doesn't exist or doesn't run, juggling 2,3,4,+ kids, day care, school, being somewhere near the ex who has visiting rights, somewhere near family who helps out raising the kids, etc. Pretty tough to do on $16,000 per year.

 

Oh, and try being working-class white, dressed in the best you can afford at $16K, in a crappy car, and drive through an exurban area without being pulled over by the police. Now try it in blackface and a wig and see what happens. It's why many inner-city folks are scared to death of the suburbs.

 

Might as well be a moat around the city. Few are brave enough to venture so far...

In Ohio really beat-up cars are normal since we don't have safety inspection. Did you know that in West Virgina your car will fail inspection for having a wrong-colored body panel? Cars are expensive there because you can't sell them if they won't pass inspection.

You're all correct.  Better to stay where you are making nothing, than move somewhere for only $16,000.00 per year.  Don't even consider working 2 or 3 jobs. Let the government support you and your kids.

 

Why bother.

^Oh give me a break. Calm your obnoxious rhetoric down.

 

How, please do tell me, does one raise enough money to move when only making $16,000? How do you save enough money to do anything? How does someone raise children while working 2 or 3 jobs? Stop acting as though these people are lazy and maybe then you'll realize that the situation many are in isn't one that is escapable.

^^Uh oh, sounds like someone believes general assistance welfare is still a thing. Us "job creators" know that's not true. So how many hours does someone have to work a week in order to get food assistance?

^ Certainly, not everyone has the same capabilities.  Not everyone I was refering to has children to raise. I never said anyone was lazy.  There are plenty of people without any responsibilities who aren't moving.

Certainly, it would be hard for some.

 

Name calling is not very respectful.

Who called you a name? I called your rhetoric obnoxious. Unless you define yourself by the way you speak, that wasn't name calling.

 

It doesn't matter who you are, at $16k, you're not going to be saving up any money, regardless of how hard you try. One unfortunate event a year could set you back several years of savings. How exactly is anyone supposed to figure out how to get out of that situation? It's not possible for millions of people. Especially when there aren't anywhere near enough well paying jobs.

All I said:

 

People who really want to work, will move to where the jobs are.  Just like in the old days.

 

Maybe I should have added some people. We weren't into specifics, we weren't discussing income amounts; we weren't discussing how much someone would need to make it; we weren't discussing whether or not there might be a setback in a years time.  It is a statement.  I'm sorry you took it to be obnoxious.

Um, that's NOT what you said. What you said was, "You're all correct.  Better to stay where you are making nothing, than move somewhere for only $16,000.00 per year.  Don't even consider working 2 or 3 jobs. Let the government support you and your kids. Why bother" which is very much an obnoxious, sarcastic comment. And one that touches on all the things you just claimed you weren't talking about.

 

And it is obnoxious to just assume that people, regardless of situation, can up and move their lives to "where the jobs are." Very few people have zero responsibilities and can just up and move their lives without major consequences, and when you're not making a lot of money, have kids, etc. that's not really a possibility.

Um, that's NOT what you said. What you said was, "You're all correct.  Better to stay where you are making nothing, than move somewhere for only $16,000.00 per year.  Don't even consider working 2 or 3 jobs. Let the government support you and your kids. Why bother" which is very much an obnoxious, sarcastic comment. And one that touches on all the things you just claimed you weren't talking about.

 

And it is obnoxious to just assume that people, regardless of situation, can up and move their lives to "where the jobs are." Very few people have zero responsibilities and can just up and move their lives without major consequences, and when you're not making a lot of money, have kids, etc. that's not really a possibility.

 

Yes, you are correct.  My response was to those of you who chose to discuss specifics, when none had been presented at the beginning.  It is also obnoxious to assume that everyone who has no job also has a lot of responsibility, major consequences to moving, and blaming it all on sprawl.  That is what was presented.

 

 

 

Except it isn't "obnoxious" because it's true. People's lives, with or without a job, exist in a location and moving them requires money. If someone is without a job, what makes you think they have the money stashed away to move? Which might mean breaking a lease, selling a house that could be underwater, moving a family, etc. The majority of people have ties to where they've set up their lives. You can attempt to cycle back on what you said and make it out to be that you were just responding to others, but my "assumptions" weren't obnoxious, nor were they assumptions.

Everything you just said, is only a possibility.  It is also a possibility, that someone has none of the hinderences you mention.

 

What do you want the answer to be?  More government support?  How do I answer you? Stay where they are then.  Don't try to better themselves.  What can I say?

 

There are plenty of people who will do just that.  Pick up and go.  I know of them, both 40 years ago and recently.  They were probably in a better position then the people you are referring to.

I never said it's "not a possibility" that someone can just up and move, but the fact of the matter is that most people in financially troubling positions DO have something tying them to a location, whether that supports your rhetoric or not. It's not just a guess or a possibility. There are endless statistics describing the quantitative aspects of households in poverty. They support what I'm saying, not what you're saying. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it's the truth.

 

What makes you so sure people aren't actively trying to better themselves who are on government support? It's not an either/or situation.

 

The answer is governmental policy creation that doesn't favor the wealthy and heavily subsidize sprawl. Sprawl politics has lead to an unfavorable situation for the inner-city poor that is exceptionally difficult to escape. Upward mobility in the United States is significantly lower than in our peer countries. That's also a statistic based evaluation that supports what I'm talking about.

 

Another solution, one that's much harder/impossible, is to somehow convince the poor that these politicians aren't on their side. Somewhere along the line the states who need the most help were convinced by politicians that government help is bad and that politicians calling an end/cut to it are those they should support. That's how you wind up with states like Mississippi being exceptionally poor with essentially no upward mobility yet the poor support politicians who favor reductions in social welfare programs. It's an issue countrywide and we need to figure out how to end it. And it starts with people like you who aren't in a position of poverty understanding that it isn't just as simple as "I'll up and move" to fix.

Since you like statistics so much, here's a case of people leaving families to come to where the work is.  I would imagine its not as uncommon as you think.  People like me? Nice, as if you know anything about me.

 

Revealed: How immigrants in America are sending $120 BILLION to their struggling families back home

By Simon Tomlinson

 

Migrants working in the United States sent a staggering $120 billion back to their families last year, it was revealed today.

 

The amount of money being sent by migrants across the entire world reached $530 billion last year, making it a larger economy than Iran or Argentina, the data from the World Bank showed.

 

 

This worldwide figure has tripled in the last ten years and is now three times bigger than the total aid budgets given by countries around the world. It has sparked debate whether this so-called remittance money could be a viable alternative to relying on help from other governments.

 

In the United States last year, more than $120 billion was sent by workers to families abroad - making it the largest sender of remittances in the world. More than $23 billion went to Mexico, $13.45 billion to China, $10.84 billion to India and $10 billion to the Philippines, among other recipients.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271455/Revealed-How-immigrants-America-sending-120-BILLION-struggling-families-home.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do know things about you. The things you've shared in these forums. You've revealed quite a bit through various posts. You aren't anonymous.

 

Your post literally says nothing at all about the topic at hand. Grasp at straws all you want, but the stats about Americans living in American poverty don't support your rhetoric. And that's too bad if you don't like it.

 

Also, remember, anything you reveal online stays there. The whole "as if you know anything about me" comment doesn't work when you let strangers know details of your personal life beyond your online profile.

^Wow

Except it isn't "obnoxious" because it's true. People's lives, with or without a job, exist in a location and moving them requires money. If someone is without a job, what makes you think they have the money stashed away to move? Which might mean breaking a lease, selling a house that could be underwater, moving a family, etc. The majority of people have ties to where they've set up their lives. You can attempt to cycle back on what you said and make it out to be that you were just responding to others, but my "assumptions" weren't obnoxious, nor were they assumptions.

 

There are a lot of people that "up and move" (to the states) with little or nothing.  My mother is one of them.  She and her sister left PR because they didn't want to be married off trophy wives. They didn't know anyone, they just knew they could "fit in".

Thank you MTS.

Except I never said, "there are no examples." Again, up and moving when you aren't married, don't have kids, etc. is not what I'm talking about. The vast majority of people living in poverty in the US aren't in that position. And statistics support this. Apply anecdotal evidence all you want if you want to delude yourself further, that's your prerogative, but your sarcastic rhetoric is still obnoxious.

You need to learn how to have a discussion.  I presented you with facts, something you've not done.  Many people without work have no obligations. 

Oh give me a break. "Learn how to have a discussion." Right. I'm calling out your BS and zero facts on the ACTUAL topic. Presenting literally one article about an entirely different topic, immigrants sending money back home, is not "presenting facts" about upward mobility in the United States. Which is exactly what your comment was about that prompted me to respond. Maybe it's you that needs to understand how to continue talking about the topic you originally commented on instead of trying to bait and switch. Or maybe you don't even realize those are two very different topics. Either way, you're not presenting anything proving your point.

 

Want some facts on poverty in america?

 

http://talkpoverty.org/basics/

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php

http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/12/files/2013/07/0723_mobilitymap.gif

 

Use those how you feel and I could continue all day posting stats that discuss the quantitative aspects of people in poverty. The size of the households in poverty, the average incomes, where they live, etc., the access to jobs in those places, etc. Because it's all out there. and much has been presented in these boards. And none of it supports what you're saying.

 

Learn to understand the difference between the words, "majority" and "everyone." At no point did I say there are ZERO people out of work without obligations.

Your stats address the poverty rate.  Says nothing  about whether or not they could move to where the work is.  In your first example, it says that 4.6 million adults never married are in poverty.  Let's start with them.  Thank you for proving my point.  I will continue to pray for all of these people.

Okay bud. Do whatever you want. Believe whatever you want. Pretend that people living in poverty have the means to move. Despite, you know, living in poverty. Don't even address the tiny percentage of people living in poverty who successfully move beyond poverty. Disregard the fact that not being married doesn't say a single thing about household size, children, etc. Disregard the fact that those people only make up 10% of the population in poverty and, even if those people also never formed any other responsibilities, proves my point that the majority DO have connections to where they live. Pretend you're a good person who will "pray" for them after you just insulted them all which prompted my response to them by making them out to be lazy fools who just need to realize they can "up and move" to where the "jobs" are (which is BS considering the amount of well paying jobs for people who have never had the means to get an education is abysmal). Go right on ahead. There's no point in bothering with people who can't possibly be bothered to figure out if the point of view that has been fed to them has any backing in reality.

You know, you never really addressed the problem.  What is your alternative?  How did I insult people?  If you can't move as you say, because of your obligations, then what does one do?  What choices do they have?  If they are about to lose their homes, or face eviction, and have starving children, then what should they do in your mind?  Make some suggestions instead of worrying about my praying.  Before I let my children starve, I would go anywhere I could make a little money to send home.  Do you even know any poor people?

If you knew poor people you'd know the public assistance rules.

Yes, I know poor people. They're my neighbors. I like to know the people that live across the street, next door, etc. I like to know how the ladies that work at Kroger in OTR trying to raise families are doing. I like to know how the family that lives across 15th from me who is often outside on the sidewalk is doing. I like to know how the guys living in the transitional home at 15th and Republic who hang out outside are doing. I care about these people's well being even though it has no direct effect on my life.

 

And I did offer some solutions. Go back and read.

 

You insulted people with your sarcastic comment about their lives. Again, go back and read.

 

You can make the claims all you want about moving to ensure your family's survival, but if you literally have nothing, how exactly do you go about that? Think about rent. Almost every single place requires first month's rent and a security deposit in order to even think about signing a lease. How do you do that with no savings? Unless you think being homeless in a new place is okay. But that makes getting a job almost impossible without proof of residence. Many families in poverty only have one adult as head of household. That means you can't just leave your kids with the other adult while you go find work elsewhere to send money back. You have to bring them with you. Moving costs a lot of money even if you take very little with you. And, again, why are you acting as though there are endless well-paying jobs available in this country for the uneducated? There aren't. That's why this has become such a huge problem. As a service based country we rely heavily on low wage service jobs. And unless that changes we're going to have millions working at jobs that require 8+ hours of work a day only to make $16k. Maybe just work two jobs like you suggest. Well then they're left with only 8 hours per day to sleep, raise a family, do errands, etc. all in order to only make $32k which, unless you're an individual, is going to get you nowhere. Especially since most of these service industry jobs come with zero benefits.

 

There's a reason poverty is referred to as a cycle. It's incredibly difficult to escape. Some people do. Most don't.

"Black Transit Users in Mpls Spend 160 More Hours/yr Commuting Than White Drivers" http://t.co/L6x09cEBFv http://t.co/VTSKTitqZf

CityLab ‏@CityLab  2m2 minutes ago

"Without really good public transportation, it's very difficult to deal with inequality" http://trib.al/Cn5lMiv  via @TheAtlantic

Commuting time has emerged as the single strongest factor in the odds of escaping poverty: Harvard Study http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/upshot/transportation-emerges-as-crucial-to-escaping-poverty.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1&referrer= … via @nytimes

A recent @StarTribune story looks at spatial mismatch bt where jobs are locating and where people who need jobs live in the Twin Cities--a familiar conundrum in NEO.

 

http://www.startribune.com/amazon-transportation-general-mills-shakopee-chanhassen-as-low-wage-jobs-shift-to-twin-cities-suburbs-some-companies-offer-their-own-shuttles/453904253/