Supreme Ruler of the Kent Universe:

"Cities are a dying abortion of failed public policy over 10,000 years and people have been fleeing from cities as long for the idyllic fields and pastures of real human environments such as the Kent Highlands. Places like this with a population density of ten Hobbits to the farthing do not need the support and infrastructure of the failed cities. Cities suck and they should all secede from Seattle because it sucks having conservative voters being suppressed from any effectiveness just because they are outnumbered like 20 to 1.

Good Morning Charles,
I'm gonna slightly disagree with your last statement and tweak it. One actually is better being poor in the USA than in Kenya. That's pretty accurate.

However, it is fair that one in Kenya is better off being poor in Nairobi than in rural Kenya. In America, I am not so sure being poor in an urban area is better than being poor in a rural area. Although, it is arguable that being poor in Seattle might be better than being poor in Detroit. There are necessary qualifiers to your last sentence.

@4,

I agree to a certain extent, but, if you're homeless, you're far better off in the city because the city actually has services to help the homeless; although it's never enough.

However, being poor in the countryside absolutely can be better than being poor in the city, depending on the circumstance. A poor farmer or shepherd in Kenya could very well be better off by virtue of having meaningful work, not living next to open sewers, and not being a likely victim of the rampant crime in many third world cities.

While we are resolving the relative merits of poverty some where else, why not tell us where it's at being poor here in the US. I have been poor in both cities and in the country, and it sucks in any circumstance. Being poor in an urban area can be dangerous, and there is little relief from the grit and grime of the infrastructure. But, if you can bathe and wear clean clothes, there are the free spaces, the library, museums, etc. Not so in the rural area. But in addition to the same social services available in the city, because of the recognition factor, people are more likely to help keep one fed and clothed in the country. Housing is harder to find. There is less to do - hence the roaring drug problem in the country side. People go to the city to get away from the smallness of life in the country and to take advantage of their talents and intellect. Meet more people and become a bigger and better person. People flee the city because they can't take the unfriendliness of it all even in 'friendly' cities, like Seattle (used to be). There is the degraded environment one encounters every day in the city, along with the noise, air and water pollution. And the continuous possibility of violence. I do not think you can say one is better than the other. It is a matter of values. Fortunately for both the city and the country, people are constantly migrating between the two.