Social Apartheid Continues 2005-6
by Lewis Loflin
"The Best Cities to Earn and Save Money," ING Investments in 2001 ranked the Bristol community tops as a retirement community, near the bottom in education and jobs.
ING Investments for some reason dropped its investment rankings about 2002, so that data is about five years old. But the Kingsport Times-News in November 8, 2005 announces, Tri-Cities ranks 77th nationwide as best place to live out of rankings for 331 metro regions. This is according to the 2005 Sperling's Best Places list. See www.bestplaces.net. The Tri-Cities is referred to as the Johnson-City-Kingsport-Bristol, Tenn.-VA.
But ING defined 125 metro areas while Sperling defined 331. They show Tri-Cities ranked first in Tennessee beating out No. 103 Knoxville, No. 205 Nashville, No. 210 Chattanooga, and No. 304 Jackson. But the fact is Tennessee as a state on the national level ranks very low in education, income, etc. According to Sperling, "Health care ranked very high...a reasonable cost of living, pleasant climate, less traffic congestion and relatively low crime rates." This is all very true and ING ranked the region as one of the best retirement communities in 2001. But when I contacted Sperling and asked why they didn't figure in economic issues, they replied, "We can't track everything." Go to their website and one word stands out, "retirement."
And while local politicians applaud the rankings, a closer look reveals some troubling information. Tennessee ranked far below Virginia in general, and Tri-Cities ranks far below most of Virginia: Charlottesville, Va. - home to the University of Virginia - ranked No. 1; No. 7 Atlanta; No. 8 Asheville; No. 11 Roanoke; No. 13 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, N.C.; No. 15 Lynchburg; No. 55 Richmond-Petersburg, Va.; and oddly No. 81 Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, N.C., a booming region was ranked lower. Asheville is a two hour drive from Bristol ranks No. 8, while nearby is No. 172 Wilmington, N.C. and No. 254 Hickory-Morganton, N.C.
- Bristol VA-TN Welfare State in 2004
- Bristol Virginia Social Apartheid Continues 2005-6
- Town Halls and Other Controversy 2009
- Debating Issues in Bristol VA-TN in 2010
- Social Apartheid in Tri-Cities Bristol Virginia 2011
- Advantages of Social Apartheid in Bristol
- New 2018:
- 'Go Virginia' Scam More of the Same Government Waste 2018
- Bristol Herald Courier Now a Victim?
- Hal Lindsey Makes a Fool of Christians
But according to Jeff Fleming, assistant Kingsport city manager for development, "We typically score well in climate, cost of living, heath care and transportation. We lag in education attainment, arts and culture, and economy, but when you look at the big picture, we look very attractive from the outside." But form the inside is another matter.
While Sperling cares little for working class issues and more for retirement, they do reveal some terrible trends. The national per capita income is $21,658, but only $13,472 or almost 38% below the national average for Bristol, Virginia, while the cost of living is only 16% below the national average. National household income is $44,958, but for Bristol, Tennessee is $33,380 or 26% below the national average, while the cost of living is only 10% below the national average. For Bristol, Virginia household income is 32% below the national average. Jeff Fleming might be right, we look good from the outside. For years they have used our lower cost of living to justify low wage scales. Mexico has a very low cost of living too.
A Look at the Last Ten Years
- Why Your College Degree is Worthless
- Social Apartheid in Tri-Cities Bristol Virginia-Tennessee 2011
- Debating Issues in Bristol VA/TN in 2010
- Town Halls and Other Controversy 2009
- Southwest Virginia News July 2008
- The advantages of social apartheid 2006
- Social Apartheid Continues 2005-6
- Welfare State in 2004: Residents Speak Out
- Economic and Social Reality 2001
- Self-Sufficiency Standard in the Bristol, VA/TN
- Sullivan County Tennessee Exposed
- Immigration, Liberal Racism, Schools, the Left, and Muslims
My electronics website:
- Updated September 2017:
- Web Master
- Bristol, Southwest Virginia Revealed
- Science & Technology
- 2017 Website Updates & Deletions
- Hobby Electronics
- US Constitution
- Christianity 101
- Religious Themes
- Guestbook Archive
» Archive 1 » Archive 2 » Archive 3
» Archive 4 » Archive 5 » Archive 6
» Archive 7 » Archive 8 » Archive 9
- Jesus the Man
- Apostle Paul Founder of Christianity
- Why we should know John Calvin
- Egyptian-Christian Connection
- Judaism Meets Zoroastrianism
- Judaism Meets Hellenism and the Logos
- Pelagius Why He Was Right
- Saint Augustine Introduction
- Saint Augustine His Christian World View by Lewis Loflin
New for December 2017:
- Geiger Counter Adventures in Bristol
- Climate Change and Volcanoes
- Technology is Why the Jobs are Not Coming Back
- Off-the-Shelf Technology for Space Exploration
What is Fake News?
Allcott and Gentzkow define "fake news" to be "news articles that are intentionally and verifiably false, and could mislead readers." They attempt to exclude disreputable media practices and bias from the definition. 62 percent of US adults get news on social media, while 65% distrust the mainstream media and that concerns me. Print media influence in the 2016 election was down to 8%.
I define "fake news" as articles designed to create false, biased, narratives with partial facts filtered through a Progressive filter, censor pertinent facts by omission, block discussion through editorial censorship, that is ideologically slanted, and designed not to give facts, but stoke emotion and sway public opinion. This skirts the fringes of propaganda and yellow journalism.
Ref. Journal of Economic Perspectives Volume 31, Number 2 Spring 2017 Pages 211-236, Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election by Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow
Sources of 2016 Election News:
Social Media: 13.8%
Gallup polls reveal a continuing decline of "trust and confidence" in the mass media "when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly."
Trust in Mainstream media: Democrats 52%, Republicans ~18%, overall ~35%. 65% of the public doesn't trust the mainstream media. 62 percent of US adults get news on social media.