Stabilizing the Text:
1.) According to Moberg, the fates of the cities and suburbs are joined financially. The consequences being that if urbanites are doing well, suburbanites will also do well and vice-versa.
2.) Moberg changes his topic from financial inequalities to social inequalities when he first mentions the idea of “social capital”. Moberg explains that financially similar individuals organize and alienate themselves from people of other financial classes. This causes a gaffe in future populations and holds back the lower class. I’m not sure this is a fair argument because the main factor here is still income. Of course people who have similar income are going to live by one another; they probably work at similar jobs and desire similar housing. I’m not sure this translates to social or moral issues and examples of social tension are lacking in this article.
3.) Moberg’s examples of local reform efforts seem to promote socialism as a solution to the problems discussed in his article. Tax base sharing, “fair housing” and welfare reform are the types of solutions Moberg feels will help even the playing field for urbanites. His claims for urban-suburban cooperation are forcing suburban populations to carry the load for urban expenses and education. He specifically claims that Republicans are holding back progress for greater equality between these two populations. The idea that everyone should share the same education and health-care system is not realistic in a capitalist country. Private education and health-care companies will always exist for those who can afford it. If anything, the middle-class would dissolve and there would be a decrease in parity between wealthy and poor.
Mobilizing the Text:
1.) On page 113 Moberg talks about how populations of like-finances pay only for education in their area. This disparity in funding helps higher-income students and hurts lower-income students as far as education standards....