Being poor does not cause dysfunctional behavior. There’s lots of Eastern European countries much poorer than NYC and SF that have a fraction of the dysfunctional behavior you see on public transit in NYC or SF.
> Being poor does not cause dysfunctional behavior.
"Being poor" isn't an activity, it's a lack of life resources, and that can certainly be a contributing factor. Analogously, lack of exercise doesn't "cause" heart attacks, but it's widely accepted as being a contributing factor. Sure, some individuals live to be 100 years old with no more exercise than lifting their forks. But that doesn't alter the general case.
Even if poverty contributed to disorderly behavior, you would expect to see more such behavior in poorer places, and you generally don’t. NYC’s bottom quantile income is $27,000 or below. That’s significantly higher than the median (purchasing power adjusted) income in Thailand. Bangkok public transit is incredibly nice compared to NYC. Nobody jumping turnstiles, no graffiti, nobody talking loudly in train cars, no homeless people or aggressive drug users in train cars, etc.
Public disorder is primarily a sociological and cultural problem, not an economic one.
Purchasing power adjustment doesn't take into account cost of housing sufficiently. Those poor countries you compare NYC to have vastly cheaper housing. Also poverty is not just about absolute measures. Inequality is also a huge factor. When everyone's poor property crime is somewhat lower than what you'd expect it to be. Another thing is that those poor countries have societies and infrastructure adapted to the poor. NYC would even ensure that some infrastructure is hostile to the poor.
NYC has vastly bigger safety net and subsidies for housing than a place like Bangkok.
Countries like Thailand also have very high inequality—many city dwellers have family living in literal villages. And even if inequality was higher in NYC—doesn’t that prove it’s a moral and cultural issue rather than an economic one?
