That's not accurate.

[edit] I know I should link studies and such but even on the face of it you can see inaccuracy; where are people more impoverished: rural Alabama, or San Francisco? There are larger populations of homeless in cities, but you can get a roof over your head for less money outside. That said, why would it be easier to be poor in a city?

> why would it be easier to be poor in a city?

Well, I would assume there's some correlation between population density and having a difficult job market. More people == more competition, and under those conditions the types of jobs that wouldn't require extensive experience/skill/training are naturally gonna be a rare commodity.

So of course poverty is gonna be a function of joblessness, but there is also a certain frustration that goes along with the difficulty of finding a job specifically, that seems like it would correlate to crime more neatly than the actual impoverished conditions themselves as well.

This is all pure speculation of course. Actual studies on the matter would be much more interesting.

for one reason mobility is much easier in larger cities. you are usually able to be around without a car, albeit at the cost of time/convenience, or with a car using less gas than if you're commuting from the suburbs.

also housing, while nicer housing in city centers tends to be very expensive, cheap high density housing is nearly non existent outside of it.

You don't really need the high density part, though. Let's take a small mill town I know as an example. The mill closed in 2000, and left half the town unemployed. Many of the people living there are still without full time jobs. They live in houses; how can they do that?

They either bought a house years earlier or it's because rent for an entire house is about $340 a month. Multiple people live in the house, so that cost is split. They can live there legally and without resorting to squatting.