Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Despite an unemployment rate that has reached a 50-year low of 3.7 percent, most jobs across the U.S. don't support a middle-class or better lifestyle, leaving many Americans struggling, according to a new study. Sixty-two percent of jobs fall short of that middle-class standard when factoring in both wages and the cost of living in the metro area where the job is located, according to the study by Third Way, a think tank that advocates center-left ideas.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The Study:Nationwide, just 38% of jobs pay enough to afford a middle or upper class life for a dual income-earning family with children; 32% of jobs pay a living-wage; and 30% pay what we call a "hardship" wage, which is less than what a single adult living on his or her own needs for basic necessities.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Two words: wealth inequality

Here ...

NYT: Hillary Clinton Offers Her Vision of a ‘Fairness Economy' to Close the Income Gap

www.nytimes.com

13 July, 2015

In the most comprehensive policy speech of her presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday presented her vision of a "growth and fairness economy," an economic agenda intended to lift middle-class wages, expand social services, and increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans to combat a widening gap between rich and poor.

Mrs. Clinton said "the defining economic challenge of our time" is raising incomes for the vast majority of Americans whose wages have remained virtually stagnant for 15 years as the costs of housing, college, child care and health care have soared.

"We must raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle-class life," Mrs. Clinton said in a speech at the liberal New School in Greenwich Village in New York. "That will be my mission from the first day I'm president to the last."

The problem has led to widespread frustration; two-thirds of Americans said they thought the distribution of money and wealth in this country should be more even, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in late May.

In her speech, Mrs. Clinton blamed Republicans, pointing to Mr. Walker, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio, specifically, for "trickle down" policies that "give more wealth to those at the top, by cutting their taxes and letting big corporations write their own rules."


I get it, Hillary is not someone anyone wants to have a beer with, but she had the correct policy prescriptions.

Bernie's policy prescriptions were better than Hillary's, but it's still true that Hillary understood the problem.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-10-31 07:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I get it, Hillary is not someone anyone wants to have a beer with, but she had the correct policy prescriptions.
Bernie's policy prescriptions were better than Hillary's, but it's still true that Hillary understood the problem.

POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2018-10-31 07:39 AM | REPLY

Oh puihlease don't give me that crap. Hillary coddled Wall Street at the expense for Main Street for decades. She's dishonest to the nth degree.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-31 07:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr

Presidents come and go every 4/8 yrs. Supreme Court appointments are for life.

But thanks to your dumbass (and others like you), we've got a supreme court who is going to SCREW you (and me) every opportunity they get for decades to come.

Wise up, Laura.

#3 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-10-31 08:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Presidents come and go every 4/8 yrs. Supreme Court appointments are for life.
But thanks to your dumbass (and others like you), we've got a supreme court who is going to SCREW you (and me) every opportunity they get for decades to come.
Wise up, Laura.

POSTED BY ANGRYDAD AT 2018-10-31 08:01 AM | REPLY

I see you don't deny what I said which is par for the course these days.

#4 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-31 08:06 AM | Reply

"I see you don't deny what I said which is par for the course these days."

Why should anyone bother? You won't listen anyway.

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-31 08:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

#3 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-10-31 08:01 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-31 08:17 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

And exactly what did Obama do about the issue? What did Bill Clinton do about the issue? At some point the Democrats have to own their share of the problem.

#6 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-10-31 08:36 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Welcome to the neo-liberalism nirvana that corporate america created.

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2018-10-31 08:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I get it, Hillary is not someone anyone wants to have a beer with, but she had the correct policy prescriptions.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-10-31 07:39 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

The problem with politicians is that they already have an agenda laid out for them and they will tell you anything just to get your vote.

#8 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-10-31 08:38 AM | Reply

www.businessinsider.com

Trump didn't flip Rust Belt voters -- Clinton lost them

But this emerging consensus around a Rust Belt revolt is wrong. People like Edsall have missed the real story: Relative to the 2012 election, Democratic support in the Rust Belt collapsed as a huge number of Democrats stayed home or (to a lesser extent) voted for a third party. Trump did not really flip white working-class voters in the Rust Belt. Mostly, Democrats lost them.

Relative to 2012, Democrats lost 950,000 white voters in the Rust Belt 5 (-13 percent). This figure includes a loss of 770,000 votes cast by white men (-24.2 percent). Compare that number to the modest gains Republicans made in terms of white voters: They picked up only 450,000 whites (+4.9 percent).

Democrats also lost the black, indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) vote in the Rust Belt 5, with 400,000 fewer voters in this category (-11.5 percent). While disaggregated exit-poll data on BIPOC voters was inconsistently available across the five states we examined, in those places where numbers were available, Democrats saw losses among both black American and Latino voters. Importantly, some of the greatest losses in BIPOC votes were in states such as Ohio and Wisconsin, both of which adopted voter suppression laws beginning in 2012. But even in states with no such laws, such as Pennsylvania, BIPOC turnout was significantly lower this election cycle. In short, more people of color stayed home in the Rust Belt in 2016 than in 2012.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-31 08:51 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Four words: Live within your means.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-31 09:27 AM | Reply

This isn't about Hillary.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-31 09:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This isn't about Hillary.

#11 | POSTED BY JPW

You're right, it's about wealth inequality.

I was just providing context to who addresses the problem and who doesn't.

And those who do address the problem almost always don't do it vigorously enough, with Bernie being the exception.

#12 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-10-31 09:51 AM | Reply

That was largely directed at Laura, who I swear gets an ear twitch or sore knee or something whenever her name is posted.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-31 09:55 AM | Reply

H's name, that is. Not Laura.

I don't want to type it out and trigger the itch.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-31 09:56 AM | Reply

--I was just providing context to who addresses the problem and who doesn't.

No, you hijacked the thread to blubber about Clinton. Even spamming your Hedrick Smith video would have been less partisan hackery.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-31 09:58 AM | Reply

H's name, that is. Not Laura.
I don't want to type it out and trigger the itch.

#14 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-10-31 09:56 AM | FLAG:

Ok I'm confused.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-31 10:12 AM | Reply

"Four words: Live within your means."

(Except when your means avails you of the ability to enter America without authorization and earn more money. Then, you are supposed to live far below your means.)

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 11:53 AM | Reply

No, you hijacked the thread to blubber about Clinton. Even spamming your Hedrick Smith video would have been less partisan hackery.

#15 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

No, you're wrong. One post does not qualify as "hijacked" or to "blubber about Clinton".

And you whining about seminal journalist Hedrick Smith and his work on wealth inequality is hilarious ...

Who Stole The American Dream?
youtu.be

How about YOU telling us how America should deal with wealth inequality?

#18 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-10-31 12:46 PM | Reply

Four words: Live within your means.

#10 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Four words: The game is rigged.

#19 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-10-31 12:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How about YOU telling us how America should deal with wealth inequality?

#18 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

Stop obsessing about it.

That's how I think America should deal with wealth inequality.

Focus on poverty and it's root causes. Focus on improving the lives of the impoverished, and that doesn't mean simply funneling "free" money to them.

Focus on a consistently strong economy with plenty of opportunity.

Who gives a crap that some people are extremely wealthy? That's just envy and jealousy and the emotion that these people need to be punished for their success is perverse.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-31 01:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Who gives a crap that some people are extremely wealthy?"

Who gives a crap that some people live in extreme poverty?

Not JeffJ.

"I couldn't care less about how much money people have.
#124 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"
www.drudge.com

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 01:17 PM | Reply

I get it, Hillary is not someone anyone wants to have a beer with, but she had the correct policy prescriptions.
Bernie's policy prescriptions were better than Hillary's, but it's still true that Hillary understood the problem.

POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2018-10-31 07:39 AM | REPLY

spoken like a true Socialist

#22 | Posted by Maverick at 2018-10-31 01:46 PM | Reply

this just in today

•Wages and salaries rose 3.1 percent in the third quarter, the biggest increase in a decade, according to the Labor Department.

Companies continued to hire at a brisk pace in October, with private payrolls rising by a better-than-expected 227,000, according to a report Wednesday from ADP and Moody's Analytics. Up from expected 189,000

#23 | Posted by Maverick at 2018-10-31 01:50 PM | Reply

Ok I'm confused.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-31 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag No ----

#24 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2018-10-31 01:58 PM | Reply

In the second quarter of every year thousands of kids graduate high school.
Many will go on to get jobs that pay a living wage.

There is a problem with stupid adults.

#25 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-31 02:00 PM | Reply

www.ssa.gov

-34 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

-48 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

-59 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

-68 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

Sniper, please don't add this up for us again....

#26 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-10-31 02:31 PM | Reply

There is a problem with stupid adults

You don't see a problem with the fact that vast swaths of our population are unable to get ahead or perform even menial jobs?

You don't see this worth addressing in any way?

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-31 02:35 PM | Reply

"-68 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year."

And still all you economically illiterate right-wingers say the economy is doing great.

You guys must be poor as dirt. And not quite as smart.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 02:47 PM | Reply

Four words: Live within your means.

#10 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Yeah, ya'll peon wage slaves need to know your place and stick to it.... and it ain't on his lawn.

Capitalism is a system that naturally flows money upwards; the rich get richer. And gov, not neoliberal corporations, the GOP, and their poor and dumb as dirt proxy voters are not the ones to create a more level playing ground by law, such as we had prior to the Reagan '80'.

"In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term re-appeared in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted.

It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas.

Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of Mont Pelerin Society economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan.[5][24]"

en.wikipedia.org

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2018-10-31 02:55 PM | Reply

#20 that post makes it crystal clear that you lack a fundamental understanding of the issue.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-31 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Oh does it now?

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-31 03:01 PM | Reply

"And still all you economically illiterate right-wingers say the economy is doing great"

Who you calling a republican?

#32 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-10-31 03:03 PM | Reply

spoken like a true Socialist

#22 | POSTED BY MAVERICK

You don't even know what socialism is ...

#33 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-10-31 03:14 PM | Reply

this just in today

•Wages and salaries rose 3.1 percent in the third quarter, the biggest increase in a decade, according to the Labor Department.

Companies continued to hire at a brisk pace in October, with private payrolls rising by a better-than-expected 227,000, according to a report Wednesday from ADP and Moody's Analytics. Up from expected 189,000

#23 | POSTED BY MAVERICK

Since the 1970s the American economy grew 77% while wages ONLY grew 12%

www.epi.org

So it's okay to redistribute wealth to the top 1%, but wages will stay flat forever?

If you're a millionaire or billionaire, then I can understand why you think this situation is good ... but if you're not, you're advocating AGAINST your own self interest.

#34 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-10-31 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh does it now?

#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

JPW is spot on ...

You don't understand the situation.

#35 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-10-31 03:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You don't see a problem with the fact that vast swaths of our population are unable to get ahead or perform even menial jobs?
You don't see this worth addressing in any way?

#27 | POSTED BY JOE

If you live in an area where an 18 year old high school graduate can do better than you - YOU are the problem.

Something I was taught before graduating. You will shovel it on a farm to make a living if you have to. You will do what is needed to survive. If you have a family, you will do all you can for their benefit. You will break your back trying if you have to.

My parents supported me, not carried me.

We should support our able-bodied fellow man - not carry them.

#36 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-31 03:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

One 10 sheep, one has 100 sheep, one has 1000 sheep, etc.
If half are pregnant and give birth to one, then you have
One has 15 sheep, one has 150 sheep, one has 1500 sheep.

There's no re-distribution to the top.

#37 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-31 03:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Who gives a crap that some people are extremely wealthy?

You have to be blindingly oblivious and intentionally obtuse not to understand the correlation between extreme wealth and extreme poverty. They are Ying and Yang. "Promot(ing) the General welfare" as the US Constitution proscribes should mean that such a society-damaging imbalance be addressed through proactive remedies of the Government (consisting of 'We the People' and those elected to serve our collective interests), not to mention that such great disparity undermines another of its charges to 'insure Domestic tranquility' as well.

When those who's actual individual labor is not producing real GDP while those who use their blood and sweat actually creating it are living shorter lives yet not being compensated commensurately for their continuous decades long increasing productivity. And nearly almost all this additional wealth is going to those same non-productive owners/investors, I believe we've identified the problem.

And it has nothing to do with greed nor envy. It has to do with a complete disproportionality of the ever-increasing economic gains being hoarded by the ownership class along with intentional unfairness of its distribution made easier by this same over-monied class having purchased our elected officials and jurists to serve their selfish interests, just as they acquire more wealth and receive ever-decreasing tax responsibilities at the same time our governments at all levels are starving, trying to serve more and more citizens every single day with fewer per capita resources.

This is why everyone who isn't extremely wealthy should give a crap about those who are and how they've achieved it.

#38 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-10-31 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

The language held in various discussions of this house, is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments to all cases not particularly excepted. "

tenthamendmentcenter.com

#39 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-31 04:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"If half are pregnant and give birth to one, then you have
One has 15 sheep, one has 150 sheep, one has 1500 sheep.
There's no re-distribution to the top.
#37 | POSTED BY PETROUS"

^
You're literally explaining why the Founders favored a massive inheritance tax, and you don't even realize it!

That's just how life goes when you're an economically illiterate right-winger.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"My parents supported me, not carried me."

Which one did Trump's parents do, when they gave him billions in his inheritance?

I bet you can't bring yourself to say Trump got carried.

Or if you can, there's bound to be some reason it was right for Trump to get carried.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 04:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I didn't have Trump's money, either.

Trump got carried - great. His parents could carry him if he fails.

Me, nope. If I failed, all I could do was get back up. Having lived under bridges and slept in parks, it was a part of life.
But, the choices were mine to make. I made them, I paid for them, and so I moved on.

Did I get support from strangers? Yes. Did I accept? Yes. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Swallow your pride.

Was I carried? Briefly, and paid back what I was offered to get on my feet. You work.

#42 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-31 04:20 PM | Reply

If you live in an area where an 18 year old high school graduate can do better than you - YOU are the problem.

I acknowledged that. And i ask whether you will acknowledge that our society, educational system, culture and government has failed the millions who are in that situation, and whether there isn't something - anything - you'd be willing to do to address it.

Other than blaming peiple for being stupid, i mean.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-31 04:22 PM | Reply

"We should support our able-bodied fellow man - not carry them."

"Trump got carried - great. His parents could carry him if he fails."

Do you have dementia???

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 04:23 PM | Reply

Oh puihlease don't give me that crap. Hillary coddled Wall Street at the expense for Main Street for decades. She's dishonest to the nth degree.

#2 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Laura, you are just lying about Clinton to justify helping Trump get elected. You CHOSE not to research Hillary. You CHOSE to vote Third Party.

Facts:
1. Hillary Clinton was a senator for 8 years, 2001 to 2009 during the Bush presidency. NOT decades.
2. NOTHING in her voting record or the bills she introduced suggest she supported Wall Street over Main Street or opposed more regulation.
3. Other than that, she was Secretary of State and First Lady. No power over Wall Street.
4. She gave paid speeches to Wall Street but even supported regulating Wall Street in those speeches.

So when you say Hillary Clinton "coddled Wall Street at the expense for Main Street for decades", no one knows WTF you are talking about.

You helped Republicans stack the Supreme Court with Justices that will always choose Wall Street over Main Street.
You helped Trump erase LGBTQ from Federal recognition.

Your statement proves you drank the Republican/Fox News Koolaid on Clinton. Don't smear Clinton to cover your mistakes.

#45 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-31 04:32 PM | Reply

Is anyone surprised?

#46 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2018-10-31 06:30 PM | Reply

There's no re-distribution to the top.

#37 | POSTED BY PETROUS

America is currently experiencing its SECOND Gilded Age.

The United States is undergoing a second Gilded Age, and it shows the same struggle has defined America for 150 years
www.businessinsider.com

If you take a look at the last 40 years in the United States in the span of the country's history, it becomes clear that it can justifiably be called a "New Gilded Age," strikingly similar to the latter half of the 19th century.

Any questions?

#47 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-10-31 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#39

Seeing as how none of those things have ever been advocated to address the imbalance in wealth distribution accentuated and perpetuated by actual LAWS by those personally benefiting from same, just what was the point of that diatribe other than to deflect from the topic at hand?

#48 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-10-31 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Democrats' Hidden Civil War

"What's happening is that the energy in the Democratic Party now is coming from richer educated white liberals who are most motivated by issues that don't resonate with the ethnic minorities who make up the Democratic base. For example, did you know that in the bellwether House race in which newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated veteran incumbent Joe Crowley, the challenger's strongest precincts were the whiter, wealthier ones, while the incumbent ran strongest in the most heavily minority precincts? It turns out that minority voters tend to care about who can deliver for them on bread-and-butter issues more than making symbolic identity politics statements. Politico reports that this is causing a growing divide within Democratic ranks."

" "Democratic/Independent Liberal Elites":

As a group, DILEs are younger, whiter, richer and better-educated than the rest of the country. Strikingly, it is the only cohort across the political spectrum not to rank jobs and the economy as a top priority, preferring the environment and climate change. Polls show that people like Winston's DILEs are also far less religious and far more socially liberal than the rest of the Democratic Party on issues like abortion and LGBT rights. In evaluating candidates, these Democrats consider diversity, and hailing from outside the political establishment, hugely important.

Except that hailing from outside the establishment isn't much of a selling point to people who actually need things from government, who rely on social services or federally enforced fairness-in-lending laws, or decent government jobs in their districts. For these voters, what matters is relationships, and an ability to deliver. And when they see a Crowley or a Capuano unseated by a fresh new challenger, they see decades of seniority vanishing for largely symbolic reasons.

www.politico.com
www.theamericanconservative.com

#49 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-31 09:47 PM | Reply

Most people I know make decent wages. It's the rent and housing prices killing people. I've had rental properties but I usually went below market rate in order to cut people a break. Most landlords will jack the rent up as high as they can out of sheer greed.

#50 | Posted by byrdman at 2018-11-01 12:15 AM | Reply

Hillary coddled Wall Street at the expense for Main Street for decades. She's dishonest to the nth degree.

#2 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2018-10-31 07:52 AM | FLAG: |PPPFFFTTTTTTTT

As if you had a clue. You think you green party candidate who was trounced by both Trump and Clinton... like it or not Clinton still had more votes that all of her contenders....

You are delusional if you think we can extract politics from business... its a matter of who best represents us to the businesses. I know you hate to face it in wannabe land but Hillary was the best qualified of the field. Sanders and Stein would have only been bleached out versions of Hillary at best.

#51 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2018-11-01 07:07 AM | Reply

Deregulation and tax relief is a way of temporarily propping up a failed system which is destroying our ecology and the possibility of a sustainable economy.

#52 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-11-01 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Once those at the bottom have been shaken down for all they've got, those doing the shaking will be moving up the ladder - hell, they've already started. The sanctimonious ------ who think they are above it all are gonna be in for a rude awakening when it happens to them. And it will, unless something changes.

#53 | Posted by HeeHaw at 2018-11-01 12:51 PM | Reply

Four words: Live within your means.

#10 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Four words: The game is rigged.

#19 | Posted by PinchALoaf

When Humpy shows us his tax returns and shows that he lived within HIS MEANS I will consider that a reasonable and proper thing to try and do.

The best leaders lead by example.

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-01 02:56 PM | Reply

#45 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Yeah, don't expect any NEWSWORTHY flags for that diatribe.

#55 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 03:31 PM | Reply

Most landlords will jack the rent up as high as they can out of sheer greed.
#50 | POSTED BY BYRDMAN

That's what's happening in CA and we get to vote on rent control because of it. I'm vacillating between Yes or No as I don't enjoy government telling people what to do with their own property, but it's difficult to ascribe to the notion that "If someone buys a building with people in it, that person has every right to do what they want with it."

That's the stark, hard-nosed libertarian stance that I just can't swallow. That level of non-regulation can reek havoc on communities, especially communities of color. Trump knows all about this and it's partially why I most likely will be voting for rent control.

If anyone is interested, just look up how the AirBandB situation in San Diego has almost eliminated the possibility for middle income earners to buy a home. Too many out of state buyers willing to fork over cash for houses they will then rent out for AirBandB. Sellers will take that setup over typical mortgage process any day of the week.

#56 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 03:39 PM | Reply

"Most landlords will jack the rent up as high as they can out of sheer greed."

Thanks, Capitalism!

Maybe one of you right-wing economic geniuses can tell me the virtues of rent seeking behavior while we're at it...

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-01 03:41 PM | Reply

The article focuses on the biggest problem areas and they are the large cities with very high cost of living, or cities very desirable for wealthy home buyers. San Diego, for example as Rsty mentioned.

#58 | Posted by eberly at 2018-11-01 03:44 PM | Reply

--If anyone is interested, just look up how the AirBandB situation in San Diego has almost eliminated the possibility for middle income earners to buy a home.

Don't even get me started on the #$%^&ing AirB&B. It's not just homes, but rentals as well being taken off the market.

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-01 03:44 PM | Reply

SNOOFY -

An explanation for "Vote No on Proposition 10" in California:

Economists tend to "frown" on rent control, mostly because it can limit supply, and it discourages property owners from maintaining units.
The same Stanford researchers who found that rent control helped minorities from being displaced in San Francisco also determined that rent control actually contributed to gentrification. How? When landlords remove their rent-controlled units from the rental market -- which tightens the overall supply -- they typically convert the units to for-sale homes that "cater to higher-income individuals."
la.curbed.com

#60 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 03:45 PM | Reply

It's not just homes, but rentals as well being taken off the market.
#59 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

True!!

#61 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 03:47 PM | Reply

Most people I know make decent wages. It's the rent and housing prices killing people. I've had rental properties but I usually went below market rate in order to cut people a break. Most landlords will jack the rent up as high as they can out of sheer greed.

#50 | Posted by byrdman

I'm sure a real estate con artist will help us fix it.

When we elected an oil man, we got an oil war and record oil prices.

When we elected a real estate con artist....

#62 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-11-01 03:51 PM | Reply

It's not just homes, but rentals as well being taken off the market.
#59 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

True!!

which, as I'm sure you both agree, has nothing to do with who is president. Air B&B is a marketplace for folks who want to rent homes..San Diego is an awesome place for this 12 months a year.

It's the internet as much as anything that's caused this......

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2018-11-01 04:00 PM | Reply

Sixty-two percent of jobs fall short of that middle-class standard when factoring in both wages and the cost of living in the metro area where the job is located

One word: move.

#64 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-11-01 04:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#63 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Agree on all points. I brought up Trump because of his history in dealing with rentals unfairly, in no way was he the cause of this situation. Initially it was the Super Bowl 29 in 1995 that got San Diego on the map (millions of people across the world saw how nice San Diego is in late January), but then the internet came along to finish writing the story.

#65 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 04:05 PM | Reply

One word: move.
#64 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Two words: many can't.

#66 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 04:06 PM | Reply

The number of homeless in San Diego is around 10,000.

The number of vacant housing units in San Diego is around 50,000.

Thanks, Capitalism!

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-01 04:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One word: move.
#64 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

(Offer not valid south of the Rio Grande.)

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-01 04:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Many can't?

If people can cross Mexico to the US, people can move between the States.

#69 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-11-01 04:34 PM | Reply

Are you autistic? Moving takes money. Do you know what money is?

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-01 04:40 PM | Reply

Work will set you free!

-Capitalists

#71 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-01 04:48 PM | Reply

If people can cross Mexico to the US, people can move between the States.
#69 | POSTED BY PETROUS

Tell that to the poor in NOLA killed by Katrina.

#72 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 04:56 PM | Reply

Sixty-two percent of jobs fall short of that middle-class standard when factoring in both wages and the cost of living in the metro area where the job is located

One word: move.

#64 | Posted by MUSTANG

To where there aren't jobs?

You want to support more people on unemployment or welfare?

#73 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-11-01 05:36 PM | Reply

When we switched from a "production" economy to a "service" economy, WTF do you expect? Remember, it started with nafta under clinton.

#74 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-01 05:58 PM | Reply

" Remember, it started with nafta under clinton." - #74 | Posted by 43 PLONKS! at 2018-11-01 05:58 PM

NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush on December 17, 1992.

It was ratified by Congress with the votes of 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats in the House, and 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats in the Senate.

snippy: the standard by which all other imbeciles are judged

#75 | Posted by Hans at 2018-11-01 06:13 PM | Reply

Sniper thinks that NAFTA was so we could trade services easier... Not goods. Services.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-01 06:27 PM | Reply

GHW Bush may have negotiated NAFTA but it was placed in motion and signed off but none other than Bill Clinton.

#77 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-01 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"GHW Bush may have negotiated NAFTA ..." - #77 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-01 07:44 PM

And he signed it on December 17, 1992.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress passed it November 17 and 20, 1993 (House and Senate, respectively).

Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993.

It is disingenuous to lay NAFTA at the feet of either Republicans or Democrats.

They were both involved.

#78 | Posted by Hans at 2018-11-01 07:49 PM | Reply

Way back then, I voted for Perot.

I also agreed with Pat Buchanan, who said on the three big trade deals NAFTA, GATT, WIPO the parties are the same.

Agreeing with Pat Buchanan was the dawn of my realization that my political views simply aren't on the table in American politics.

So the evolutionary, not revolutionary thing to do was vote for the major party that at least hits some of the notes I wanted to hear.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-01 07:55 PM | Reply

They were both involved.

#78 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2018-11-01 07:49 PM | FLAG:

Precisely, it's disingenuous to lay the blame on Bush when Clinton got in the clown car. We agree

#80 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-01 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They were both involved.

^
"There were good people on both sides."

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-01 08:07 PM | Reply

"Way back then, I voted for Perot"

You know what I remembered most about Perot?

Larry King Live about NAFTA:

Perot: "What you have here Larry, is a giant sucking sound"

#82 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-01 08:08 PM | Reply

People misunderstand me most often. I'm all about investing in America. Some folks think because I want to invest in education more so than frivolous wars abroad I'm some kind of lunatic. Not true. The way I see it, we could have offered higher education to the masses (affordable to them or not) for a much less expensive price tag than the endless wars in the Middle East. Smarter people thrive. Think about the MIC price tag for just a minute. Then, think about how smart, educated people spend their resources. If there was a way that we could get people to get together to work for a common good, rather than fight one another for a "team advantage ". Imagine what we could accomplish? Yet we point fingers and accuse everyone else of being the tree in the middle of the road. I'm over and out. Night.

#83 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-01 08:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Precisely, it's disingenuous to lay the blame on Bush when Clinton got in the clown car. We agree"

That's nonsense. Bush was in control of the intelligence which he fed to Congress as he saw fit, and he lied. Congress went along because they believe his lies, if they had defied him and then found out he wasn't lying they would have been despised. Hillary and most of the rest of the Dems finally did see through the lies but not soon enough to prevent the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some of us realized it was Saudi Arabia all along but no one listened to Bob Graham.

#84 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-02 06:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Realize too, and more importantly, no one wants to listen to Bob and the rest of us even today. Most people prefer to go with the MSM and the acceptable view even though it is wrong and, deep down, they know it is wrong. It is better than being called a traitor and all that crap that goes along with telling the truth.

#85 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-02 06:49 AM | Reply

@#84 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-02 06:46 AM
You could not have provided a better example of the quality of your discussion here.
The conversation isn't about #43 or Sec Clinton.
FFS

#86 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-11-02 07:43 AM | Reply

"Precisely, it's disingenuous to lay the blame on Bush when Clinton got in the clown car. We agree"
That's nonsense. Bush was in control of the intelligence which he fed to Congress as he saw fit, and he lied. Congress went along because they believe his lies, if they had defied him and then found out he wasn't lying they would have been despised. Hillary and most of the rest of the Dems finally did see through the lies but not soon enough to prevent the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some of us realized it was Saudi Arabia all along but no one listened to Bob Graham.

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-11-02 06:46 AM | REPLY

They are talking about NAFTA Dear NOT Iraq.

#87 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-11-02 08:45 AM | Reply

It is disingenuous to lay NAFTA at the feet of either Republicans or Democrats.
They were both involved.

#78 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2018-11-01 07:49 PM | REPLY

both were involved in fair trade agreements but far from equally.

NAFTA House vote:

Republican 132 yes 43 no (75% FOR)
Democrat 102 yes 156 no (60% against)

CAFTA house vote

Republican 202 yes 27 no (88% FOR)
Democrat 15 yes 187 no (92% against)

#88 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-02 10:44 AM | Reply

In this way a few can live in opulence for generations. We are descending into a medieval economic system.If this trend continues a second dark ages will follow.

#89 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-11-02 10:48 AM | Reply

They are talking about NAFTA Dear NOT Iraq.

#87 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2018-11-02 08:45 AM | REPLY

Thank you Laura

#90 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-02 12:16 PM | Reply

It is disingenuous to lay NAFTA at the feet of either Republicans or Democrats.
They were both involved.

#78 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2018-11-01 07:49 PM | REPLY |

I was responding to this

#91 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-02 12:45 PM | Reply

"I was responding to this" - #91 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-02 12:45 PM

10-4... and thanks, hatter5183.

#92 | Posted by Hans at 2018-11-02 12:52 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort