patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

Cities are the centers of civilization.

They might be the center, but that's just it. They're the center. But that means the mass is around that center.

As an example, there are probably more jobs available in the East Bay than San Francisco.

I'm not sure where the Victorville stuff comes from. No one said to go there.

I'm pointing out that there are plenty of poor people and drug addicts everywhere, not just in San Fran Freako or Long Island City.

There are plenty of them in the suburbs and in the rural areas. In fact, there may be more. It's easy to point to the grafitti covered building with hobos loitering outside. It's neither easy nor legal to spy on Mrs. White and discover she pops alot of oxycontin and has several after-dinner martinis each and every day.

Furthermore, there are plenty of desperate, underwater homeowners in the suburbs who have been laid off for more than a year, they can't even pick up a part time job at Best Buy as they are 'overqualified', and they have a mountain of monthly payments from student loans to mortgages.

When the economy crashes and jobs are scarce, people don't run to the hills, they run to the cities.

The reason suburban pops are picking up is because junior is moving back w/ mom and dad. Or mom and dad are moving back with junior. One more job loss, and they'll do want unemployed people in the hinterland have done for centuries - go to the city.

So do I. If Obama sells out this country, I'm perfectly happy to let it go.

我的中文越来越好。。。

Stupid well-paid public sector jobs, who needs 'em. Race to the bottom for all.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USGOVT

Stupid government-controlled insurance market-place. Everyone knows the free market will give us more affordability.

Let it go. Let the conservative have this place.

It's too early to celebrate shrek. Obama as said that if he does not get his tax increases, he is going to let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire. Lucky for him, he does not need a single Republican vote to raise taxes since by law taxes go up on 1/1/13.

What's missing from the story is why they're moving: They can't afford the housing in those urban areas. Even in the East Bay city I live in the prices are too high for average people. We make above average incomes and it would be a stretch for us. For years the biggest gainers have been 2nd tier cities like Austin, Raleigh, and other primarily Southeastern cities. Mostly because they all have housing in the under 200k range.

As far as the snootiness you get in major cities- whether you live in the "core" or in the burbs, you definitely get a whiff of this here. People in SV think that the East Bay might as well be Mars. People in SF seldom if ever leave or cross the bridge. Usually there's this commentary made- as in how AWFUL it must be for us- we who commute from SV to the east bay. Truth be known it takes us 35 minutes these days. Perhaps not as long as it takes those fighting traffic the few miles through SV neighborhoods clogged with soccer moms after work. I have friends in SF who haven't left the city in YEARS except to visit out of state families or take the occasional Tahoe ski trip.

HydroCabron says

At $8/gallon gasoline there will be a re-think, with many young people moving to downtown outdoor non-luxury condos with open heat vents.

Well we could have 3 bordegas on every urban block, like they do in Peru. believe it or not, people live quite well with out Wal-Mart and Trader Joes in the rest of the world.
Wake up in the morning and want breakfast, walk accross the street knock on your neighbors iron door, he opens up a pas-through and you ask for a kilo of eggs, and 7 Pan Fancis.
Later in the day you want a refreshing beverage you walk to another neighbor bordega on the other side of the neighborhood, and buy a Inka Kola, then at 5:30 you can go yet to another neighbor bordega and buy a 6 pack carton of 1 liter Crystal Beers.

Go to bed at night spending less than 10 us dollars, and never burned an ounce of gas, or made one single investor in the Grocery Racket one thin dime.

Did I mention our consumerism is what sucks, we are our own worst enemies, and just maybe, the Middle east foreign Oil is a boogie man that our political leaders on both sides of the isle invented for their own political agendas?

And BTW, all of the greedy Libs that are trying to brand a Liberal elite utopia at the expense of the POOR and the Conservative Corporate Meat puppets, will be in the soup line, when Obama gets done shitting on the Flag.

I think people will wake up and say enough is enough, and take this country back, and elect "ANYONE" not affiliated with either of the two political parties.

If not 2012 then 2016.

The Tea Party is already splitting from the heard.

Yes they've got as good of a chance as the Change regime had in '08,

edvard2 says

What's missing from the story is why they're moving: They can't afford the housing in those urban areas.

give that man a cigar

I for one find Obama's "jack up the 35% tax rate" kinda dumb.

What they should have done is phase back in the Clinton rates over 5 years, 2011-2015.

But the electorate voted out the Dems for raising their taxes in 1993, so I can see why Obama can't get the Congress to raise taxes now.

The Republicans would vote 'no', leaving the fallout to hit the Dems again.

Obama could try to say to people "these tax raises are just to repay the cost of liberating Iraq" -- which would be true, but who wants to pay for wars!

Total defense spending 2001-2010 was $3T over the FY2000 baseline. The interest on that alone would be $100B/yr at 3%.

The Republicans really fucked over this country 1993-2006. Is there anything they didn't FUBAR completely? NAFTA, MFN with China, Bush tax cuts, $3T wars, deregulation & the ensuing housing bubble . . .

HydroCabron says

At $8/gallon gasoline there will be a re-think, with many young people moving to downtown outdoor non-luxury condos with open heat vents.

i can do my job from my parents basement in my underwear.

shrekgrinch says

So, if we see an all-cuts bill signed by Boehner's Bitch OR one signed by Proud & Tall Obama with the $1 trillion to $3 trillion in tax increases but no more ObamaCare, I will be celebratin' either way, thank you very much.

Whatever. I don't know why people even take you seriously. You don't even know what provisions are contained in ObamaCare (as post after post has shown), and yet you claim you're against it. No credibility when you keep spewing nonsense. You never say anything of substance or actually make an argument -- you just call people names and bring up talking points.

No, I admit that I didn't read the whole thing as I am somewhat busy, thus my bad. Whether 20-somethings are moving back in with Mom and Dad is probably a significant factor. That said, I tend to think that those who make a lot of hoopla over living in some sort of urban utopia- with walkable gentrified neighborhoods and expensive grocery stores are usually in their late 20's-mid 30's. As in they're in their early nesting stages and many are finding that they can't afford what they want. This is why Austin and other smaller cities have become popular with this age group. Austin, Raleigh, Atlanta, and a few others along these lines have the youngest populations in the country while the older established cities grow older. The average age in my east bay city is 47. That's a full 14 years older than the average age in Austin.

So in my opinion its those in the age bracket wanting to settle down who are most likely abandoning the major urban cores for smaller urban areas. I'm probably going to be one of them at some point for the same reasons.

The bigger question is what will this do to the cities they leave? Younger people tend to bring innovation. Cities that have a lot of them tend to grow faster economically. As seen in recent data that's whats happening in these smaller 2nd tier cities.

Troy says

The Republicans really fucked over this country 1993-2006. Is there anything they didn't FUBAR completely? NAFTA

NAFTA was Clinton's Brain Fart

corntrollio says

You don't even know what provisions are contained in ObamaCare

Nobody does, that's the POINT!

"Well I guess we will have to pass it, to know what's in it..."
Some senate douche bag, that was definitely NOT a Republican that I will not name.

I know Owebama Careless as of now, has me on the hook for a 1600 a month premium and no one in my family has been sick or seen a hospital in over 16 years.

That 1600 a month is still climbing and the architects of the Health Bill are negligently sitting back and watching, like their hands are tied to stop it. By time it goes into effect it will be 2100 a month easy.
The middle class NOT poor enough to be on the Dole will work to sign their weekly stipend over to Obama Care and his corporate masters that are the hypocrisy oathers.

Shrek is a good example of the evil in the conservative soul -- "got mine fuck you", and why I can't vote for even "moderate" Republicans any more, since moderate Republicans coalition with the nut jobs when the chips are down (see Schwarzenegger for how that worked).

Obama is bad enough, LOL.

The bullshit in this country has risen to very dangerous levels.

Perot called out the neoliberals on NAFTA and he was right, partially. It's not the job loss (the "sucking sound") that's the macro problem per se, it's the trade deficits our trading partners are running against us. We should just fucking print the difference and not worry about it, except that the inflation this would cause would hurt us more than help, since the most inflation-protected sectors are energy and health care.

Spending $6T on the military in the past decade while cutting taxes was also bullshit. That was the main bust-out conservatives managed to do.

Deregulating government oversight of the financial sector and letting them do their thing 2002-2006 was also bullshit, and the AEI attempt to pin this on minority borrowers, Barney "Fag", and the CRA is even more so.

But like I say, I don't blame the Republicans. They are just fighting their battles and winning them. I blame the American people, for not seeing what's going to happen to them down the road. Much of the history of the 20th century was fixing the shit that was wrong with us 1850-1950.

We can undo it all like people like Shrek want, but eventually we'll have to revisit the same damn social and socio-economic problems we fell into 1850-1950.

Shrek's main purpose here is to just spout his bullshit.

I called him on that recently -- the President being constitutionally required to submit budgets to Congress -- and he slinked away, only to repeat the lie the next day.

He, like nearly every other conservative poster on the internet, is a real piece of work. Getting closer understanding of how the conservative mind works is really something. These people are basically insane somehow.

Here we have Shrek cheering the apparent death of "ObamaCare" even though it is something the AEI recommended as late as 2004 or so. Winning their political and ideological fights are more important to conservatives than seeing Americans with better health care.

Well, for conservatives, they know that health care is something of a zero-sum thing so if millions of people have more of it they will have to have less.

Conservatives' recent swing in support of Qaddafi is even more bizarre. I don't even know how they rationalize that. Not being rational people, they don't have to I guess.

Why do you think this will occur?

Obama will cave, he always does.

Troy says

FICA collections aren't going to rise that fast so SSA will have to start redeeming its treasuries for cash, and for the Treasury to get the cash they either have to sell more treasuries, get more tax revenue, or have the Fed print the money.

Ah, good, thanks Troy. We need substantial inflation to lift the burden of debt, both private and public. Here's another excuse to print more money.

Troy says

Congress should never have let this debt grow so high, cutting taxes in 2003 while expanding a war was a colossal mistake.

Strangely so obvious to you and me.

Why does everyone else think it's the fault of "socialism"?

thunderlips11 says

We need substantial inflation to lift the burden of debt, both private and public. Here's another excuse to print more money.

Can't inflate away future promises.

$10 gas isn't going to do anyone's finances any favors, except if you're Alaskan.

Then Social Security is dead, because it's been so thoroughly looted there is nothing in there but promises which as you say, cannot be inflated away.

Unless we make a radical change to the way our economy works.

Without getting the balance of trade under control, in the long term, no budget balancing is possible.

thunderlips11 says

because it's been so thoroughly looted there is nothing in there but promises which as you say, cannot be inflated away.

What has been looted can be returned. The money is still in the economy, the problem is that the rich people have it now.

The top 1% of this country is going to net $80T in the next 25 years. They can cough up $2.7T+ interest they owe the middle class, no?

Without getting the balance of trade under control, in the long term, no budget balancing is possible.

yes, there's that too. But the trade deficit with China is actually benefiting the wealthy. They're the ones who exported factories to China and keep the savings of their lower cost of goods.

Got it.

This is why we need a land tax very badly. And I think, a "Tobin" Transaction tax, that will make them howl with rage. Nevermind Wall Street's commission charges are far in excess of what the Tobin tax would likely impose.

He can cave all he wants but it's the Dems that have to give the votes to get this passed.

I'm not sure how much of the TP's "Ни шагу назад!" position is kabuki vs. commitment to their loony-tunes base, but they control what gets through the House if the Dems just vote No.

The House is 60-180-192 (Bachmann/Boehner/Pelosi). The Blue Dogs got slaughtered last year -- they're down to 26 and maybe a bit more willing to stay in the boat this time.

He won't cave. A default will give him free reign to ramrod left wing policies down the Republican's throats. Do they think he's going to negotiate with them after tanking the economy?

You will see a flurry of activity against Republican interests. A party that controls only one half of Congress is not going to benefit from all out war with the Democrats.

The Military Industrial Oil Complex will find Uncle Sam's checks arriving late in a couple weeks. Wall Street is in for a world of hurt. They better lube up their cornhole hole because the Democrats are strapping one on!

"he's in violation of the Vesting Clause of the Constitution which requires him to comply"

So if the Congress passes a law requiring Obama to stand on his head he's constitutionally required to do so?

Obama is not Constitutionally required to submit a budget to Congress. No such language is in the Constitution, so you're just lying about that.

But I agree that he is required as Executive to submit a budget as directed by the Congress.

Shrek's original statement:

"Refusing to execute his constitutional duty to propose a budget to Congress for two years running qualifies."

is odd; Obama submitted his first budget:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/news/economy/Obama_budget/index.htm

and his second:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/14/us-usa-budget-transport-idUSTRE71D3WI20110214

Not sure what planet Shrek has been on these past few years.

edvard2 says

The bigger question is what will this do to the cities they leave? Younger people tend to bring innovation. Cities that have a lot of them tend to grow faster economically. As seen in recent data that's whats happening in these smaller 2nd tier cities.

Cities have too much distraction to foster innovation as such you dont see much economic growth. Hip and Cool want the glamor life, clubs, dates, brews with their friends... not the date-less nerd geek life who is still at the office. Praise the geek, they at least did something with their career in the burbs.

"Nor are Chinese and other holders of T-bills, who (Chinese, specifically) have INCREASED their holdings last month, despite decreasing yield. Would you care to explain these facts?"

Nobody's been able to increase any debt holdings since May since that's when Timmy hit the limit. Maybe they bought from someone else, but I think your data is older than your think.

China's position went up in May but is still below their peak holdings of 2010.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

Troy says

China's position went up in May but is still below their peak holdings of 2010

OK, but that's a minor detail as you sure appreciate.
The point is that they (and others) certainly are not dumping the T-bills, but actually adding in some months. Nor investors are dumping stocks.

The "1/2 of the public" would probably be the 1/2 who pay no taxes, and have no savings. The status quo of government borrowing 40cents of every dollar it spends would surely be reasonable for them, they have no 1. investments 2. savings 3. etc. to become worthless as the dollar keeps falling as the debt keeps rising. What would the losers of the USA care?
The election last November is having a consequence. Don't like it? Wait and vote again.
Obama lied outright saying he doubted that social security checks would go out, what a bunch of total bullshit.
Even my uber liberal ex uc professor phd Harvard Econ friend said borrowing 40cents of every dollar spent is not sustainable.

I just love the single data point crowd. So how does this compare to 1990-2000 census, 1980-1990, 1970-1980? Without comparing to what happened in previous censuses (censi?) the article is meaningless.

All the man has is data that people who in their 20's in 2000 then in their 30's in 2010 moved out of cities. Duh, people move into cities when they are young, single, and hungry. Been going on a long time. Where is the same data for people who were teenagers in 2000 and 20 something in 2010? People get married, start a family and move to the burbs. What, is this something new? Did the author also discover the sun rises in the east?

I have lived in a large city, LA and a small city in CO. These is no comparison. I do not miss one day of the hell and expense of a large city. With the the cost of fuel and housing the trend will be telecommuting as that grows cities will be obsolete and just filled with scum and gang bangers

I'm still pulling for good old West Oakland.

ppexx says

I have lived in a large city, LA and a small city in CO. These is no comparison. I do not miss one day of the hell and expense of a large city. With the the cost of fuel and housing the trend will be telecommuting as that grows cities will be obsolete and just filled with scum and gang bangers

doth protest mucheth

And until there are concrete facts and proposals this whole discussion is kind of pointless. I got an email from Senator Boxer asking me to sign a letter telling Republicans something.... emotional appeal. Listen to a talk station I get exact opposite, but yet another emotional appeal. And without facts its just hog wash.

I remember when Ronald Reagan tried to reform the tax code we had the exact same thing. Every special interest went out there to Washington trying to protect their beloved tax perk. RR played it smart though. I guess we will see how this turns out, I just hope it benefits America and not all the tax loopholers living off the working class.

edvard2 says

People in SV think that the East Bay might as well be Mars. People in SF seldom if ever leave or cross the bridge. Usually there's this commentary made- as in how AWFUL it must be for us- we who commute from SV to the east bay.

This is the only region, only place, I've ever lived. For lotsa decades. I've seen lotsa folks come and go, come and stay, and lotsa locals like me, go. But that kinda talk like you said, I never heard it from locals with roots here. Of course, it is true that since not born into privilege I don't know how old monied types might talk among themselves.

Troy says

If you're going to get squicked anyway, might as well choose the least worse option.

Wow your impeccable leadership skills are astounding.

Nomograph says

TRANSLATION: I'm desperately hoping that everyone will leave the BA so I can get a house for cheap.
HINT: Not gonna happen.

Has happened many times, 1950s 1970s and again in 1990s, and repeating once again.