The primary cause of the west's demographic problem is kleptocracy

[Swordsmyth]

The wave of populism/socialism/proto-fascism that’s sweeping the US and Europe is a direct result of the breathtaking hubris of a ruling class that didn’t know when to quit stealing.
While it is possible for societies dominated by a small group of rich/connected people to endure and even thrive, they can do so only if the 99% enjoys a rising standard of living and a certain amount of upward mobility. In other words, people will accept the existence of an entrenched elite as long as everyone else does a little better each year.
Today that’s not the case. The current crop of aristocrats (Google “Davos World Economic Forum images” for faces to go with the concept) are now simply harvesting the wealth of their subjects without much thought for their own vulnerability.
For an easy-to-grasp example of how this works, look at interest rates. Over the past couple of decades, the world’s central banks have been pushing rates lower in each cycle, impoverishing small savers and retirees who depend on income from bonds and bank accounts while enriching the already rich by raising the prices of stocks and real estate. The following two charts (from Charles Hugh Smith’s recent Who Killed The Middle Class?) illustrate the widening gap between the pay and assets of the haves and the used-to-haves. To put this in economist-speak, capital is gobbling up labor.



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ce-aristocracy

[Swordsmyth]

Even at a time of low interest rates and rising wages, Americans simply can’t afford a home in more than 70% of the country, according to CBS. Out of 473 US counties that were analyzed in a recent report, 335 listed median home prices were more than what average wage earners could afford. According to the report from ATTOM Data Solutions, these counties included Los Angeles and San Diego in California, as well as places like Maricopa County in Arizona.
New York City claimed the largest share of a person's income to purchase a home. While on average, earners nationwide needed to spend only about 33% of their income on a home, residents in Brooklyn and Manhattan need to shell out more than 115% of their income. In San Francisco this number is about 103%. Homes were found to be affordable in places like Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia.


This news is stunning because homes are considerably more affordable today than they were a year ago. Although prices are rising in many areas, they are also falling in places like Manhattan. Unaffordability in the market has been the result of slower home building and owners staying in their homes longer. Both have reduced the supply of homes in the market.
And the market may continue to create better conditions for buyers. Affordability could improve because of the fact that homes are out of reach for so many seekers, according to Todd Teta, chief product officer at ATTOM Data Solutions. Today’s market is also more affordable than it was a decade ago, before the crisis. Home prices were about the same prior to the crisis, even though income adjusted for inflation was lower.

"What kept the market going was looser lending standards, so that was compensating for affordability issues," Teta said. Since then, standards have toughened (for now, at least).

We recently wrote about residents of New York City who simply claimed they couldn’t afford to live there.

More than a third of New York residents complained that they "can't afford to live there" anymore (and yet they do). On top of that, many believe that economic hardships are going to force them to leave the city in five years or less, according to a Quinnipiac poll published a couple weeks ago. The poll surveyed 1,216 voters between March 13 and 18.
In total, 41% of New York residents said they couldn't cope with the city's high cost of living. They believe they will be forced to go somewhere where the "economic climate is more welcoming", according to the report.
Ari Buitron, a 49-year-old paralegal from Queens said:

“They are making this city a city for the wealthy, and they are really choking out the middle class. A lot of my friends have had to move to Florida, Texas, Oregon. You go to your local shop, and it’s $5 for a gallon of milk and $13 for shampoo. Do you know how much a one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment is? $1700! What’s wrong with this picture?”

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ome-70-country

[Swordsmyth]

25% Of Millennials No Longer Having Sex Due To Financial Problems

[Swordsmyth]

Home sales in the US have slowed dramatically over the past year - and in some markets, like tony Manhattan, they have virtually ground to a halt - as high prices and a shortage of affordable inventory have squeezed cash-strapped young buyers.
But unfortunately for the average renter (a group that includes the bulk of millennials who don't still live with their parents), this housing market weakness hasn't translated to lower rents. In fact, in March, the average national rent increased by 3.2% YoY to $1,430 (up $44) to a fresh all-time high. What's worse, the increases were spread throughout the country, with 92% of the 253 largest cities in the US registering an increase in the average rent paid, while 6% of cities registered no change, and rents dropped in just 2% of cities, according to data from the Yardi Matrix published by RentCafe.com.

On a monthly basis, rents climbed 0.3% (or $4), which was in line with last year's rate for March. And unfortunately for all of those cash-strapped creatives living in Brooklyn, the 20 largest rental markets in the US continued to see robust price appreciation, with the average rent in the borough climbing to $2,860. Manhattan's rental market remained the most expensive in the country, with the average rent a staggering $4,141.
While coastal enclaves like San Francisco and NYC continued to dominate the most expensive list, cities in the South and Midwest remained the most affordable markets, with Wichita, Kansas claiming the title of most affordable city for renters, with an average rent of just $645.
Here's a map of the biggest increases and decreases for small cities...

...mid-sized cities...

...and large cities...

...And the official ranking of the 20 most unaffordable (and affordable) rental markets:

Average rents in the US have continued their push to all-time highs...but the Federal Reserve is still convinced that there's no inflation in the economy?


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ump-home-sales

[Swordsmyth]

New data from the Federal Reserve detailing citizens' net worth shows that the issue of being "left behind" has now spread to all Americans aside from the top 10%, according to Bloomberg. This means that even the upper middle class is starting to feel the pain of income stagnation. The growth of upper middle class income continues to lag behind that of those both lower and higher than them on the socioeconomic ladder, according to the data.
The cost of many items purchased by the upper middle class, including things like college education and cars, is outpacing inflation. That is causing upper middle class households to tap into more expensive forms of debt. The debt these households is taking on is shifting from mortgages to credit with higher financing costs.

In addition, the overall middle class' share of total income is falling while home prices have increased faster than median incomes.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said: “The middle class is increasingly only a dream for many. This bedrock of our democracies and economic growth is not as stable as in the past.”

Credit card rates recently hit a "generational high" despite the low prime rate. The spread between the prime rate and credit card interest rates is at its highest point in almost 10 years.

2018 property taxes rose by 4% annually, on average, according to an analysis of more than 87 million U.S. single family homes by ATTOM Data Solutions.
Todd Teta, chief product officer for ATTOM Data Solutions said: “Property taxes levied on homeowners rose again in 2018 across most of the country. While many states across the country have imposed caps on how much taxes can go up, which probably contributed to a slower increase in 2018 versus 2017. There are still many factors at play that can contribute to local property tax hikes, and without major changes in the way a community runs public services, tax rates must rise to pay for them.”
Only incomes in the top 25% were able to outpace this rate on an annual basis, according to the Atlanta Fed. For everyone else, a greater share of income must be allocated to property taxes, leaving less to spend on everything else.

Equity ownership in companies, both public and private, is also sliding for the upper middle class. The share of equity ownership for citizens in the 50th to 90th percentile of net worth has fallen and the top 1% of Americans still own the majority of shares.

By the end of 2018, net worth as a share of the U.S. total had shrunk considerably for the upper middle class. During the course of just one generation, U.S. wealth held by households from the 50th to the 90th percentile fell from 35.2% of the total to 29.1%. Most of this wealth has been transferred to the top 1% of U.S. households.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has said that the middle class is "essential" for growth and countries where it thrives are healthier, more stable, better educated and have lower crime rates while boasting higher life satisfaction.
The OECD defines middle class as households with incomes between 75% and and 200% of the national median. Over the last 3 decades, incomes have increased 33% less than the average of the richest 10%, according to the OECD. Real income of the middle class has grown only 0.3% a year since the financial crisis.
Stefano Scarpetta, OECD director of employment, labor and social affairs said: "There is a risk of a spiral to the extent that the middle class is the one main sources of political and economic stability."

Rising to the middle class is also getting tougher. More skills are needed, as more than 50% of middle income workers are now in high skilled occupations, up from about 33% two decades ago.
“It’s a wake up call. Overall there is a need to really focus on targeted policy intervention for those with specific problems. General policies may not work very well,” Scarpetta concluded.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ng-left-behind

[enhanced_deficit]

They've stolen our future to pay for the wars of the present.

Well said. Neoconish mindset is short sighted to say the least.
I still recall Bush-Cheney America-Firster cheerleading fakenews medai headlines like "Iraq war will cost only $50B".

Suicide rates are up 30 percent since 1999, CDC says

Wonder if there has been any statistcal analysis how much impact neoconish/interventionist mindset had had on this deadly trend.

30 percent of Iraq, Afghanistan veterans have mulled suicide: survey

One Million US Veterans Are In Prison, 22 Commit Suicide Every Day

Just two months of stress may damage a man's sperm and slash his chances of having children, a new study suggests.
Israeli scientists found men are 47 per cent more likely to have swimmers with weak motility if they are under intense pressure.
Weak motility – known to be affected by lifestyle choices - makes it less likely that the sperm will successfully fertilise an egg.
The findings were derived from 11,000 sperm samples, including those of adults exposed to 'regular rocket warning sirens' in the Gaza Strip.

Researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Soroka University Medical Center in Beer-Sheva led the study.
They analysed 10,535 sperm samples donated by men during periods in Israel deemed ‘unstressful’ between 2009 and 2017.
These were then compared to 659 samples from men take up to two months after fierce military battles between Israel and Gaza.

EM.
That's an interesting finding. Outside of orthdox folks, Israel has had lower fertility rate than Palestinians. Does it mean Palestinians have lower stress than their Israeli counterparts?
US tax payers funded free abortions in Israel may have played a role too.
Not clear if it being a mecca of gay tourism in mideast also contributes to the 'lifestyle choices' being cited, according to most left leaning researches such 'lifestyle choices' are not choices.
This reminded of post from another discussion:

This is continuation of 'Barack Hussein Obama diversity' that majority of voters deemed needed post Iraqi Freedom, such strong was blow of that war's impact on American public's psyche.
Is Iraq Freedom effect over already? Doesn't seem that way looking at recent electoral trends. In coming years effects of Libya/Gaza/Syria freedom wars on top of Iraq may even accelerate this phenomenon and muslims could become second largest religious group in Congress/Senate behind Christians within a generation considering sharp demographic influx/wars refugees from mideast, higher fertility rate, stigma on abortion etc within muslim demographics in general.

[DamianTV]

Well said. Neoconish mindset is short sighted to say the least.
I still recall Bush-Cheney America-Firster cheerleading fakenews medai headlines like "Iraq war will cost only $50B".

...

Only 50 Billion... in Fiat Currency. Once a country goes to a FULL Fiat Currency, that country is pretty much doomed. Every Empire has done this to pay for its endless wars of perpetual expansion and only manages to kill itself in the process.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't know that the decline in birthrates in the West constitutes a "problem."

There is, however, an economic problem, and that is a product of the West's relentless quest for (more) socialism, evidenced at every election.

This is what the OP's charts illustrate.

[Swordsmyth]

The Netherlands Central Bank has just published a fascinating new paper, titled "Monetary policy and the top one percent: Evidence from a century of modern economic history".

Authored by Mehdi El Herradi and Aurélien Leroy, (Working Paper No. 632, De Nederlandsche Bank NV), the paper "examines the distributional implications of monetary policy from a long-run perspective with data spanning a century of modern economic history in 12 advanced economies between 1920 and 2015, ...estimating the dynamic responses of the top 1% income share to a monetary policy shock."
The authors "exploit the implications of the macroeconomic policy trilemma to identify exogenous variations in monetary conditions." Note: the macroeconomic policy trilemma "states that a country cannot simultaneously achieve free capital mobility, a fixed exchange rate and independent monetary policy".
Per authors:

"The central idea that guided this paper’s argument is that the existing literature considers the distributional effects of monetary policy using data on inequality over a short period of time. However, inequalities tend to vary more in the medium-to-long run. We address this shortcoming by studying how changes in monetary policy stance over a century impacted the income distribution while controlling for the determinants of inequality."

They find that "loose monetary conditions strongly increase the top one percent’s income and vice versa. In fact, following an expansionary monetary policy shock, the share of national income held by the richest 1 percent increases by approximately 1 to 6 percentage points, according to estimates from the Panel VAR and Local Projections (LP).

This effect is statistically significant in the medium run and economically considerable."
The authors also demonstrate that:

"the increase in top 1 percent’s share is arguably the result of higher asset prices. The baseline results hold under a battery of robustness checks, which (i) consider an alternative inequality measure, (ii) exclude the U.S. economy from the sample, (iii) specifically focus on the post-WWII period, (iv) remove control variables and (v) test different lag numbers. Furthermore, the regime-switching version of our model indicates that our conclusions are robust, regardless of the state of the economy."

In other words, accommodative monetary policies accommodate primarily those with significant starting wealth, and they do so via sate price inflation.



Behold the summary of the last 10 years.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...we-print-money

[Swordsmyth]

Nearly 25% of Americans are going into debt trying to pay for necessities like food

[Swordsmyth]

More than half of families in the US live in “asset poverty.”

A recent study found that more than 63 percent of American children and 55 percent of Americans live in “asset poverty”. This means they have few or no assets to rely on in the event of a financial emergencysuch as a job loss, a medical crisis, recessions, or natural disasters.
In a press release, study co-author David Rothwell, an assistant professor in OSU’s College of Public Health and Human Sciences, explained that when families lack assets such as vehicles, homes, savings accounts or investments, surviving a financial crisis is very difficult. “This is a dimension of financial security that we don’t think about that much, and it’s pretty high. The findings highlight the extent of financial insecurity among American families. These shocks ripple through the family and down to the children,” Rothwell said.
The study was published in the journal Children and Youth Services Review earlier this year. Co-authors are Timothy Ottusch of the University of Arizona and Jennifer Finders of Purdue University.
Living in poverty can have devastating impacts on children, as the press release explains:

Rothwell studies poverty and its impact on families and children. Experiencing poverty in childhood can have lifetime impacts for those children; past research has shown that children who grow up in poverty are more likely to struggle in school, have lower job earnings throughout life and experience family instability as adults.
A growing body of research suggests that parents’ asset levels also predict academic achievement, educational expectations, and the likelihood of college enrollment and graduation. Families with assets that can be used when income is disrupted are also likely to experience less financial stress and strain.
Yet asset poverty is higher than income poverty for children and families. In a 2018 study of Canadian families, researchers, including Rothwell, found that asset poverty was two to three times more prevalent than income poverty. Families can have adequate day-to-day funds but be asset-poor and would likely struggle during a financial shock. (source)

Rent is becoming unaffordable for many Americans.

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, renting is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many Americans. In its latest “Out of Reach” report, the organization explains that the struggle to find affordable housing is not limited to those earning minimum wage or the unemployed.
The report’s central statistic is the Housing Wage, which is an estimate of the hourly wage a full-time worker must earn to rent a home without spending more than 30 percent of income on housing costs. For 2019, the Housing Wage is $22.96 and $18.65 for a modest two and one-bedroom apartment respectively based on the “fair market rent”.
The average renter’s hourly wage is $1.08 less than the Housing Wage for a one-bedroom rental and $5.39 less than a two-bedroom rental. That means that an average renter in the U.S. has to work a 52 hour week. To put this in perspective, a median-wage worker in eight of the country’s largest ten occupations does not earn enough to afford a one-bedroom apartment.
An employee earning the federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) would have to work 127 hours every week (equivalent to more than two full-time jobs) to afford a two-bedroom apartment.
This is not just a regional issue. There isn’t a single state, metro area, or county in the U.S. where a full-time employee earning the minimum wage can afford to rent a two-bedroom property. To explore data for your area, enter your zip code in the box below the map on this page: Out of Reach 2019.
According to the report, the ten jobs that are expected to see the biggest growth over the coming decade are those that pay less than the wage needed to afford housing – and that is likely to result in an even greater disparity between wages and housing costs by 2026, as this infographic from Statista illustrates:



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...k-and-its-just

[Swordsmyth]

America's Record-Long "Expansion" Was Just The Rich Getting Richer As The Middle Class Died

[AngryCanadian]

More than half of families in the US live in “asset poverty.”

A recent study found that more than 63 percent of American children and 55 percent of Americans live in “asset poverty”. This means they have few or no assets to rely on in the event of a financial emergencysuch as a job loss, a medical crisis, recessions, or natural disasters.
In a press release, study co-author David Rothwell, an assistant professor in OSU’s College of Public Health and Human Sciences, explained that when families lack assets such as vehicles, homes, savings accounts or investments, surviving a financial crisis is very difficult. “This is a dimension of financial security that we don’t think about that much, and it’s pretty high. The findings highlight the extent of financial insecurity among American families. These shocks ripple through the family and down to the children,” Rothwell said.
The study was published in the journal Children and Youth Services Review earlier this year. Co-authors are Timothy Ottusch of the University of Arizona and Jennifer Finders of Purdue University.
Living in poverty can have devastating impacts on children, as the press release explains:

Rothwell studies poverty and its impact on families and children. Experiencing poverty in childhood can have lifetime impacts for those children; past research has shown that children who grow up in poverty are more likely to struggle in school, have lower job earnings throughout life and experience family instability as adults.
A growing body of research suggests that parents’ asset levels also predict academic achievement, educational expectations, and the likelihood of college enrollment and graduation. Families with assets that can be used when income is disrupted are also likely to experience less financial stress and strain.
Yet asset poverty is higher than income poverty for children and families. In a 2018 study of Canadian families, researchers, including Rothwell, found that asset poverty was two to three times more prevalent than income poverty. Families can have adequate day-to-day funds but be asset-poor and would likely struggle during a financial shock. (source)

Rent is becoming unaffordable for many Americans.

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, renting is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many Americans. In its latest “Out of Reach” report, the organization explains that the struggle to find affordable housing is not limited to those earning minimum wage or the unemployed.
The report’s central statistic is the Housing Wage, which is an estimate of the hourly wage a full-time worker must earn to rent a home without spending more than 30 percent of income on housing costs. For 2019, the Housing Wage is $22.96 and $18.65 for a modest two and one-bedroom apartment respectively based on the “fair market rent”.
The average renter’s hourly wage is $1.08 less than the Housing Wage for a one-bedroom rental and $5.39 less than a two-bedroom rental. That means that an average renter in the U.S. has to work a 52 hour week. To put this in perspective, a median-wage worker in eight of the country’s largest ten occupations does not earn enough to afford a one-bedroom apartment.
An employee earning the federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) would have to work 127 hours every week (equivalent to more than two full-time jobs) to afford a two-bedroom apartment.
This is not just a regional issue. There isn’t a single state, metro area, or county in the U.S. where a full-time employee earning the minimum wage can afford to rent a two-bedroom property. To explore data for your area, enter your zip code in the box below the map on this page: Out of Reach 2019.
According to the report, the ten jobs that are expected to see the biggest growth over the coming decade are those that pay less than the wage needed to afford housing – and that is likely to result in an even greater disparity between wages and housing costs by 2026, as this infographic from Statista illustrates:



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...k-and-its-just

Rent is becoming unaffordable for many Americans.

Rent and high cost of living are also becoming a major problem for many Canadians to. Many polticans mostly on the left as well completely ignore the issue all together after they get voted in.
The have no problem pandering that they will fix rent and high cost of living once elected but once they step in the office they ignore it.

[Swordsmyth]

Rent and high cost of living are also becoming a major problem for many Canadians to. Many polticans mostly on the left as well completely ignore the issue all together after they get voted in.
The have no problem pandering that they will fix rent and high cost of living once elected but once they step in the office they ignore it.

They are either directly profiting from it or being bought by those who are.

[Swordsmyth]

Big Pharma continues to jack up the prices on the drugs they peddle. The price of one drug was hiked 879%, and that’s only ONE of the 3,400 price increases that have occurred so far this year.

Pharmaceutical companies raised the prices of more than 3,400 drugs in the first half of 2019, surpassing the number of drug hikes they imposed during the same period last year, according to an analysis first reported by NBC News. While the average price increase per drug was 10.5%, a rate around five times that of inflation, about 40 of the drugs saw triple-digit increases. That includes a generic version of the antidepressant Prozac, which saw a price increase of 879%.
ARS Technica reported that the surge in price hikes comes amid ongoing public and political pressure to drag down the sky-rocketing price of drugs and healthcare costs overall. In May of 2018, President Donald Trump boldly announced that drug companies would unveil “voluntary massive drops in prices” within weeks, however, Big Pharma didn’t announce any big drops or actually reduce their prices. Trump then went on to publicly shame Pfizer for continuing to raise drug prices. The company responded with a short-lived pause on drug price increases mid-way through last year, but it resumed increasing prices in January along with dozens of other pharmaceutical companies.

“Requests and public shaming haven’t worked,” Michael Rea, chief executive of RX Savings Solutions, told Reuters last December. His company helps health plans and employers seek lower-cost prescription medicines. It also conducted a new analysis of some drug prices.

It really isn’t a surprise that people are losing faith in western medicine in record numbers in favor of a more natural and holistic approach. Cost is certainly one problem, but many experience debilitating side effects from Big Pharma’s drugs – and they then seek relief from those side effects by using other drugs laced with different synthetic chemicals. It’s a vicious cycle, and no one should be surprised by the rise in things like herbal tinctures, medicinal teas, and CBD oil.
The more than 3,400 drug price increases in the first half of 2019 is a 17% increase over the number of drug price hikes in the first half of 2018. So price increases are skyrocketing instead of going down. In addition to the Prozac generic, the drugs that saw triple-digit increases included the topical steroid Mometasone, which had a price increase of 381%. A pain reliever and cough medication (Promethazine/Codeine) saw a 326% hike while the ADHD treatment Guanfacine 2mg saw its price rise 118%.


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...00-so-far-year

[UWDude]

They are either directly profiting from it or being bought by those who are.

I would hypothesize, there is a high correlation between people in real estate, and people in local politics.
This hypothesis occurred to me when reading the article about the man fined $30,000 for not mowing his lawn.
The new mayor just looked like a Real Estate agent, and fines went up 3000% since she took office.
I started thinking, "who in the hell ever runs for city council and mayor?" Most of the time, there isn't much idealism to compel someone to run for local office, so what other motive is there? I guess a coroner would be motivated by a bigger paycheck, or a sheriff by power, but city council? They had to be interested in zoning and real estate before they ran. A hypothesis for sure, but I'd be shocked if less than 50% of all city council members in America were not in real estate.

I also notice, none of these articles mention that an influx of new people, like the fact that 16% of the people in my state were not born in this country, might have something to do with skyrocketing housing prices.

Also, it is not mentioned that more and more people are not cohabiting.. ..married or otherwise.

[Swordsmyth]

I would hypothesize, there is a high correlation between people in real estate, and people in local politics.
This hypothesis occurred to me when reading the article about the man fined $30,000 for not mowing his lawn.
The new mayor just looked like a Real Estate agent, and fines went up 3000% since she took office.
I started thinking, "who in the hell ever runs for city council and mayor?" Most of the time, there isn't much idealism to compel someone to run for local office, so what other motive is there? I guess a coroner would be motivated by a bigger paycheck, or a sheriff by power, but city council? They had to be interested in zoning and real estate before they ran. A hypothesis for sure, but I'd be shocked if less than 50% of all city council members in America were not in real estate.

I also notice, none of these articles mention that an influx of new people, like the fact that 16% of the people in my state were not born in this country, might have something to do with skyrocketing housing prices.

Also, it is not mentioned that more and more people are not cohabiting.. ..married or otherwise.

Good points.

[Swordsmyth]

How out-of-whack is the discrepancy in growth between incomes, rents, and house prices?
The “San Francisco Housing Crisis,” as it’s called on a daily basis, is an extreme. But housing costs in major urban areas in the US have been eating up more and more of household incomes, as house prices and rents have soared and as incomes have crept up painfully slowly. In many cities, not just San Francisco, this condition is now called a “housing crisis” where families with median incomes can no longer afford to rent or buy adequate housing, or where too much of their income is spent on housing, with not enough left over for other things. They have no savings, they barely make it to the next paycheck, and they can’t help the local economy because housing saps their spending power.
Just how out-of-whack this discrepancy between income versus rents and house prices has become over the years is depicted in a new study with long-term charts, released by the research department of Clever Real Estate. Based on Census data going back to 1960 for median household incomes, median gross rents per month, and median house prices, all adjusted for inflation, it shows that nationally, incomes since 1960 have risen just 16%, while rents have risen 72%, and house prices have soared 121%:

But the national values above reflect everything thrown into one bucket, from the more affordable areas to the biggest housing bubbles. So we will separate them out by region and metro – and there are stunning differences.
All values in the charts are indexed to 1960. The charts only include data for the depicted years: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2008, 2010, and 2017. The data for the years in between those years are not included. For example, if in one metro, the housing bust bottomed out in 2012, the low point falls between the data points of 2010 and 2017 and is not depicted. But you get the idea.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...dream-goes-die

[Swordsmyth]

Church attendance in the United States is at an all-time low, according to a Gallup poll released in April 2019. This decline has not been a steady one. Indeed, over the last 20 years, church attendance has fallen by 20 percent. This might not sound like cause for concern off the bat. And if you’re not a person of faith, you might rightly wonder why you would care about such a thing.
Church attendance is simply a measure of something deeper: social cohesion. It’s worth noting that the religions with the highest rate of attendance according to Pew Forum have almost notoriously high levels of social cohesion: Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and historically black churches top the list.
There’s also the question of religious donations. Religious giving has declined by 50 percent since 1990, according to a 2016 article in the New York Times. This means people who previously used religious services to make ends meet now either have to go without or receive funding from the government. This, in turn, strengthens the central power of the state.
It is our position that civil society – those elements of society which exist independently of big government and big business – are essential to a functioning and free society. What’s more, these institutions are in rapid decline in the United States, and have been for over 50 years.
Such a breakdown is a prelude to tyranny, and has been facilitated in part (either wittingly or unwittingly) by government policies favoring deindustrialization, financialization and centralization of the economy as well as the welfare state. The historical roots of this breakdown are explored below, along with what concerned citizens can do to mitigate its impact on their loved ones.
What Is Bowling Alone?

The urtext of this topic is Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community by political scientist Robert D. Putnam. He uses the decline in league bowling as a sort of shorthand for the overall decline in American participation in social life.

The local bowling alley was known as the blue-collar country club, and it was the invention of the automatic pinsetter that changed the game, making it faster and more accessible. The first million-dollar endorsement sports deal was Don Carter receiving a million dollars to bowl with an Ebonite signature ball designed for him in 1964.
Business was driven by league play. People would sign up to join a league, which had them in for 30 weeks of once-weekly play. In the course of doing this, they would rub elbows with teammates, opponents and whoever happened to be hanging out in the bowling alley at the time. Between 1940 and 1958, the United States Bowling Congress’ membership exploded from 700,000 to 2.3 million. The Women's International Bowling Congress’membership climbed from 82,000 to 866,000, with the American Junior Bowling Congress ballooning from 8,000 to 175,000. In their heyday, bowling leagues brought in a whopping 70 percent of all bowling alley income. Now they bring in a paltry 40 percent.
Again, the point here is not that there is something magical about bowling, which acts as a social glue in the United States. Rather, it is that the existence of bowling alleys as a third place in American life was the symptom of a vibrant and healthy civil society, not its cause. People preferred to socialize with others in a place outside of home or work. Putnam is quick to point out that the number of people who bowl in the United States has actually increased since the golden age of bowling – the problem is that they’re all doing it alone.
The decline in bowling league membership parallels the decline of memberships in a number of other civic organizations including the Knights of Columbus, B’Nai Brith, labor unions, the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross, the Lions, the Elks, the Kiwanis, the Freemasons, parent-teacher organizations, the League of Women Voters and the Junior Chamber of Commerce to name only a few examples other than bowling leagues and churches.
What this means is that there are significantly fewer connections between people and fewer civic-minded discussions going on now than there were in the past. It also means the loss of identity tied to something other than work and consumer goods (see the explosion of adults spending their money on Star Wars or Harry Potter knick-knacks).
Putnam lays the blame at the foot of technology. Television, and to a much greater extent, the Internet, individualized how people spend their spare time. Still, there is a solid case to be made that the decline of civil society and the resulting loss of social capital is not simply the result of new technologies. It is equally the result of government policies which, through design or through negligence, further erode civil society.
The Destruction of the Rust Belt

It is difficult to talk about the decline of civil society and social capital in the United States without looking at the destruction of the Rust Belt. The decline of the population in Rust Belt industrial cities over the last 50 years is worth a cursory glance before delving further into this topic:

• In 1940, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh were all among the 10 most populated cities in the United States.
  
• By 1980, Cleveland and Pittsburgh had dropped off.
  
• While Detroit hung around in the top 10 until the 2010 census, it was also the first city to have its population drop below one million.

Cities outside of the top 10 in 1940 paint an even starker picture:

• Between 1960 and 2010, Buffalo lost over half of its population, plummeting from 532,000 (20) to 261,000 (71).
  
• Cincinnati was hit about this hard during the same time period, with its population dropping from 502,000 (21) to 296,000 (63).
  
• Gary, Indiana is perhaps the most extreme case of Rust Belt depopulation. It lost over half its population between 1960 and 2010, going from 178,000 (70) to 80,000 (unranked).

Most of these massive depopulations are tied closely to deindustrialization and the financialization of the economy. While other factors cannot be ignored, such as central air conditioning, which makes living in cities like Phoenix (439,000 in 1960 and the 29th largest city to 1.4 million and the 6th largest by 2010) much more palatable, a conscious set of policies contributed to the destruction of America’s manufacturing base.

If one sees the United States as nothing more than a group of consumers, there’s nothing to fret about here. If, however, one sees the United States as a nation with a value beyond its simple GDP, the replacement of civil society with the marketplace is a disastrous scenario.
The Destruction of Black Business Districts

Another place where this can be seen is the destruction of the black middle class. A frequently untold story of American life is that by the 1950s, the United States actually had a thriving black middle class. Black business ownership peaked during the years between the end of the Second World War and the Great Society. Every city with any significant black population hosted a black business district where a primarily black clientele spent their money within their own community. Black home ownership was likewise high at this point.
This is all very much a thing of the past.
The per capita number of black employers declined by 12 percent between the years 1997 and 2014. An article by Brian S. Feldman in Washington Monthly notes a significant decline in certain sectors of black business ownership as well, namely grocers, insurers and banks. Black-owned insurance agencies declined by 68 percent between 1989 and 1999 in what Black Enterprise magazine called “a bloodbath.”
The article in question lays this at the feet of not specific government policies, but at the doorstep of a more general trend toward market concentration.
It’s worth looking at the question of wealth and market concentration (separate from the question of so-called “wealth inequality”) from a freedom-minded perspective. The massive amounts of government handouts to big business, in the form of both direct subsidies as well as favorable legislation for regulations and taxes alike, creates an environment favoring those most capable of purchasing influence – namely, big business.
This is not the half-baked conspiracy theory of a college Marxist. No less an authority than the Foundation for Economic Education correctly identifies that the wealth concentration that made the destruction of black small business possible is choking the American economy at the expense of Main Street. Likewise, licensing regimes in a number of states choke the pipeline of small business competition by making it more difficult for people to enter fields, from nail tech to brain surgeon. The FEE likewise identifies health insurance requirements and increasingly rising minimum wage laws as government intervention raising the bar to entry into the market and crushing small business.


While cheap, imported widgets from Walmart benefit consumers with lower prices, they also create an intangible and difficult-to-quantify social problem. When big business replaces small business, wealth is not only centralized, it is also centralized outside of the communities that it serves.While larger businesses are arguably more “efficient” economically speaking, the loss of small business (most acutely seen in the black community) provides an illustrative example of how lost economic capital and lost social capital are often closely tied. Without black business, there is less of a “black community” than there is a “black marketplace.”
Strictly speaking, small business (black or otherwise) is business, not civil society proper. However, greater economic leverage of big business in the nation means an economically impoverished civil society.
Civil Society, the Welfare State, and Mutual Aid

While direct connections are difficult to establish, it is worth noting that there is a chicken-egg effect of the welfare state, which began during the New Deal, but accelerated under President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society.
What did people do before the advent of social welfare programs? This is a question that even few libertarians can answer without stammering something about private charity. And indeed, private charity did play a role in meeting social needs for the less fortunate. However, there is a hidden story in how communities met social needs prior to the advent of the welfare state.

Mutual aid in the 21st century is largely a nonprofit form of insurance, particularly life insurance – a sort of analog to the credit union. However, in earlier days they oversaw a number of social welfare programs.
Mutual aid societies, also known as benefit societies (or friendly societies in the United Kingdom and Ireland) date back to the Middle Ages. Medieval guilds were effectively mutual aid societies organized within skilled trades. In the United States, they were popular with black Americans during post-revolutionary times: the Free African Society dates back to 1787.
One of the key differences between mutual aid and benefit societies and the welfare state is the role of civil society and accountability. Mutual aid societies presented a counterweight to both the state and big business. They offered services such as healthcare, unemployment benefits, disability insurance and other services now provided by big business or state and federal governments.
What’s more, the mutual aid societies generally had a set of values tied to their services. Social values were advanced and an ethos of moral character and self-improvement underpinned membership in a mutual aid society. For example, the Ancient Order of United Workmen forbade its members from selling liquor on penalty of forfeiting their death benefit.
Finally, it’s worth noting the primary difference between mutual aid societies and the welfare state. Members who wanted to collect had to look a peer in the eye and request aid. This had a twin psychological effect: First, it diminished spurious claims. Let’s say “Jim” needed some unemployment insurance. His neighbors are also members of his mutual aid society. They know if Jim actually needs help or if he’s just goldbricking. The flipside is that Jim is also receiving aid from his friends and neighbors. This inspires him to look for work so that he can pay everyone back in his own way, in addition to providing a source of social solidarity during his hardest times.
According to A Life of One's Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State, in the year 1890, 112,000 Americans were living in housing provided by private charitable organizations. Compare this to 73,000 residing in publicly funded almshouses. What’s more, benefit societies were decentralized. The spirit was one of fraternity, not of paternalism. Reciprocity was a driving ethic, which in turn removed the stigma of receiving charity. People were not receiving handouts, they were receiving support from the very same people whom they had supported in the past.
Additionally, belonging to a mutual aid or benefit society was a lot cooler than receiving welfare. They had secret handshakes, among other secret symbols of membership. What’s more, the humble house-call doctor was a feature of mutual aid society membership. Society locals frequently hired a doctor to service a membership area. They have since been regulated to the point where they provide little in the way of services, except for life insurance and annuities, making them effectively non-profit financial organizations.
In addition to accountability, assistance beyond simple financial support and decentralization, private assistance carries other benefits. For example, philanthropic organizations tend to operate leaner and to be more innovative in how they tackle problems. Such organizations tend to tailor their assistance to the individual in need, rather than offering a one-size-fits-all approach. This is true of individuals and communities alike. Finally, philanthropic and mutual aid societies seek to treat the underlying cause, rather than just the symptom of need.
Such organizations are now limited by the federal tax code 501(c)(4), which greatly restricts the activities such organizations are allowed to participate in. Many of them, such as Mutual of Omaha, underwent demutualization and handed out stocks in place of membership. They are now for-profit financial organizations.
A Decline in Family Life

One of the main pillars of civil society is the nuclear family. Any discussion of the decline of civil society in the United States would be incomplete without a discussion of the decline of family life in the United States.

Perhaps the best numbers to look at with regard to the American family are from the 2010 Census. These are, admittedly, a bit old. However, there is no reason to suspect that the trend has reversed itself and that the nuclear family has experienced some kind of resurgence in the years since that census. If anything, the opposite is probably true. So what does the last United States Census say?

• Non-college graduates are more than twice as likely to be single parents.
  
• Affluent families are more common than poor ones.

Pew Research likewise has good data on the state of the American family:

• Americans who have never been married reached an all-time high in 2012, with 25 percent of all adults over the age of 25 having never been married. In 1960, this figure stood at 9 percent.
  
• Men were significantly less likely to have ever been married than women.
  
• 24 percent of never-married adults were cohabiting with their partner.
  
• For black Americans, the percentage over 25 who had never been married was 36 percent.
  
• Pew Research indicates that it expects this trend to continue and that, while people are getting married later in life, it does not expect a significant increase in marriage as the population ages.
  
• Financial security was cited as the main hurdle to marriage by one third of all those polled who wanted to get married.
  
• 67 percent of Americans under 50 who are married are in their first marriage, compared to 83 percent in 1960.
  
• 46 percent of children live with two parents in their first marriage. In 1980, this number was 61 percent. In 1960, it was 73 percent.

The above-cited figures point toward two conclusions: First, the nuclear family is in sharp decline. Second, it is far more common for educated and affluent Americans to form traditional families.
It’s difficult to assign direct blame to any one factor. The centralization of the economy cited above plays a role, as does the financialization and deindustrialization of the economy. In the 1960s, from where our earliest data comes, it was not difficult for a high school graduate or even a high school dropout to earn a living at a stable job that was effectively a career for life. With this job came a defined benefit pension, healthcare, etc. The wages and benefits made having and raising a family easier.
The welfare state is another significant driver of the decline of the nuclear family. Unsurprisingly, the black family is massively impacted. In 1965, 25 percent of all black children were born out of wedlock. In 2016, that rate had increased to 70 percent and even topped 80 percent in certain urban areas. In the 1940s, this number was five percent, which was comparable to that of white children. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate in 2016 was 52 percent, while for whites it was 30 percent.
The rise in children born out of wedlock cannot be separated from the massive expansion of the welfare state under Johnson’s Great Society. In a report from the Mises Institute, the basic argument is that welfare disincentivizes marriage. In times past, when women had children out of wedlock, it meant an incredibly difficult life balancing whatever work and charity they could get. It also carried a social stigma (from our old friend civil society), which further disincentivized single motherhood.


The impact of single-parent households is far further reaching than you probably think: In the most extensive study ever done on single parenthood (in permissive, tolerant and liberal Sweden), it was found that children in single-parent households were twice as likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders and addiction. This figure might be conservative, as it only includes hospitalizations. Some other striking statistics about fatherless households include:

• 63 percent of youth suicides take place in fatherless homes.
  
• 90 percent of all homeless youth and runaways are from fatherless homes, which is a whopping 32 times the national average.
  
• 85 percent of all children with behavior issues come from fatherless homes, 20 times the national average.
  
• 80 percent of rapists with established anger issues come from fatherless homes, 14 times the national average.
  
• 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
  
• 70 percent of those in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
  
• 85 percent of all juveniles in prison come from single-parent households, 20 times the national average.
  
• 90 percent of adolescent repeat arson offenders are from fatherless homes.
  
• Fatherless children are nearly twice as likely to be victims of abuse or neglect.

These striking statistics are a serious indictment of the decline of the nuclear family. If, as is common of behaviors, single parenthood is heritable, we have not yet begun to see a crisis.
The End of Civil Society in the United States

The big takeaway is that in the United States, civil society has declined. While the blame cannot entirely be laid at the feet of big government and big business (individual actors are involved), there is strong evidence to suggest that the crisis in American civil society is driven primarily by the welfare state and government policies favoring deindustrialization, financialization and centralization of the economy.
There is a reinforcing quality about the destruction of civil society. As the size of big government and big business increases, they become more capable of taking greater power. Smaller communities become increasingly reliant upon each, making it harder to resist further growth and greater disempowerment. It’s a vicious downward spiral.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ety-and-family

[Swordsmyth]

Thousands of US millennials are priced-out of the dating market, a new study has shown.
Researchers found that a third of Generation Y are reluctantly single because they can't afford to pursue love.
According to the data, financial instability is hampering their ability to find 'the one' because it's forcing them to budget, instead.

More at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...tudy-says.html

[Swordsmyth]

As the cost of rents and home prices continue to outpace wages in the Bay Area, one company is building luxurious camper vans for millennials looking for alternative housing options.
The company is called "Glampervan," which is based in San Francisco, turns commercial vans into full-blown glamping vehicles, has a bed, kitchen, refrigerator, table, and a rooftop deck.

The glorified RV appears to be influenced by broke millennials, who cannot afford to own overpriced homes nor pay inflated rents in the Bay Area.

Glampervan chief excursion officer Rob Novotny told ABC 7 San Francisco, that the glamper vans were initially designed for millennial weekend glamping trips, but have become a full-time residence for many.

"One that comes to mind is a woman who is spending $5,000 for a 2-bedroom apartment and she actually has all the parking spots all throughout the city worked out already," chief excursion officer" Rob Novotny explained. "Like, this one is a Thursday; this one is a Wednesday and all that so that she won't get hassled and stay moving."

New rules in San Francisco make it illegal for people to sleep in their cars overnight, but that isn't stopping thousands of people from living in RVs and vans.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...sco-apartments

[AngryCanadian]

As the cost of rents and home prices continue to outpace wages in the Bay Area, one company is building luxurious camper vans for millennials looking for alternative housing options.
The company is called "Glampervan," which is based in San Francisco, turns commercial vans into full-blown glamping vehicles, has a bed, kitchen, refrigerator, table, and a rooftop deck.

The glorified RV appears to be influenced by broke millennials, who cannot afford to own overpriced homes nor pay inflated rents in the Bay Area.

Glampervan chief excursion officer Rob Novotny told ABC 7 San Francisco, that the glamper vans were initially designed for millennial weekend glamping trips, but have become a full-time residence for many.

"One that comes to mind is a woman who is spending $5,000 for a 2-bedroom apartment and she actually has all the parking spots all throughout the city worked out already," chief excursion officer" Rob Novotny explained. "Like, this one is a Thursday; this one is a Wednesday and all that so that she won't get hassled and stay moving."

New rules in San Francisco make it illegal for people to sleep in their cars overnight, but that isn't stopping thousands of people from living in RVs and vans.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...sco-apartments

As the cost of rents and home prices continue to outpace wages

As Every where in Western Countries, including Canada.

[Swordsmyth]

MarketWatch recently published a piece about the soaring U.S. CEO-to-worker pay ratio, which hit 278-to-1 in 2018 (up from just 58-to-1 in 1989 and 20-to-1 in 1965) -

Nice work if you can get it.
CEO pay has increased 1,008% between 1978 and 2018, while typical worker pay has edged up 12%.
That’s according to analysis from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, providing new data on the depth of income inequality.
In 2018, CEOs in the country’s top 350 businesses were paid $17.2 million on average. Employees working in those industries — ranging from retail to technology and manufacturing — typically earned $64,500, researchers said.
Overall, there’s a 278-to-1 pay ratio between workers and CEOs. In 1989, the compensation ratio was 58-to-1 and in 1965, it was 20-to-1.
Stock awards and cashed-in stock options averaged $7.5 million of CEO pay in 2017 and 2018, the study added.
Incorporating stock in pay arrangements is one way to incentivize CEO, and rising salaries illustrate the market for talent in the C-suite, some observers say.

Left-leaning economists, politicians, and other commentators frequently use the soaring CEO-to-worker pay ratio as an example of why capitalism is inherently flawed and always leads to the rich getting richer, but my research has found that it is a byproduct of central banking and fiat (i.e., "paper") currency rather than capitalism. To make a long story short, the Federal Reserve has excessively inflated the financial markets in its attempt to create an economic recovery from the Great Recession. This excessive asset price inflation has pushed U.S. household wealth far out of line with its historic relationship to the GDP, as the chart below shows. The wealthy have been the greatest beneficiaries of this asset price inflation because they own a disproportionate share of the assets that have been inflated by the Fed, which are stocks, bonds, and high-end real estate.
U.S. Household Net Worth As Percent Of GDP

The Fed's inflation of the U.S. stock market is the primary reason why the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased so much. The CEOs of public corporations usually receive stock options as part of their compensation packages, which means that they can benefit greatly when their stock prices rise. As the chart below shows, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio surges during asset bubbles, but falls back down when the bubbles burst (it correlates with the chart above). The current asset bubble is no different and the excesses will be corrected in the form of a strong bear market, just like they always are.
CEO To Worker Pay Ratio


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...reased-so-much

[Swordsmyth]

Marriage isn’t as popular as it once was. In fact, the marriage rate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in at least 150 years, reports PBS.
A new study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, may have one explanation as to why: There aren’t enough “economically-attractive” men — ones with a good income and a stable job — for single women to marry.
In the study, researchers examined couples in heterosexual marriages from 2008 to 2012 and 2013 to 2017, compiling character profiles (education and income levels) of the husbands. When they analyzed the pool of available men for these economically-attractive traits that demographically-similar single women might look for, there was a shortage of potential matches.


The researchers hypothesized that potential husbands for the single women had an average income nearly 60 percent higher than the actual pool of available men. They were also 30 percent more likely to be employed and 19 percent more likely to have a college degree compared to current bachelors.
In other words, the researchers say there’s a shortage of available men who are economically attractive, which they define as “partners with either a bachelor’s degree or incomes of more than $40,000 a year.”
While the focus on finances might sound shallow — or at least, not very romantic — lead author, Daniel T. Lichter, PhD, a professor at Cornell University, tells Yahoo Lifestyle that money matters in marriage.
“Economic stability is a key to a stable family life — to getting married, staying married, and marrying well,” he says. “Physical attractiveness may provide an initial filter that draws our attention, but economic considerations and shared values matter much more in the long term. A good job attracts and retains suitable marital partners. And this is true for both men and women.”

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/fewe...221607423.html

[Swordsmyth]

Suicide rates are on the rise in America, particularly in rural communities, according to a new study.
Death by suicide among Americans aged 25 to 64 rose between 1999 and 2016, researchers found in a report published in JAMA Network Open on Friday. That rare increased more in rural counties than in major metropolitan areas.
Between 1999 and 2016, there were 453,577 suicides among Americans ages 25 to 64. The the last three years of the study witnessed higher annual figures than the previous years.
The majority of the deaths were male. The deaths were more common among middle-aged adults than younger and older adults.
The study relied on statistics from the National Vital Statistics System, a database that includes information on suicide deaths, including year of death, gender, age, and county of residence, as well as the US Census, the American Community Survey, County Business Patterns, Area Health Resource Files, and the North American Industry Classification System.

Danielle Steelesmith, the lead author of the study, said poverty, low income, and underemployment among the factors that appear to be driving these rates up. She notes that these factors are “really bad” in rural areas.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/suicide-rate-...144935931.html

[UWDude]

[/INDENT]New rules in San Francisco make it illegal for people to sleep in their cars overnight, but that isn't stopping thousands of people from living in RVs and vans.

LoL.

Sir, the people have nowhere to live, and are sleeping in their cars.

Sir: Easy, make it illegal to sleep in your car!

$3,800 a month.

That's homeless for a lot of people.

[Swordsmyth]

It now costs $350,000 a year to live a middle-class lifestyle in a big city

[Brian4Liberty]

So much detail. Keep it simple. Supply and demand applies to humans. One word explanation: immigration.

That far outweighs any other factors. Second on a weighted list? Outsourcing.

[Swordsmyth]

So much detail. Keep it simple. Supply and demand applies to humans. One word explanation: immigration.

That far outweighs any other factors. Second on a weighted list? Outsourcing.

I like to keep it simple at times but I like to track the details too.

And it's not just immigration and outsourcing, all of the different ways we are robbed (inflation for example) steal our lives and our potential.
When enough is stolen people can't afford to get married and have children.

[Brian4Liberty]

I like to keep it simple at times but I like to track the details too.

And it's not just immigration and outsourcing, all of the different ways we are robbed (inflation for example) steal our lives and our potential.
When enough is stolen people can't afford to get married and have children.

Yes, we can’t forget inflation.

Immigration and outsourcing were the tactics used by the kleptocracy and parasite class. It was taught at business schools and promoted by management consultants and Wall St. money people. “Lay off your American work force and outsource to a cheap country. We (consultants, venture capitalists, Wall St. managers and executives) will all profit.”

The thing about the parasite class is they make money by telling executives to do something, anything. Are you centralized? You need to decentralize! Too decentralized? Centralize! How about some M&A? Want to buy a competitor or merge? We have the perfect plan for you. Company too unwieldy? You should spin off a division! And always, consider out sourcing or importing some people on cheap work visas! We can arrange everything.

And the parasites profit and take their huge cut no matter what is done.