The real problem is that San Francisco adamantly refuses to build more housing to meet demand.
Even if San Francisco did allow more housing, developers will want to build more luxury housing and apartments to maximize their profits. My apartment complex in Silicon Valley had three different corporate owners in as many years. Each one slapping on a coat of exterior paint, redoing the landscaping, charging "luxury" rental rates and selling the complex when they don't get their expected return on investment. The current corporate owner is actually renovating the apartments since exterior paint and landscaping doesn't justify the luxury rental rates.
I have sympathy for people who are born there as renters and can't afford to leave.
That's the boat I'm stuck in now. I've been in my studio apartment for over ten years and paying several hundred dollars less than market rate rents since rent control caps rent increases to 8% per year. I've been wanting to move for some time, quite possibly from Silicon Valley to Sacramento. I'm still recovering from the Great Recession and rebuilding my finances. Maybe next year.
So, your assertion is that the recession is not still ongoing?
The recession has been over since June 2009. The consequences of the recession is still being worked today and will be felt for the next 20 years. And then reality will set in when people realizes that retired baby boomers outnumbers working people, Social Security and Medicare will consume two-thirds of the federal budget, and taxes will have to go up-up-up to pay for everything else. Politicians been kicking this can down the road since Ronald Reagan became president.
You do realize that incomes have been flat for like 10 years [...]
You do realize that inflation is below normal levels? Wage growth follows inflation.
[...] and there are still many people out of work later this year.
According to the employment numbers, the slack is disappearing as employers hire more people but the unemployment number stays consistent at 4.9%. If this trend continues, inflation should normalize at 2% and wage growth spike upward.
Wall street making money does not end the pain for the rest of the country.
I love Wall Street. The stockbrokers look at the global economy, worry about the US entering another recession and send the market into a dizzy. Meanwhile, I'm buying up shares in my favorite dividend-paying stocks with solid fundamentals at historically low prices.
But, the Great Recession occurred after Bush's time in office [...]
The Great Recession ended five months into Obama's first term in June 2009, when his administration was still getting started and supporting George W.'s policies. The Great Recession got started in 2007, not on January 20, 2009 as some people believe.
[...] so you could blame Obama with the same reasoning you are using to blame Bush [...]
I give Obama credit for a seven-year-old Wall Street bull market.
I guess I should ask why you feel the Bush caused the Recession?
George W. should have replaced Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. Low interest rates inflated the real estate and debt bubbles while Greenspan looked away, ignored the danger signals from the economy and resisted reforms to regulate the markets.
You mean the great recession caused by a deregulation that Bill Clinton signed into law?
I do blame Bill Clinton for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, and for the Dot Com Bust that came after he left office. But the Great Recession happened during George W.'s time in office.
Anyone rooting for Hillary should really look at Brazil and consider what a criminal in the presidency could do to our country.
George W. and the Great Recession was a good example that. None of the Wall Street bankers went to prison for cratering the economy. The only person who got charged was a Russian programmer who took home modifications he made to open source software that Goldman Sach claimed were proprietary.
His numbers are better than _ANY_ of the Republicans he is running against.
He's getting 35% to 45% of the votes per primary election, which means approximately two-thirds to one-half of Republican voters didn't vote for him. The question becomes will they vote for him as the nominee, if he gets the nomination since he won't have enough delegates to declare an outright victory. Republican voters are notorious for staying him on election day if their favorite candidate doesn't get the nomination. If a large portion of Republican voters stay home, the White House and the Senate will go Democratic.
I think you need to stop and consider what you spout before you spout, because you look like a fucking idiot [...]
This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.
"Go Romney", right you twat?
With the 2016 electoral map identical to the 2012 electoral map, Trump will have to do better than Romney. Since Trump already pissed off the minority and independent voters he needs to win the general election, he has to win 70% of the white male vote (see link below). Reagan and Bush I got 67%, Bush II and Romney won 63%, and no Republican has ever won 70%. In short, he's screwed the Republican Party.
Lula has been hiding evidence, lying through his teeth with plenty of evidence that he can't hide against his ridiculous claims, moving compromising documents to secret places, and otherwise doing everything he can to obstruct the law.
In the United States, he would be entitled to fair trial. No matter how corrupt someone appears to the public at large, you can't deny him a fair trail and turn him over to a blood-thirsty mob. As I pointed out to another commenter, people who fight corruption are often corrupted themselves once they get into power. Why? Because they're too busy shoving the process of law where it doesn't shine.
A cynical paen to the corrupt, established order if there ever was one.
People who fight corruption are often corrupted themselves once they get into power. For example, Imelda Marcos and son are trying to reclaim the presidency in the Philippines after a generation of the "People Power" revolution petered out into corruption.
Him being stranded until he dies would probably not be a Hollywood script but an independent movie.
It's called a Hamlet ending (i.e., everyone dies). All it takes is one good independent movie to make money at the box office, and Hollywood will rush into production with a bunch of Hamlet-ending movies.
Not for growing tomatoes. My grandfather told me the secret of good tomatoes is a good piss. Every time we checked out the tomatoes in the garden, he would whip out his big penis and urinate at the base of the tomato plants.
There are scenes in Dirty Harry and Magnum Force where Harry shoots into a crowd of people "to get at one punk".
How many bystanders were "murdered" as the OP wrote? Dirty Harry had a reputation for recklessness. Murdering bystanders would have run him out of the department.
But then, we're discussing a fictional character.
Real life is stranger than fiction.
All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.
The public overwhelmingly support the investigations, the courts are on board with it, lot of plea deals and sentencing have already occurred to build a case against Lula.
That may be the case. But the public, police and courts have an obligation to ensure that there is no overreach is being committed. Just because the unpopular target of the investigation is crying foul doesn't mean that the accusations are entirely baseless.
On the couch eating popcorn and giant amounts of Coca-cola, watching Trump eat your country by the fringes?
Donald Trump doesn't have the numbers to win the election, especially if he's getting less than 50% of the Republican votes. Something that Karl Rove pointed out in an Wall Street Journal op-ed this morning.
Stories about "overreach" are coming from wealthy criminals who have hired reputation management/PR flacks feeding stories to gullible/corrupt journalists.
You don't consider "overreach" by the police as a form of corruption? For example, police in some jurisdictions of the U.S. seize assets under the drug laws because it's easier to raise money that way than ask taxpayers for a property tax increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we see Republican price gouging, schism based on class and fear mongering?
The tech corporations came to town, set up shop, sent the hippies packing and turned the place into hipster-burg.
Dude, you have an excuse for everything. What a little cry baby.
This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.
The real problem is that San Francisco adamantly refuses to build more housing to meet demand.
Even if San Francisco did allow more housing, developers will want to build more luxury housing and apartments to maximize their profits. My apartment complex in Silicon Valley had three different corporate owners in as many years. Each one slapping on a coat of exterior paint, redoing the landscaping, charging "luxury" rental rates and selling the complex when they don't get their expected return on investment. The current corporate owner is actually renovating the apartments since exterior paint and landscaping doesn't justify the luxury rental rates.
I have sympathy for people who are born there as renters and can't afford to leave.
That's the boat I'm stuck in now. I've been in my studio apartment for over ten years and paying several hundred dollars less than market rate rents since rent control caps rent increases to 8% per year. I've been wanting to move for some time, quite possibly from Silicon Valley to Sacramento. I'm still recovering from the Great Recession and rebuilding my finances. Maybe next year.
So, your assertion is that the recession is not still ongoing?
The recession has been over since June 2009. The consequences of the recession is still being worked today and will be felt for the next 20 years. And then reality will set in when people realizes that retired baby boomers outnumbers working people, Social Security and Medicare will consume two-thirds of the federal budget, and taxes will have to go up-up-up to pay for everything else. Politicians been kicking this can down the road since Ronald Reagan became president.
You do realize that incomes have been flat for like 10 years [...]
You do realize that inflation is below normal levels? Wage growth follows inflation.
[...] and there are still many people out of work later this year.
According to the employment numbers, the slack is disappearing as employers hire more people but the unemployment number stays consistent at 4.9%. If this trend continues, inflation should normalize at 2% and wage growth spike upward.
Wall street making money does not end the pain for the rest of the country.
I love Wall Street. The stockbrokers look at the global economy, worry about the US entering another recession and send the market into a dizzy. Meanwhile, I'm buying up shares in my favorite dividend-paying stocks with solid fundamentals at historically low prices.
How many people believe in owning intangibles?
FTFY
But, the Great Recession occurred after Bush's time in office [...]
The Great Recession ended five months into Obama's first term in June 2009, when his administration was still getting started and supporting George W.'s policies. The Great Recession got started in 2007, not on January 20, 2009 as some people believe.
[...] so you could blame Obama with the same reasoning you are using to blame Bush [...]
I give Obama credit for a seven-year-old Wall Street bull market.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/03/09/the-bull-market-is-seven-years-old-why-arent-people-more-excited/
I guess I should ask why you feel the Bush caused the Recession?
George W. should have replaced Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. Low interest rates inflated the real estate and debt bubbles while Greenspan looked away, ignored the danger signals from the economy and resisted reforms to regulate the markets.
I thought Cisco sold off Linksys to Belkin.
You mean the great recession caused by a deregulation that Bill Clinton signed into law?
I do blame Bill Clinton for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, and for the Dot Com Bust that came after he left office. But the Great Recession happened during George W.'s time in office.
Anyone rooting for Hillary should really look at Brazil and consider what a criminal in the presidency could do to our country.
George W. and the Great Recession was a good example that. None of the Wall Street bankers went to prison for cratering the economy. The only person who got charged was a Russian programmer who took home modifications he made to open source software that Goldman Sach claimed were proprietary.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer
I'll bet both of those cops had seen Dirty Harry.
Nah, "The Guantlet," where the house gets shot to pieces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht4PfYkJjoc
His numbers are better than _ANY_ of the Republicans he is running against.
He's getting 35% to 45% of the votes per primary election, which means approximately two-thirds to one-half of Republican voters didn't vote for him. The question becomes will they vote for him as the nominee, if he gets the nomination since he won't have enough delegates to declare an outright victory. Republican voters are notorious for staying him on election day if their favorite candidate doesn't get the nomination. If a large portion of Republican voters stay home, the White House and the Senate will go Democratic.
I think you need to stop and consider what you spout before you spout, because you look like a fucking idiot [...]
This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.
"Go Romney", right you twat?
With the 2016 electoral map identical to the 2012 electoral map, Trump will have to do better than Romney. Since Trump already pissed off the minority and independent voters he needs to win the general election, he has to win 70% of the white male vote (see link below). Reagan and Bush I got 67%, Bush II and Romney won 63%, and no Republican has ever won 70%. In short, he's screwed the Republican Party.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699
No they aren't.
That's exactly how they become corrupted because they don't think it can happen to them.
Strawman.
I love how you divide the world between the non-rich and the rich.
Lula has been hiding evidence, lying through his teeth with plenty of evidence that he can't hide against his ridiculous claims, moving compromising documents to secret places, and otherwise doing everything he can to obstruct the law.
In the United States, he would be entitled to fair trial. No matter how corrupt someone appears to the public at large, you can't deny him a fair trail and turn him over to a blood-thirsty mob. As I pointed out to another commenter, people who fight corruption are often corrupted themselves once they get into power. Why? Because they're too busy shoving the process of law where it doesn't shine.
A cynical paen to the corrupt, established order if there ever was one.
People who fight corruption are often corrupted themselves once they get into power. For example, Imelda Marcos and son are trying to reclaim the presidency in the Philippines after a generation of the "People Power" revolution petered out into corruption.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/08/corruption-philippines
[...] the writer of the lyric has a net worth of $105 million.
In short, anyone who is rich because of their hard work must be corrupt.
Really, you work in production?
Nope. I've seen a lot of movies over the years. I make too much money as an I.T. tech in Silicon Valley to wait on tables in Hollywood.
Or just talk out your ass on a regular basis?
This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.
Him being stranded until he dies would probably not be a Hollywood script but an independent movie.
It's called a Hamlet ending (i.e., everyone dies). All it takes is one good independent movie to make money at the box office, and Hollywood will rush into production with a bunch of Hamlet-ending movies.
Not for growing tomatoes. My grandfather told me the secret of good tomatoes is a good piss. Every time we checked out the tomatoes in the garden, he would whip out his big penis and urinate at the base of the tomato plants.
There are scenes in Dirty Harry and Magnum Force where Harry shoots into a crowd of people "to get at one punk".
How many bystanders were "murdered" as the OP wrote? Dirty Harry had a reputation for recklessness. Murdering bystanders would have run him out of the department.
But then, we're discussing a fictional character.
Real life is stranger than fiction.
All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire.html
Its the kind of "integrity of the process" argument that anti-democracy cretins use to subvert justice.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." — The Who
The public overwhelmingly support the investigations, the courts are on board with it, lot of plea deals and sentencing have already occurred to build a case against Lula.
That may be the case. But the public, police and courts have an obligation to ensure that there is no overreach is being committed. Just because the unpopular target of the investigation is crying foul doesn't mean that the accusations are entirely baseless.
On the couch eating popcorn and giant amounts of Coca-cola, watching Trump eat your country by the fringes?
Donald Trump doesn't have the numbers to win the election, especially if he's getting less than 50% of the Republican votes. Something that Karl Rove pointed out in an Wall Street Journal op-ed this morning.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-polls-trump-hasnt-won-1457566355
This is Brazil, not the US.
That's why I prefaced my comment with "In the U.S." However, the principle of due process of law should be a universal concept.
Stories about "overreach" are coming from wealthy criminals who have hired reputation management/PR flacks feeding stories to gullible/corrupt journalists.
You don't consider "overreach" by the police as a form of corruption? For example, police in some jurisdictions of the U.S. seize assets under the drug laws because it's easier to raise money that way than ask taxpayers for a property tax increase.