Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the point is that the cracks in the Houston boom are starting to show. I mean that the rate of growth and the pace they're developing will leave it a mess later in the future. It's uneven growth. It's relying on this mentality that if you just cater to business and rely on it for most of your economic development that your city will flourish. Well that thinking is limited. The gains will go to those already in the fields where there is a boom; oil, tech, medical care, etc. Pockets of grinding poverty will form and petty crime will grow because the landscape itself will also geographically uneven.
I think that Texas and Houston in general has a chance to become an even bigger and better powerhouse because it's unique in that it's economy is very diverse to withstand recessions better than most cities, but the mentality is so right wing that it cares not to invest any of the gains back into the city in the form of better social programs for the least affected by the boom.
Who says Houston is booming? Houston hasn't been booming since the 2008 recession hit. Houston is doing way better than pretty much all other large cities outside of Texas.
And a lot of those pockets of poverty in the city were created by the city itself. Sharpstown and Alief have had serious crime ever since the city decided in the 1980's it would be a good idea to permit low income and subsidized apartments in what once were fine suburbs. Somehow emulating Chicago and NYC would be a grand idea.
If I recall correctly there are 68 apartment complexes in Sharpstown and not one has been built after the 80's. And I can still remember the days when Sharpstown mall was a great place.
Who says Houston is booming? Houston hasn't been booming since the 2008 recession hit. Houston is doing way better than pretty much all other large cities outside of Texas.
And a lot of those pockets of poverty in the city were created by the city itself. Sharpstown and Alief have had serious crime ever since the city decided in the 1980's it would be a good idea to permit low income and subsidized apartments in what once were fine suburbs. Somehow emulating Chicago and NYC would be a grand idea.
If I recall correctly there are 68 apartment complexes in Sharpstown and not one has been built after the 80's. And I can still remember the days when Sharpstown mall was a great place.
So essentially what you're saying is that when you introduce poor people in to a community that community goes to crap? Affordable housing ruins once great suburbs? The point I am trying to make is that the problem Houston is having is not unique to Houston; wages are not keeping up with rising costs. Houston is in a better situation than most other towns because it's economy is really diverse. Yet, the benefits of the economic stronghold are going to people with connections to the better off sectors. All the problems of poverty are created by the city because it tends to focus it's energy on pleasing the economic interests over people's interests. It's focused on fostering economic development through mostly pleasing the private sector while everyone else has to either get in on it or be left out. In essense, the idea of poverty in Houston is a non-issue to many because the onus is placed on the individual to get in on the growth, not on the city government to provide better opportunities.
So essentially what you're saying is that when you introduce poor people in to a community that community goes to crap? Affordable housing ruins once great suburbs?
Suburbs = homes. The ideal home:apt ratio for a homeowner is 1:0. This does not exist anywhere in Houston because Houston is a massive city with an even more massive ETJ area (not included in census). As such the suburbs of Houston are mostly part of ETJ Houston except Kingwood which was once ETJ Houston.
The cities surrounded by Houston: West University, Bellaire and the Memorial Villages do not allow apartments. And the more affluent neighborhoods in Houston do not have apartments either.
And obviously yes, Sharpstown and Alief homeowners except for those on fixed incomes left after the apartments were built. Which is why Houston doesn't pull that stuff anymore since it serves absolutely no purpose. NYC and Chicago still do, which is one of the reasons housing is outrageously expensive there, unless you are fortunate enough to get government assistance to pay for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarcelonaFan
The point I am trying to make is that the problem Houston is having is not unique to Houston; wages are not keeping up with rising costs. Houston is in a better situation than most other towns because it's economy is really diverse. Yet, the benefits of the economic stronghold are going to people with connections to the better off sectors. All the problems of poverty are created by the city because it tends to focus it's energy on pleasing the economic interests over people's interests. It's focused on fostering economic development through mostly pleasing the private sector while everyone else has to either get in on it or be left out. In essense, the idea of poverty in Houston is a non-issue to many because the onus is placed on the individual to get in on the growth, not on the city government to provide better opportunities.
Well considering Chicago, NYC and Los Angeles have numerous redistribution of wealth programs you'd think they'd succeed in having a lower poverty rate. Thankfully people living in poverty in Houston have a much lower chance of being murdered.
Minimum wage is going to be raised to $9.00/hr. A couple would at worst have an income of $37,500/yr. And if you can't find a full time minimum wage job in Texas you aren't even trying.
Rising costs in Texas? People in those redistribution of wealth states can only dream of the lower costs of living here. I visited Philadelphia for a couple weeks and stayed with a family member. Groceries there are way more expensive, guess when Walmart isn't around you can charge whatever you want. Electricity per kWh is way more expensive. Gas costs considerably more, even car insurance there is significantly more expensive and it's expensive here in Houston. He payed $550,000 for a home that would barely sell for $250,000 in Sugar Land if even that and the area he lives in isn't comparable.
And the best part, according to bls.gov accountants, nurses, engineers, architects, doctors, lawyers etc. make more here. I know a lawyer who grew up in Alief, got his law degree at Columbia, worked in NYC for a couple years and is right back in Houston.
My uncle left NY for Dallas 5 years ago, and he tries to convince everyone he knows over there to move to Texas. He's just convinced his niece to move down to attend college here which btw is also way cheaper. You'd think in all those redistribution of wealth states they'd at least be able to make college more affordable right?
And it's the private sector that creates jobs, any public sector jobs are funded entirely by the private sector. Texas is doing well because Texans know to keep the private sector healthy not destroy it.
Suburbs = homes. The ideal home:apt ratio for a homeowner is 1:0. This does not exist anywhere in Houston because Houston is a massive city with an even more massive ETJ area (not included in census). As such the suburbs of Houston are mostly part of ETJ Houston except Kingwood which was once ETJ Houston.
The cities surrounded by Houston: West University, Bellaire and the Memorial Villages do not allow apartments. And the more affluent neighborhoods in Houston do not have apartments either.
And obviously yes, Sharpstown and Alief homeowners except for those on fixed incomes left after the apartments were built. Which is why Houston doesn't pull that stuff anymore since it serves absolutely no purpose. NYC and Chicago still do, which is one of the reasons housing is outrageously expensive there, unless you are fortunate enough to get government assistance to pay for it.
Well considering Chicago, NYC and Los Angeles have numerous redistribution of wealth programs you'd think they'd succeed in having a lower poverty rate. Thankfully people living in poverty in Houston have a much lower chance of being murdered.
Minimum wage is going to be raised to $9.00/hr. A couple would at worst have an income of $37,500/yr. And if you can't find a full time minimum wage job in Texas you aren't even trying.
Rising costs in Texas? People in those redistribution of wealth states can only dream of the lower costs of living here. I visited Philadelphia for a couple weeks and stayed with a family member. Groceries there are way more expensive, guess when Walmart isn't around you can charge whatever you want. Electricity per kWh is way more expensive. Gas costs considerably more, even car insurance there is significantly more expensive and it's expensive here in Houston. He payed $550,000 for a home that would barely sell for $250,000 in Sugar Land if even that and the area he lives in isn't comparable.
And the best part, according to bls.gov accountants, nurses, engineers, architects, doctors, lawyers etc. make more here. I know a lawyer who grew up in Alief, got his law degree at Columbia, worked in NYC for a couple years and is right back in Houston.
My uncle left NY for Dallas 5 years ago, and he tries to convince everyone he knows over there to move to Texas. He's just convinced his niece to move down to attend college here which btw is also way cheaper. You'd think in all those redistribution of wealth states they'd at least be able to make college more affordable right?
And it's the private sector that creates jobs, any public sector jobs are funded entirely by the private sector. Texas is doing well because Texans know to keep the private sector healthy not destroy it.
Minimum wage adjusted for inflation would be at 15.00 if workers only received half of the productive gains. If adjusted for inflation to the level of gains workers received in 1968, the wages would be closer to 21 an hour. So saying the minimum wage id going up to 9 bucks an hour is spurious.
The minimum wage would be $16.50 an hour — $33,000 a year — if it had kept up with the growth of productivity since 1968. To put the effect of this a different way, 40 percent of Americans now make less than the 1968 minimum wage, had the minimum wage kept pace with productivity gains.
This is a problem that affects all people in every major city in America including Houston. All Houston did was shift the crisis to the outter areas and developed the areas in full swing to accomodate the incoming flux of professionals. Doctors, lawyers, and other highly educated professionals have best positioned to benefit from the growth in the economy. We have left those at the bottom out.
As a practical matter we could not possibly raise the minimum wage any time soon to $16.50 without serious disruptions to the economy. One result would also be higher prices in the economy. Of course this is also the result of having doctors who average $250,000 a year and bankers, oil people who can pocket higher saleries a year. Their income is a cost to everyone else.
Somehow the issue of higher prices and inflation is an important point when we discuss the wages of people getting $7.25 an hour to wash dishes but it is not supposed to enter into polite conversations when we talk about the most highly paid workers. That is a political choice, not an economic one. A political choice cooked up by the likes of your ilk.
Sorry man but sometimes economic reality trumps good ol' boy morally superior rhetoric about the free market and pulling one self up by their bootstraps.
The inane conservative logic you baby boomers have is so beyond ridiculous I cannot believe you guys take yourselves so seriously. No welfare state can fix this gaping hole left behind by what I described above, so to blame CA and their government run amok is even more spurious.
It's a systemic issue that is rarely addressed because again to conservatives poverty is a non-issue. Its all about "gumption"!
Last edited by BarcelonaFan; 02-27-2013 at 02:30 PM..
The minimum wage would be $16.50 an hour — $33,000 a year — if it had kept up with the growth of productivity since 1968. To put the effect of this a different way, 40 percent of Americans now make less than the 1968 minimum wage, had the minimum wage kept pace with productivity gains.
I'm not saying the above is a good thing and i'm not taking sides but if what you say is true wouldn't one have to attribute a good portion of any productivity gains to the supression of the minumum wage? Thus making this a circular argument?
If all forms of welfare spending were converted to cash, those who take advantage of all the benefits earn about ~$30.00 an hour for a 40 hour week. Subsidised meals, shelter, college tuition and even cell phones. Add to that the generosity of the private organizations, and that is just icing on the cake. No need to worry about performance reviews, incentive bonuses, meeting goals and targets, meetings, working from home, documenting anything, nothing. Just a government deposit each month courtesy of those who have to do real work to foot the bill.
If that is not enough, if one is on the welfare bandwagon and needs a "pay raise", they just make another baby, and then the woman claims she does not know who the father is on the birth certificate. Automatic pay increase, and the real father is not hunted down for restituion payments, though he's probably around.
You're right. For a prototypical welfare household of 3, los federales offer the following:
- Monthly cash benefits are $400, amounting to $4800 a year.
- Food stamp benefits are $200 per person per month. That comes to $600 per month or $7200 a year.
- Medicaid benefits are $300 per person or $900 per month. That comes to $10,800 per year.
- Housing assistance averages $800 per month or $9,600 per year.
$4,800 + $7,200 + $10,800 + $9600 = $32,400, tax-free. It's pretty clear why so many choose cradle-to-grave welfare dependency? Welfare dependents might not be highly-motivated or particularly public-spirited, but they have a basic grasp of math.
Comprehensive welfare benefits like these are why when you hear about homelessness or hunger in America, you need to take that "news" with a grain of salt. Note that these are not secretive programs - the federal government reaches out aggressively for new clients.
I'm not saying the above is a good thing and i'm not taking sides but if what you say is true wouldn't one have to attribute a good portion of any productivity gains to the supression of the minumum wage? Thus making this a circular argument?
If you're at the top well then the supression of the the minimum wage is usually beneficial to owners of business, their management and the professional class. I think at one point economists dubbed most of the growth in the last half the 20th century (late 70s and on), as the growth of the FIRE (Finance, insurance, real estate) sectors and slowdown of the manufacturing sector. Top earners need now be professionals, managers, or highly skilled trade specialists in certain sectors. The stagnation from the 70s in manufacturing is still with us and the growth of the service sector economy has not filled the void left over.
I mean I hope I just didn't veer off into a topic you weren't even talking about. If so I appologize.
You're right. For a prototypical welfare household of 3, los federales offer the following:
- Monthly cash benefits are $400, amounting to $4800 a year.
- Food stamp benefits are $200 per person per month. That comes to $600 per month or $7200 a year.
- Medicaid benefits are $300 per person or $900 per month. That comes to $10,800 per year.
- Housing assistance averages $800 per month or $9,600 per year.
$4,800 + $7,200 + $10,800 + $9600 = $32,400, tax-free. It's pretty clear why so many choose cradle-to-grave welfare dependency? Welfare dependents might not be highly-motivated or particularly public-spirited, but they have a basic grasp of math.
Comprehensive welfare benefits like these are why when you hear about homelessness or hunger in America, you need to take that "news" with a grain of salt. Note that these are not secretive programs - the federal government reaches out aggressively for new clients.
If it makes you feel better to think this way about the poor, you go for it.
You're right. For a prototypical welfare household of 3, los federales offer the following:
- Monthly cash benefits are $400, amounting to $4800 a year.
- Food stamp benefits are $200 per person per month. That comes to $600 per month or $7200 a year.
- Medicaid benefits are $300 per person or $900 per month. That comes to $10,800 per year.
- Housing assistance averages $800 per month or $9,600 per year.
$4,800 + $7,200 + $10,800 + $9600 = $32,400, tax-free. It's pretty clear why so many choose cradle-to-grave welfare dependency? Welfare dependents might not be highly-motivated or particularly public-spirited, but they have a basic grasp of math.
Comprehensive welfare benefits like these are why when you hear about homelessness or hunger in America, you need to take that "news" with a grain of salt. Note that these are not secretive programs - the federal government reaches out aggressively for new clients.
Why do you guys worry about this so much? Welfare social programs such as TANF, SSI and Medicare fall under the mandatory spending. People pay into these programs and expect some form of entitlement (yes I said entitlement) when times are tough.
The stark reality is that right wing nuts like you have this strange ridiculous notion that the only possible way to fail in America is if you sit back and do nothing. To your ilk, it's not systemic problems or stagnation or inflation or a lack of rising wages to meet inflation or outsourcing or trade deficits or rampant military spending....none of that, it's a "lack of personal initiative" and some stupid tiff against government programs.
The thing that sucks the most is that a lot of the conservative drivel comes from foolish baby boomers who lived in a time where you didn't have to pull our your credit card to buy a piece of gum, weren't paying 5 bucks a gallon at the pump, competing for jobs with third world slave labor and could join a union. Why can't you people get it through your heads that it's not about how much personal drive you have, people are battling against a faulty system? Is that too hard for you people to fathom?
As the thread continues, I remind you all once again we have a separate forum devoted to fighting over politics, here focus on local issues.
Also this topic is about TEXAS and not particularly Houston, so it gets moved to Texas Forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
