DHS Secretary Issues Statement, Correcting False Media Accounts at Southern U.S. Border…

The facts, as outlined above, will be totally blasted by the "nay-sayers".

Why???  Because they don't like facts that contradict their version of distain.

Illegal immigration is causing/will cause a lot of problems - specifically the "fact" that some really don't believe in protecting the U. S. borders.  That is sad.

And you love fake news?  Your comments tend to say that.

The truth is everything the female canine domesticate said is nothing more than trump fiction

the female canine domesticate

Your reaction to this story is misogyny. Wow.

Your reaction to this story is misogyny.

No surprise there.

Unfortunately, Ms. Nielsen has a credibility problem.  

Well I'm introducing her lack of credibility for the purpose of establishing the character of the Secretary.  Her character is directly related to THIS article smartie pants.  

Signed: PJ, esq.

Helloooooo.........   

I'm introducing her pattern of lying thereby establishing that she is a liar and should not be believed.

My work here is done.  

Geesh - you really want me to read this article dontcha.  

Okay, give me a couple minutes.  I'll be right back!

Yep - just as I suspected......nothing really compelling in the article.  But, I like ya Tex, so I'm gonna hold off on breaking this article down lie by lie until I get more information.

See - I'm a reasonable person.  

Ms. Nielsen has a credibility problem.  

Not to mention a morality and humanity problems.  She's just another one of Scumbag's many goons. 

Agreed.  She should have remained undercover as Kelly's mistress but people are power hungry so she just couldn't help herself.  

Illegal immigration is causing/will cause a lot of problems - specifically the "fact" that some really don't believe in protecting the U. S. borders.  That is sad.

I agree.

History is filled with what actually happens to people who cannot or do not defend their borders.  It does make me wonder about the end goal of the people who are advocating for open borders.

The issue that we have today was caused because of the open border policies of recent decades that resulted in the illegal immigrants given amnesty after amnesty and citizenship over legal immigrant applicants.  The people who received amnesty were then allowed to bring in their families over legal immigrant applicants who were still trying to gain entry via legal methods.

No more amnesties (including DACA) and no more catch and release might not end caravans, but it should lessen them.

The migrants should be applying for refuge in Mexico, not the US.  Mexico has offered them refuge and jobs.

I wondered why Mexico let them through to begin with. I was guessing they thought they wouldn't have to deal with them once they reached the US.

I am open border in the sense that I think it would be nice to be able to freely travel and move between the US, Mexico and Canada. Which IMO has nothing to do with other countries trying to gain access.

All well and good unless you happen to be a human smuggler or a drug cartel!

I was guessing they thought they wouldn't have to deal with them once they reached the US.

Probably a factor.

I have been researching economic factors in Honduras.  From what I am reading, the majority of the population is unskilled and uneducated- or at least the ones that are crossing our border illegally. 

The US government should be rejecting illegal immigrants and helping Central America expand their education and employment opportunities.  This would result in everyone benefiting long term.

Currently, Honduras and Hondurans are relying on the United States to support them via trade and allowing their migrants to live and work in the US.  

Below is a pretty good article that gives some insight on why the Hondurans (mainly men with no skills or education) are going to continue to come to the US as long as our government allows it. 

thedialogue /

Honduras is the most unequal country in Central America with 60% of people having annual incomes below US$2,000. [4]

Honduras’ exports, which amount to roughly 40% of its GDP, are heavily concentrated in certain areas. Textiles and vegetables combined amount to the majority of all exports, and the United States is by far the largest trading partner. [7

 In 2014, the economy was based on exports (34% of GDP), family remittances (17% of GDP), and tourism (4% of GDP).

Attempting a New Strategic Approach: Zonas de Empleo y Desarrollo Economico (ZEDE)

In an effort to motivate economic development, the Honduran government passed a law in 2013 to create “free zones” (ZEDEs) in order to promote free trade and rule of law through private sector investments. [12]

Although ZEDE is sold by the government as “a 21st century, business-efficient, non-politicized, transparent, stable system of administration, plus a special police and institutional security to overcome regional issues and meet world standards,” there are concerns regarding its impacts. [13]   So far, investors will be able to remove any family from their property if infrastructure is planned to be built in their way. As most of Honduras’ territories are inhabited by people who do not have titles for the land, there are concerns that poor people will be the most affected. Moreover, the approach, which is based around enclaves, does little to expand economic opportunities for the majority of the Honduran population.

In sum, Honduras faces a number of economic development challenges that have not yet been adequately addressed on a policy level. They have important implications for migration, human development, and social inclusion.

Implications for Migration

As a result of the high levels of poverty, violence, and inequality, as well as powerful pull factors from the United States, thousands of migrants continue to flee the country in search of a better future. Unfortunately, a sizable portion of this migration has been undocumented, with many Hondurans undertaking dangerous border crossings. In the most recent data from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Honduras ranked fourth in the countries with the most deportations (20,309) in the 2015 fiscal year. [14]

Implications for Development

Honduras’ economic model has been based on two primary sources of income, exports and migration,

With regards to the second source of income, migration is a dimension that continues to be overlooked by policy makers. Just in 2015, Honduras received $3.7 billion dollars in remittances.

Towards A More Inclusive, Strategic Approach

Even though there have been attempts to update Honduras’ economic model, they have neglected a number of important dynamics. One of the major challenges of the Honduran government is to strengthen its citizens’ human capital. It does not matter if corporations are willing to come and invest in these “free cities.” Until there are enough educated and skilled citizens to fulfill the job requirements and to compete in the 21 ^st   century economy, the country’s economy will continue to be stagnant. Currently, the number of adolescents migrating is each year is higher than the annual enrollment in secondary school. 

mainly men

I found gender demographics of migrants detained in both Mexico and the US since 2012.  It is still nearly 75% male.

Below is a good article discussing conditions in Central America,  migration trends from Central America and deportations from the US.

Because the trend has always been over 70% male, it is extremely likely that the current caravan is over 70% male.

migrationpolicy a

The data clearly show an increase in the share and number of migrant women apprehended in Mexico since fiscal year (FY) 2012. That year, Mexican authorities recorded 11,336 apprehensions of women, constituting 13 percent of the adult total, while in FY 2017 the 30,541 apprehended women made up 25 percent of the total, according to Mexico’s National Migration Institute (INM). Increased female migration from the Northern Triangle and major changes in Mexican immigration enforcement appear to be driving the rise in apprehensions. Overall, migrants from the Northern Triangle have composed the vast majority of border apprehensions in Mexico and the United States in recent years.  

Mexico’s Southern Border Program ( Programa Frontera Sur ), launched in July 2014 by President Enrique Peña Nieto, stepped up Mexican security at the border with Guatemala and Belize and expanded INM’s mandate for interior enforcement. One important result of this policy is that traditional migration routes employed by men are increasingly policed, diverting them to routes and transportation modes typically used by women. These primarily include buses, cars, and cargo trucks on the highways. Border enforcement followed these shifts to the highways, where INM now uses checkpoints to detect the transportation of migrants in vehicles. Together, diverted flows and changed enforcement strategies have increased the likelihood that women will be apprehended.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data also show increases in the share and number of migrant women taken into custody at the U.S.-Mexico border since FY 2012. Mirroring the uptick in Mexico, the female proportion of adult apprehensions at the border increased steadily from 14 percent in FY 2012 to nearly 27 percent in FY 2017. Girls under age 18 from the Northern Triangle constitute an even greater share of the apprehended child population, at 32 percent in FY 2017.

Great article. It corrects the 9 media lies about the Caravan.

It corrects the 9 media lies about the Caravan.

Correction:  repeats 9 rightwing lies about the caravan.

“Eighth, this Administration has been working nonstop to fix our immigration system to address the crisis at the border."

I noticed it doesn't say "Congress has been WORKING nonstop to fix our immigration system" !

They NEVER have, NEVER will !

It's a good thing we have "This Administration" that is willing to do "Congress's" JOB !

Congresses form of working on the immigration problem is to open the borders then we'll have no more problems.

Congresses form of working on the immigration problem is to open the borders then we'll have no more problems.

Or "Pardon" ALL "ILLEGALS" !

What the hell are we paying them for anyway ?

Is there a reason why anyone should believe a word she says after there is documented proof that she has LIED to cover Trump's ass before? 

OK - so the DHS/BP has offered PROOF of what she is stating - what's the issue?

Where? I read her proclamation. What else have they offered? 

BTW, the BS about how many are eligible for asylum is utter BS. ALL of them are eligible to APPLY. 

What some did on the southern Mexico border is irrelevant. There is NO evidence that there was any rock throwing here. 

BTW, Trump's statement about injured Border Agents was a LIE. Big surprise right? 

"America, America" !

Whoa - NO - where are the women and children in this picture.  Damn - those are all men - wrong picture, eh?  And all those photographers just taking picture after picture and not worried 'bout being hit by rocks.

Dulay - huge difference between being "eligible for asylum" and being eligible to apply.

Look at the video below - rocks being thrown.

Dulay - huge difference between being "eligible for asylum" and being eligible to apply.

Yet one CANNOT apply unless and until one enters the US. So since they are ALL eligible, ALL have a right to present themselves at the border and seek asylum. 

The mistake they made was to congregate in one area. 

Three agent's were in fact hit by rocks.

Guess that 'see through wall' was a bad idea then.

Wonder what got everyone running away from the fence. Pepper spray perhaps? 

BTW, those 8-10 guys must be good shots...

Poor kid. Someone should teach him that Mexico is already American. 

Poor kid. Someone should teach him that Mexico is already American. 

Weally now. 

They've shown no proof only their evil day dreams

ALL have a right to present themselves at the border and seek asylum. 

I think that would be at the proper port of entry facility and not a random hike in the fence down the way. They are taking asylum applications at the boarder. They just have to wait their turn

Then they have to quit throwing rocks at themselves.

The mistake they made was to congregate in one area. 

And that stems from Scumbag's violation of U.S. law that stipulates asylum seekers may cross at any part of the border not just at established ports of entry.   

[Removed]

[That line of questioning is unacceptable and will not be tolerated on this site.]

The facts, as outlined above, will be totally blasted by the "nay-sayers". Why???  Because they don't like facts that contradict their version of distain.

And there you are.....

They can apply but her point and records show that 90% of asylum applications from Central America are denied, even under Obama

secondly is is virtually assured that 100% of these are ineligible 

When looking at the US law on Asylum it is clear the government has broad discretion to make immediate determination of asylum eligibility.   And based upon the reported nature of these invaders, NONE meet our legal and international law standards

8 U.S.C. 1158 - ASYLUM

The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).

gpo

The grounds that the/a U. S. Embassy are on is considered U.S. grounds.

Next argument.

It's in Central America - and that is not U.S. America.

There is NO evidence that there was any rock throwing here. 

LMAO 

You can't be serious?

There is no evidence of preteens running around in diapers either 

Don - What do you mean by census number?

Recommend changing your glasses - 25 - 40 at the fence.

They can apply but her point and records show that 90% of asylum applications from Central America are denied, even under Obama

Yes.

secondly is is virtually assured that 100% of these are ineligible 

No.  Statistically highly improbable that there are zero eligible people in a group that size.  Math, my friend.  It's what separates us from animals and liberals.

She never said anything about "Apply"ing, she only stated the "fact" as to how many have been granted asylum in the past. 

Of course she didn't. That would acknowledge that each case is adjudicated INDIVIDUALLY. 

Imagine it like try outs for the Pros. Thousands try out, only a few 'make the team. Yet the dream burns bright in every player...

Maybe you should contact Border Patrol agent Rodney Scott and tell him he's full of shit.

Why? Did he get hit by a rock? 

The grounds that the/a U. S. Embassy are on is considered U.S. grounds.
Next argument.

U.S Embassies DO NOT take applications for asylum. 

Next argument. 

Recommend changing your glasses - 25 - 40 at the fence.

Recommend that you admit that only a few were throwing rocks. 

It's in Central America - and that is not U.S. America.

Actually, Mexico is part of North America 1st...

Still no retraction on your statement disproved by my video?

I retract. Happy?

I won't revisit the plethora of comments you have failed to retract after being proven wrong, but in the future I will demand the same from you. 

I'm sure that you will have no issue being held to your own standards.

'I'm sure that you will have no issue being held to your own standards.'

Southern - VERY Southern part - also the third largest Latin American country in the world - per Wikipedia

100% because of US law and the reason they say they are coming

gang violence and poverty are not part of the eligible reasons

100% because of US law and the reason they say they are coming

Unless you've interviewed them all, you don't know why they say they're coming.  All you know is what the news reports say, and we both know they can be less than reliable.

Statistically, the chances are idiotically small that none of those people will qualify.

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about ?

Yes. Do you have a question, perhaps I can help. 

Can't remember where I read it, but it's been said that only 'bout 2% of this crowd will qualify for asylum.

Actually, Mexico is part of North America 1st...

So is Central America for that matter. 

False "headline" as evidenced by the fact that it does not link to CNN (or anything).  IOW, a LIE.

Can't remember where I read it,

No problem.  We can figure it out. 

Jesus Christ, that doesn't even pretend not to be a staged-for-rightwing-propaganda-purposes pic.

The grounds that the/a U. S. Embassy are on is considered U.S. grounds.

Yeah, and every asylum seeker who's got a drug or government thug after him/her  wants to be seen entering the US Embassy so that anyone who's out to kill him knows what he's planning and where to find him. 

Anyone with evidence to contradict her statements is free to speak up.

Who could still let themselves believe this lying *****?  

BS....more revisionist history from this scumbag administration

BS....more revisionist history from this scumbag administration

And outright lawlessness, of course. 

Historically, less than 10% of those who claim asylum from #Guatemala , #Honduras , and #ElSalvador are found eligible by a federal judge.

C ite as 27 I&N Dec. 303 (Matter of A-C -M -, Respondent Decided June 6, 2018

The heartlessness of this country is simply appalling.

Really?  Is it the responsibility of the US to take in all of the world's refugees?

If so, then there are millions of refugees from Yemen who need shelter.  In fact, 13 million women and children are at risk of dying for starvation within a few months according to the UN.  

vox

Yemen’s famine has cost tens of thousands of children’s lives

• Some 85,000 children under the age of 5 are said to have died from starvation in Yemen in the past three years during the massive humanitarian crisis in the Arab world’s poorest nation. [ Al Jazeera ]

• According to information gathered by Save the Children, an NGO that promotes children’s rights, an estimated 400,000 more children are likely to suffer from malnutrition in 2018, more than the previous year. [ CNN / Kara Fox ]

• The United Nations warned last month that 13 million people — nearly half of the country’s population — are at risk of dying from starvation by early 2019 due to the ongoing civil war. What’s more, upward of 10,000 people have been killed in the conflict and millions more have been displaced to other countries. [ BBC ]

• As recently as Monday, though, Islamic Houthi rebels said they’re ready for a ceasefire, and that they will stop firing rockets into Saudi Arabia in an effort to finally enter peace talks. The Saudis, who back the Yemeni government, have taken over the main port, blocking food from coming in. [ AP / Ahmed Al-Haj and Brian Rohan ]

Is it the responsibility of the US to take in all of the world's refugees?

NO... And I dont want them.

But, I always try to consider the whole picture, our country is in part probably to blame for this mass migration. With a few minuets of looking I found this, I thought I might, I wanted to at least share it so you could see it too. 

(Reuters) - Honduran President Juan Hernandez blamed U.S. drug policy for sparking violence in Central American countries and driving a surge of migration to the United States, according to an interview published on Monday.

Hernandez, who took office in January after winning on a pledge to be tough on crime, said only a drop in violence would curb the wave of families and unaccompanied minors fleeing Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras who have overwhelmed temporary detention facilities on the U.S. border.

"Honduras has been living in an emergency for a decade," Hernandez told Mexican daily newspaper Excelsior. "The root cause is that the United States and Colombia carried out big operations in the fight against drugs. Then Mexico did it."

Those operations pushed drug traffickers into Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, he suggested, adding: "This is creating a serious problem for us that sparked this migration."

Hernandez said more resources were needed in Central America to fight drug gangs and he said his country was deserving of U.S. aid similar to the programs that funded anti-drug operations in Colombia and Mexico.

...........................

I had a feeling I'd find something like this pretty fast. Our junkies, many caused to be junkies by our large pharmaceutical companies and lack of oversight played a role in the demise of the country many of this immigrants are fleeing from. 

Whats the answer, I have no idea, that's why we hire politicians and why I try to vote for the most qualified. 

Liberals think so. As long as someone else pays for it.

then there are millions of refugees from Yemen who need shelter.

And do you know who keeps selling the bombs that keep killing the people? Who bears that responsibility?

Shithole Countries: Made in the USA

Maybe, just maybe, if the good ole u s of a would stop creating these shithole countries, they might just stay in their country. But oh no, instead, we want to weep and wail and gnash our teeth at the fact that now we are reaping the harvest of the seeds we sowed way back then.

If there isn't any more room in this country for anyone, then maybe we should stop having babies, maybe even start getting rid of all the useless baggage we already carry in this country.

Liberals think so. As long as someone else pays for it.

I'm sure some do, most conservatives dont.

I think if we helped create a mess we should also try to be part of the solution. Within reason !

Some don't believe that either.. so... 

And many would probably never want to even know or consider it. so... 

I agree with that we created the mess by creating a welfare state. End the welfare state and the problem is solved. 

Is it the responsibility of the US to take in all of the world's refugees?

I don't believe it is possible, humane or environmentally feasible to concentrate the world's population into the industrialized nations.

Industrialized nations don't have the infrastructure, the housing, the waste disposal, the job base, the tax base for the social services necessary to feed, clothe and shelter a few billion more people.

Countries need economic development which means an educated and skilled workforce in today's world. This is happening in many countries - some very slowly.  There is no quick fix to the world's problems or they would have been addressed long ago.

Some people in the US seem to believe that farm and ranch land should be taken away from US citizens and given to migrants.  I have no idea why, but I know that it is not feasible.  Farmers/ranchers are continually going bankrupt in the US even with government subsidies.    Besides, after turning the majority of the  farmland and ranches into subdivisions for migrants, where are we going to grow food?

If there isn't any more room in this country for anyone,

I am not advocating zero immigration. 

US citizens are choosing to have less that 2 children on average just like all other industrialized nations.  Without immigration (legal and illegal), our population would be naturally declining like all other industrialized nations.  I do not see this as a bad thing because our species is still on track to add billions more people, but the people who have a choice are making the choice to responsibly reproduce according to their physical, mental and financial capabilities.  No one is FORCING them to limit their family size.  

The people who are having the most children are the ones who cannot financially afford them in the shithole countries where women's rights, education and economic opportunities are limited or non existent.

I agree with that we created the mess by creating a welfare state. End the welfare state and the problem is solved. 

I'd say this mess was created elsewhere with our help unknowingly by our addicts providing a market for the criminal cartels that have taken over much of one of our neighboring countries. Our welfare program has problems of its own manly I'd say abled bodied people taking advantage of the system. 

The problem with instantly ending welfare would be many of those same people would turn to crime, people would get hurt and jails we pay for would swell at our cost anyway.

I see no easy answer to poverty or welfare elimination, the best we can hope for is more responsible citizens and government.....LOL LOL LOL 

sad !

I don't believe it is possible, humane or environmentally feasible to concentrate the world's population into the industrialized nations.

I agree, Like I said, at tis point I dont have the answer. Personally I think this is exactly why we helped countries like Mexico before. so we didn't have this mass immigration stemming from neighboring countries threatening our border. 

This time we seemingly didn't do much to stop it. So what do we do now is the question... I do not know. 

Hopefully the people we hired to deal with this kind of thing do. 

we shall see. 

Maybe, just maybe, if the good ole u s of a would stop creating these shithole countries,

The US did not create countries that have not industrialized.  US business is always looking for people to exploit both domestically and internationally.  We have US businessmen who would probably turn the US into a shithole country if they made a profit from it.   

We have poverty within our own nation that is largely ignored by the open border advocates.  Man's inhumanity toward man is rampant throughout the history of our species.  Most people don't seem to want to discuss lasting, long term solutions to poverty.  It seems to be all about scoring points in some imaginary system that boosts their own ego.  

Always follow the money.

The US business community managed to worm their way into China in the hopes of exploiting the labor of hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens and gain access to their markets.  I really believe that they had dreams of doing it the Wal-Mart way - paying employees dismal wages and then getting them back every pay period at the company store by offering a pitiful 10% discount on housewares that could be bought cheaper elsewhere.

The Chinese government played the long game and allowed the US business community to pay upfront to build infrastructure to support the factories & access extremely cheap labor, but was amazingly brilliant in gaining rights to patents that propelled their technology from ???? to modern.

Chinese labor prices have gone up.  US business is looking for cheaper labor once again.  China has infrastructure, factories, patents and an international marketplace courtesy of US business greed.

China now has money to buy land globally and are expanding into nations in Africa and South America.  Probably elsewhere but I am not wanting to research it this minute.

China is making their own oil deals in order to have a secure energy source for their 1+ billion people.  

If the citizens of the US don't get their shit together and look at what is happening on the world stage, we are on our way to being another shithole country that mainly consumes and doesn't produce anything of value on the world stage.

doesn't produce anything of value on the world stage.

With global competition on wages and America being such a high cost of living country I doubt if labor is the answer. Perhaps robotics but as you allude to we are already behind there. 

I'm like you if America isn't careful we may be left behind and end up a more of a shithole country than parts of it are already. 

One of the major advantages I see for our long term future is our natural resources that have till now been fairly well limited in their depletion and extraction by the conservativeness of the past. 

If those resources are taped responsibly and to a much larger extent we may be ok well into the future. As other countries resources run out, ours will become more and more valuable. The last country to run out of resources and still be viable and still have unpolluted land will be the winner. 

I wonder who that will be ?  Maybe us, IF we play our final cards right. 

Time will tell. 

the US did not create countries that have not industrialized.

True, But we probably have bombed a few to that point. Or made the weapons that did. 

The people who are having the most children are the ones who cannot financially afford them in the shithole countries where women's rights, education and economic opportunities are limited or non existent.

also true, but, people in our country did the same thing for child labor back not too long ago. 

A farm hand was worth their weight in gold, so they more ya had the richer you got. 

8, 10 kids was not uncommon back then. (or so I've been told, not in my day, it was down to three by then)  thankfully !!!!  LOL 

Well, you're on a really nice rant here, but you aren't really offering much that is useful are you? All I did was point out that even a slave can't seek asylum in the this country. A country that fought a war to end slavery. I pointed out the heartlessness of that decision, and you offer a rant? Judas priest, why don't you offer instead a solution? Yes there are lots of problems, and this country is one of them. People crow about how great our economy is while we have millions of underfed children and homeless. But that doesn't matter. We got ours and the rest of the world can ES&D. That is a solution? How about this? Lets get rid of the immigration issue once and for all by getting rid of nations.

How about that for a solution?

People crow about how great our economy is while we have millions of underfed children and homeless.

I agree that domestic poverty is an issue that needs resolved.  It should be a priority before adding more unskilled people via immigration so we have a proper safety net for everyone inside our borders.  I do not support the pull yourself by your bootstrap mentality. 

I support national healthcare and free community college for all US citizens.  I believe that this should be a funded priority before adding more unskilled people via immigration.

There is much work that needs to be done for the citizens within our borders instead of US citizens being guilted for not taking care of the entire world.  

If we can't resolve poverty inside our own borders, then why should we be adding to it?

A farm hand was worth their weight in gold, so they more ya had the richer you got. 

Most farms were small and farmers were rarely rich.  Poverty was common and still is.  US farmers have been going bankrupt for decades.

pbs

The link between work and poverty was different in the past. In the early 1980s, the share of the rural poor that was employed exceeded that in urban areas by more than 15 percent. Since then, more and more poor people in rural areas are also unemployed – a trend consistent with other patterns documented below.

That said, rural workers continue to benefit less from work than their urban counterparts. In 2015, 9.8 percent of rural, prime-age working householders were poor, compared with 6.8 percent of their urban counterparts. Nearly a third of the rural working poor faced extreme levels of deprivation, with family incomes below 50 percent of the poverty line, or approximately US$12,000 for a family of four.

Large shares of the rural workforce also live in economically precarious circumstances just above the poverty line. Nearly one in five rural working householders lived in families with incomes less than 150 percent of the poverty line. That’s nearly five percentage points more than among urban workers (13.5 percent).

According to recent research, rural-urban gaps in working poverty cannot be explained by rural workers’ levels of education, industry of employment or other similar factors that might affect earnings. Rural poverty – at least among workers – cannot be fully explained by the characteristics of the rural population. That means reducing rural poverty will require attention to the structure of rural economies and communities.

– Brian Thiede, Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology and Demography, Pennsylvania State University

2. Most new jobs aren’t in rural areas

It’s easy to see why many rural Americans believe the recession never ended: For them, it hasn’t.

Rural communities still haven’t recovered the jobs they lost in the recession. Census data show that the rural job market is smaller now – 4.26 percent smaller, to be exact – than it was in 2008. In these data are shuttered coal mines on the edges of rural towns and boarded-up gas stations on rural main streets. In these data are the angers, fears and frustrations of much of rural America.

This isn’t a new trend. Mechanization, environmental regulations and increased global competition have been slowly whittling away at resource extraction economies and driving jobs from rural communities for most of the 20th century. But the fact that what they’re experiencing now is simply the cold consequences of history likely brings little comfort to rural people. If anything, it only adds to their fear that what they once had is gone and it’s never coming back.

Nor is it likely that the slight increase in rural jobs since 2013 brings much comfort. As the resource extraction economy continues to shrink, most of the new jobs in rural areas are being created in the service sector. So Appalachian coal miners and Northwest loggers are now stocking shelves at the local Walmart.

Most farms were small and farmers were rarely rich.

True but many farmers had many children to help work the farms.  That was common. Our average number of children per household used to be much higher than today. 

As far as rural areas not producing employment you are singing to the chore there. At 19 I relocated to get away from that. Already at that age I had figured out that cornfields and baseball fields do not a thriving economy make. 40 years later it still doesn't. Where I came from has not changed, I doubt it ever does. I did. 

Best life changing decision I probably ever made.

US farmers have been going bankrupt for decades.

With or without immigrant labor.  Finding cheap domestic and/or immigrant farm labor is a worldwide problem so the world's engineers are working on developing more machines to do more farm work.   

In the near future, there will be little demand for laborers to pick crops.  

As the need for unskilled labor goes away, it is imperative that countries develop education programs that train their citizens for the jobs of today's and tomorrow's world.  Either that or we will need global social programs to feed, clothe and shelter all of the people who are not employable.  In fact, some nations are already working on the issue of having more people than there are or will be jobs for them because this is our future.

cnbc abor-crunch.html

Robotic harvesting vehicles are being tested in   Florida   and   California   to pick strawberries and replace labor-intensive tasks normally performed by dozens of farm workers. Also, robotic machinery is being tested to harvest apples and other crops, and efforts are underway to develop small agriculture field robots that can attack weeds or take care of other farm work.

Large farming companies are helping to champion the robotic solutions by sometimes becoming strategic investors in the technology firms  and by participating in testing of the next-generation farm equipment. It comes as advancements in processor speeds also have paved the way for robotics to become more practical and cost effective.

"We're seeing more and more of a move towards just technology in general, whether it's robotics or mechanization," said wine grape grower Ryan Jacobsen, CEO of the Fresno County Farm Bureau. "We've seen some incredible improvements there, and for us to remain competitive in California just because of so many areas of cost and the lack of needed individuals to help us bring in the harvest we're going to have to rely upon this technology."

True but many farmers had many children to help work the farms.

Depends on the area and the farm.  My mother was one of 14 children.  All survived into adulthood.  All were raised in extreme poverty in the Arkansas Ozarks.

I insisted that my two children go to college and pursue careers in fields that interested them.  It has worked out reasonably well for them as far as monetary compensation.  The feeling of spending life doing something interesting and worthwhile seems to be lacking.  I understand this because although I could make more money working in an office, I preferred working on a ranch feeding and doctoring beef cattle.  

Well sometimes as we mature our interests change. If your children aren't finding their fulfillment in what they are currently doing they may change that if and when they chose or they may find it elsewhere all together, hopefully they do somehow, someday.  

and I agree money isn't everything for damn sure. 

The problem where I came form was if I were have stayed there I knew I would always be poor and cold. I didn't like either !!

LOL I remember going to Florida as a kid to visit my grandparents for christmas one winter and realizing it really didn't get cold as hell everywhere for the first time in my life, I asked Mom why we lived where we did and if we could move to Fl. .. I was 6 years old. LOL   Once I was working age I knew I had to get out. By 19 I did. 

I've had a much better easier happier life than I really do believe I would have if I had not relocated, so for me it was the best choice. 

But, to each their own, I'm glad you are also happy where you chose to be, I think that's important for each of us !

PS: So in your family it went form 14 down to 2... WOW.  That's quite the change.

Modernisation really did change things. For all of us ! 

Thanks for the conversation, have a good rest of the night

The thing is that mechanization isn't necessarily viable for small family farms. For certain crops, to break even, small farms can't afford to buy or even rent harvesting machines. In short, the smaller the holding, the less likely mechanization is viable or profitable. 

I spent my summers working on my great grandparents farm and would hate to see the small family farm disappear. 

In short, the smaller the holding, the less likely mechanization is viable or profitable. 

True.  That is why most small farms require the owners to rely on working outside of the farm in order to pay bills and keep their small farm.

Also, the "family" farm has rarely supported a family well.  When the children become adults, they have to move off of the "family" farm and find other means of support - which is rarely farming. 

That is why the demographics of farmers are ....

modernfarmer /

(Note: The USDA defines a farm as any agricultural enterprise that produces and sells goods worth at least $1,000 in a year. Demographic data discussed below is taken from surveys of each farm’s “principal operator.”)

1. American farmers are old white men

More than 92 percent of the country’s 2.1 million farmers are non-Hispanic whites, and more than 86 percent of those farm operators are men. The average age of farmers, which has been rising for decades, continued to inch up. In 2012, the average farmer was 58.3 years old, up from 57.1 years in 2007.

2. But there are more minority farmers than ever before.

The total number of farmers in the United States fell by 95,000 since the 2007 Census of Agriculture. At the same time, the total number minority farmers grew ”“ nearly 97,000 of them checked a race box other than “white” on their census forms. That’s a 6.9 percent increase from 2007.

The population of Asian farmers grew by 21.9 percent, the fastest rate of any minority group, up from 11,214 in 2007 to 13,699 in 2012. More than one-third of Asian farmers in the United States live in California.

The number of farmers of Spanish, Hispanic or Latino origin also rose by just over 20 percent over the same period, up to a total 67,014 ”“ 22,353 of whom live in Texas.

4. Most American farms are small, and more than half of farmers are part-timers

Although the supposed rise of “mega-farms” receives a lot of press, 75 percent of all American farms grossed less than $50,000 in 2012, and just 4 percent grossed more than $1 million.

Just over half (52 percent) of the 2.1 million farmers in 2012 reported that farming is their secondary occupation. More than three quarters of all farmers, though, have been at it for 10 or more years.

5. We have fewer farms and less farmland than we did before

The United States had 95,000 fewer farms in 2012 than it did in 2007, as well as 7.5 million fewer acres of farmland. That’s equivalent to more than 11,700 square miles ”“ an area only slightly smaller than the entire state of Maryland.

Over that period, the average farm size increased slightly from 414 acres to 434 acres, while the median farm size held steady at just 80 acres.

PS: So in your family it went form 14 down to 2... WOW.  That's quite the change.

I have one grandchild and that will be my only grandchild.  I am fine with that.  

If I had known in the 1970s where the world would be today, I would have had zero children in order to have done my part to lessen pollution, overpopulation and world poverty.

If I had known in the 1970s where the world would be today, I would have had zero children in order to have done my part to lessen pollution, overpopulation and world poverty.

I dont think one less human would make much difference but I'll bet your daughter and granddaughter wouldn't have liked it and probably wouldn't like to hear that either, I know if my mom or grandmother had said that I wouldn't be too happy.

I loved my grandma very very much, she was actually my favorite human on the planet. ...LOL I made the mistake of saying that in front of my mom one day, she didn't like hearing that. I'm sure she would have liked for me to think of her as my favorite, but she hadn't earned that place like my grandma had. Grandma got me, we were more alike than my mom and I ever were. I my opinion Grandmas rock !  At least mine did. 

14 to 1 .. cant get much lower and maintain a society.  I'd say you didn't hurt humanity much. lol

Sleep well...  

I dont think one less human would make much difference but I'll bet your daughter and granddaughter wouldn't have liked it

My daughter understands because she has the same kind of concerns about the poisoned water and food supply and the rising levels of violence due to national and international economic disparity along with the usual run of the mill violence associated with racism and misogyny.

Between 20 & 25 percent of women in the US have been raped.  Very few rapists are ever charged and the few that are rarely are convicted.  The US recently earned recognition on the list of Top 10 most dangerous countries for women and rightfully so.

I was raised in a small rural farming community in Northwest Arkansas.  There was very little crime.  I had no way of knowing that the population in my area would explode due to Wal-Mart.    

Gangs started moving into NW Arkansas in the 90s when my kids were in high school.  There were local residents murdered at random for gang initiations, apartment buildings shot up and the usual run of the mill gang violence.  It has been surreal to see this type of crime in an area where people had very little reason to lock their homes or vehicles only 3 decades ago.

This is not a world that I would have knowingly brought children into.

nwaonline

Gangs have put down roots in Northwest Arkansas, said Kelley Cradduck, Benton County sheriff. In the past few years, law enforcement has counted at least 50 gangs in the area, he said.

"The chance to keep them out has passed -- it's gone," Cradduck said. "Now, we have to deal with them."

Cradduck has been a longtime proponent of preventing and fighting gang activity in Northwest Arkansas. He teaches a course on gangs at Northwest Arkansas Community College in Bentonville. He worked on a gang task force unit at the Rogers Police Department on and off for about 10 years. When he was elected sheriff, Cradduck started the Benton County gang suppression unit in 2013.

Cradduck saw gang activity in Benton and Washington counties a decade ago and tried to warn people, he said. Many gangs left Rogers because of policing efforts, he said.

Other law enforcement agencies don't see a lot of gang activity, spokesmen said.

The Washington County Detention Center has inmates who say they belong to gangs, but gangs seem confined mostly to the cities, said Kelly Cantrell, Washington County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman.

Bentonville hasn't seen a drive-by shooting since the 1990s, said Capt. John Hubbard, Police Department spokesman. Fayetteville also doesn't see a lot of gang-related crimes or graffiti, said police spokesman Craig Stout.

In Rogers, gangs aren't as violent as urban city gangs seen elsewhere, said Keith Foster, Rogers Police Department spokesman. The gangs here are locally grown -- not connected to international gangs, he said.

"We do not see the types of violent crime or other activities that one normally associates with gangs," Foster said.

In February, eight teens were arrested after fighting with Rogers police, police said. Several of those teens said they are part of "Brown Pride Midgets," a locally known gang that may be linked to a Mexican-American gang. A gang called Brown Pride has been linked to the Sinaloa Cartel, a Mexican drug-trafficking organization, according to a 2013 FBI report.

Law enforcement agencies have turned a blind eye to gang activity growing in Northwest Arkansas, Cradduck said. Gangs have been connected to drug crimes, commercial burglaries and fights, he said.

"We've had plenty of crimes that have happened in our communities that law enforcement will refuse to say or admit is gang related," Cradduck said. "The facts speak for themselves: the graffiti, the violence, the gang admissions, the tattoos, the information from gang informants. You don't even need more evidence. It's here. [Gangs] don't try to hide it."

Cradduck said one city fighting a gang problem isn't enough. Northwest Arkansas law enforcement needs a regional approach, he said. Police must collaborate and create a regional plan, he said.

Gang task forces that cross law enforcement jurisdictions and share information help fight gang activity, Harris said.

Gangs are more organized than 10 years ago, Cradduck said. The groups are already learning about local police and evolving to commit different crimes, he said. Gangs are also using more technology, according to the 2013 National Gang Report.

The FBI report, the most recent available, is from the National Youth Gang Survey of the National Alliance of Gang Investigators' Associations.

"It's bigger than you think -- that's the problem," Cradduck said. "If we don't come together, it will never fix itself."

NW News on 03/22/2015

It has been surreal to see this type of crime in an area where people had very little reason to lock their homes or vehicles only 3 decades ago. This is not a world that I would have knowingly brought children into.

Sorry to hear the area went ta hell. Not all of America is like that. I'm not tied to any place forever.

If and when I needed to relocate to make my life better, I did. 3 times. I have no regrets about it either, If I have to do it again, I certainly will.

I cant control what others do, or what they do or don't make of an area. I can control what I do, where I live and what I make of my life so, I made my life what I wanted it to be and moved to where I could have the advantages I needed to make it happen.  

I highly recommend it !!!

Like I told my nephew a while back who is still trying to survive where I came from, I asked him "Why the Hell stay where you know it sucks and it's probably never to get much better when you do not absolutely have to ?"  

It's a huge free country with lots of opportunity, you just have to be willing to go find it. Most of the time it's not gonna come looking for you in particular. Especially where the economy sucks and has for decades and of course, that's where crime breeds as well. 

The problem for many people is their family keeps them tied to a place that may never improve. Their choice. My brother did that because of his wife's family, he finally committed suicide. That was his way out. 

RIP: Bro 

Not my way. I love life and I'll go to where its good if I need to. 

Thanks for the conversation. I hope you find happiness, overpopulation is not worth being unhappy about, it's not your fault and you single handedly can't change it. So why worry too much about it. Enjoy your time and your family, It goes quick.

Later

Thanks for the conversation. I hope you find happiness,

Enjoyed it.

I am an introvert who is fortunate to be able to currently be living on a small acreage (around 10 acres) where I am still mostly surrounded by pastures with cattle grazing in them.  If I moved, optimally it would be to a place more isolated with mountain views and accessible to unpolluted creeks/rivers.   But I should not have to migrate from my area due to gang violence.  Nor should any other US citizen.  

I am 62.  I was married to a local who went to the Marine Corps after high school graduation.  We were fortunate to live in Southern California, Tennessee and even spent 3 years on Oahu.  There are a few places like Yellowstone that I would have liked to visit when I was younger and physically able to move without pain.  However, thanks to the internet and documentaries about the world's plants and animals, I can explore the world from the comfort of my couch.  LOL!  

I am mostly happy.  I cannot help worrying about the increasing levels of violence caused by gangs and local yokels  in my area or anywhere else in the world.   I am a problem solver by nature.  I am very concerned that we don't have leadership in the US that is working on lasting solutions for these problems instead of pretending that they do not exist whenever possible.

 But I should not have to migrate from my area due to gang violence.  Nor should any other US citizen.  

I agree, unfortunate what we should have or should not have to do is kinda like fairness it isn't.

It sounds like you have a nice island oasis for now. I hope it gets better for you, But if it gets worse it's still a huge country and it is not all bad. 

Like I said so far I've needed to relocate 3 times myself each was a major relocation, IF needed I will do it again, even out of the country if I really think necessary.

I am not where I live. I take me with me. If I can't be happy where I am, I dont stay there. 

(I've never had 10 acres to move though...LOL) just under one. (of course I didn't move it) lol 

I think my resolve comes from watching unhappy others I loved that didn't work at doing what they needed to do to make themselves happy, eventually it ruined their health then they were dead. 

Many mainly because they were not willing to leave where they were so unhappy. 

Being unhappy is easy.  I've worked at being happy... still do.

Even if I had to move or have to again even halfway across the nation to find it, or further.

PS: I have gone back to where I was born to visit, not much has changed there in over 40 years, cornfields and baseball fields still don't make for a thriving economy or for very many happy people. 

smile  

Hmmmm - looks to me like he's pizzed 'cause the drug trade is dying up in his country.

looks to me like he's pizzed 'cause the drug trade is dying up in his country.

"Honduras has been living in an emergency for a decade," Hernandez told Mexican daily newspaper Excelsior. "The root cause is that the United States and Colombia carried out big operations in the fight against drugs. Then Mexico did it."

Those operations pushed drug traffickers into Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, he suggested, adding: "This is creating a serious problem for us that sparked this migration."

Hernandez said more resources were needed in Central America to fight drug gangs and he said his country was deserving of U.S. aid similar to the programs that funded anti-drug operations in Colombia and Mexico.

.............................................................

Looks more to me like he wants US to help pay for the problem he believes we had a part in.

don't make for a  thriving  economy or for very many happy people.

And neither does overpopulation.  Population density is a major factor in mental health in our species.  

Happiness is rarely achieved by being squashed into a high rise building and filling it with bling to achieve some kind of elusive social status that our commercial driven society tells is achievable only if we make vast amounts of money to buy expensive bling.  

Even having a good social safety net in population dense countries/cities is not enough to overcome the negative mental health issues with overcrowding.

Happiness for me is living off the grid as much as possible, minor seasonal landscaping for the bees, birds and butterflies, raising a garden, reading items of interest on the web, planting a garden to feed 6 or more people (& a multitude of insects) in the hopes of sharing with neighbors who can't garden, occasionally baking pumpkin bread for elderly neighbors, raising & keeping around a dozen egg layers for my use and to share.

I googled "effects of population density on mental health".  

newgeography sity

A monumental   Swedish study   of over four million Swedes examined whether a high level of urbanisation (which correlates with density) is associated with an increased risk of developing psychosis and depression. Adjustments were made to cater for individual demographic and socio-economic characteristics. It was found that the rates for psychosis (such as the major brain disorder schizophrenia) were 70% greater for the denser areas. There was also a 16% greater risk of developing depression. The paper discusses various reasons for this finding but the conclusion states: "A high level of urbanisation is associated with increased risk of psychosis and depression".

Another analysis, in the prestigious journal   Nature , discusses urban neural social stress. It states that the incidence of schizophrenia is twice as high in cities. Brain area activity differences associated with urbanisation have been found. There is evidence of a dose-response relationship that probably reflects causation.

There are adverse mental (and other) health consequences resulting from an absence of green space. After allowing for demographic and socio-economic characteristics, a   study   of three hundred and fifty thousand people in Holland found that the prevalence of depression and anxiety was significantly greater for those living in areas with only 10% green space in their surroundings compared to those with 90% green space.

High-density advocates seem most oblivious to the needs of children .   Living in high-density restricts children’s physical activity, independent mobility and active play. Many studies find that child development, mental health and physical health are affected. They also find a likely association of high-rise living with behavioural problems.

An   Australian study   of bringing up young children in apartments emphasizes resulting activities that are sedentary. It notes there is a lack of safe active play space outside the home – many parks and other public open spaces offer poor security. Frustrated young children   falling   out of apartment windows can be a tragic consequence. Children enter school with poorly developed   social and motor skills . Girls living in high-rise buildings are prone to increased levels of   overweight and obesity .

A   British study   found that 93% of children living in centrally located high-rise flats had behavioural problems and that this percentage was higher than for children living
in lower density dwellings. Anti-social behaviour often results. An   Austrian study   showed disturbances in classroom behaviour higher for children living in multiple-dwelling units compared to those living in lower densities. 

There is also evidence of other potential health impacts on children living in higher density housing. These include   short-sightedness   due to restricted length of vision, and diminished   auditory discrimination   and reading ability due to exposure to noise.

Air pollution   increases with density. This results from higher traffic densities together with less volume of air being available for dilution and dispersion.   Nitrogen oxides   in this pollution have adverse respiratory effects including airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma. There is consistent evidence that proximity to busy roads, high traffic density and increased exposure to pollution are linked to a range of respiratory conditions. These can range from severe conditions (such as a higher incidence of death) to minor irritations. Moreover, these respiratory health impacts affect all age groups.

Several studies relate low birth weight to air pollution. A   South Korean report , for example, found the pollutants carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and total suspended particle concentrations in the first trimester of pregnancy pose significant risk factors for low birth weight.

Air pollution   particulates   are associated with killing more people than   traffic accidents . Pollutants such as those emitted by vehicles are significantly associated with an increase in the risk of   heart attacks   and   early death .

Cancer   is a major health scourge and a relationship between increased colon cancer, breast cancer and total cancer mortality with population density has been found.

There is an association between overall Human Happiness and density. Professor Cummins’   Australian Unity   Wellbeing Index   reports that the happiest electorates have a lower population density. A   United States study   finds the satisfaction of older adults living in higher density social housing reduces as building height increases and as the number of units increases. By contrast, in lower densities there are higher friendship scores, greater housing satisfaction, and more active participation. This does not apply only to single family houses: Residents of garden apartments have a greater   sense of community   than residents of high-rise dwellings.

don't make for a  thriving  economy or for very many happy people. 

We live in a society where the drive to acquire things that we don't need has become the backbone of our society.

It has been interesting to me that at least some millennials are focusing on using their income to travel and experiencing differing cultures firsthand instead of trying to impress others with designer labels.  Maybe, it is because many of them have grown up surrounded by a mountain of things and weren't happy?

The positive of traveling is that maybe this generation will have a greater understanding of other countries and other cultures.  Maybe not.

My daughter took her family to England and France last spring.  My granddaughter did not enjoy the crowded conditions of London.  We didn't even discuss Paris because she did not want to talk about the trip in front of her mother.  My daughter wanted to go back to Europe next spring and was soundly vetoed.  My granddaughter wanted to see the Grand Canyon and other less crowded places in the US so the Grand Canyon it is.   My granddaughter lives in an economically thriving city surrounded by thousands of people 24/7.  She wants to take vacations in places where she will not be surrounded by millions of people.  I understand completely.  

forbes

Jeff Fromm:  What role does travel play in the lives of Millennials?

Tara Cappel:  Millennials don’t just see travel as something we do, we identify with it. We consider ourselves citizens of the world and we have an enthusiastic desire to immerse ourselves in another place and return rejuvenated, inspired, and ready for our next adventure. We are travelers.

Over the past couple of years, several reports have come out that an overwhelming majority of  millennials say they prefer to spend their money on experiences over things. Louis Vuitton is  out, Vietnam is in.

Young people are also working harder than ever and are putting off major life stages like  marriages, mortgages and children. They have extra cash and need to get away from their  demanding jobs so people are traveling three or four times a year, not just three or four times per lifetime.

It has been interesting to me that at least some millennials are focusing on using their income to travel and experiencing differing cultures firsthand instead of trying to impress others with designer labels.  Maybe, it is because many of them have grown up surrounded by a mountain of things and weren't happy?

Maybe, To me I never had "Designer" crap. I was fortunate to have what I needed and a few nice possessions to enjoy. That was enough. I agree some people can never have enough. That leads to misery IMO; Having What you need sure helps in being Happy though. 

PS: Once the millennials get done playing and need places to live and long term employment to take care of themselves,  they'll change. Some already are. 

Once the millennials get done playing and need places to live and long term employment to take care of themselves,  they'll change.

The article that I cited is about millennials who are working full-time and choosing to spend their earned income to travel instead of buying bling.  They are filling their heart and soul with good experiences instead of the landfills with possessions that were discarded to be replaced with what is new and trendy.  The environment will benefit if this trend continues.

As far as buying a home, there are any number of reasons why the millennials haven't saddled themselves with 30 years of debt in today's financial, job and home market.  There is little job security in the US.  Is it really wise to sign a 30 year loan when a person might not have a job to pay the loan?

Renting allows the flexibility to move where there are more career opportunities.  Another reason why it might be best to rent instead of buy.

Many millennials may recall the housing market meltdown of 2008.  

Who really wants to work endless hours every week in order to pay upkeep and taxes on a house to the point that a person can't travel and see the world?  Is the point of life to confine one's activities and goals to working in cubicles and living in a 2000 (or more) sq ft shelter?

Renting allows the flexibility to move where there are more career opportunities. 

Although true it also is buying property for others. Renting is fine, short term. Renting long term IMO: Is just like buying someone else a property and walking away because you feel like it. 

I never feel like it.

My last home I put almost 100 grand in my pocket when I sold it. This home I now own free and clear has appreciated by appx 300 % since I bought it about 6 years ago.  

Before that I paid a man 30 grand to live in his rental home for 30 months. 

You decided which is the better long term deal. I already did. 

Who really wants to work endless hours every week in order to pay upkeep and taxes on a house to the point that a person can't travel and see the world? 

People that want to retire on their own dime.

And IF you do it smart you don't overspend and run yourself ragged trying to pay for what you bought. The first time I went to buy a house the bank said OK here's 150 grand, I said thanks Ill take 65 of that. That 65 netted me a 100 grand in profit in the long run of only 7 years later. 

Know your own limits. and dont exceed them. 

Renting long term IMO: Is just like buying someone else a property and walking away because you feel like it. 

I agree.  

When the millennials gain the maturity and financial stability to commit to buying a home, I really hope that they consult professional financial advisors who can assist them in choosing the right price range according to their earnings before they invest their money in real estate of any kind.  

cfr

Ten years ago, in September 2008, plunging home prices pushed Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy, fueling a financial crisis that sent the United States, and much of the world, into a deep recession.

One metric that signaled trouble in the years leading up to the crisis was an expanding gap between the growth in home prices and household income—as shown in the left-hand shaded circle above. When income can’t keep pace with home prices, the latter must come down. Overleveraged home “owners” default on their mortgages, creating a housing glut that drags prices down further. Falling home values slow consumer spending, and therefore GDP growth, by way of the so-called wealth effect—that is, consumers cut spending when their assets fall in value. In the United States, according to one   Federal Reserve study , consumption drops by $2.50-5.00 for every $100 decline in housing-market net worth.

So when trying to gauge when the current nine-year expansion might come to an end, it is worth keeping an eye on the gap between home prices and income. And as we show in the right-hand shaded circle above, that gap has been substantial, by historical standards, since 2015. Not surprisingly, existing home-sales growth, as shown in the inset chart above, has also fallen steadily since 2015. And a steep drop in such growth has, as the chart shows, preceded every recession since 1970 (save 2001, following the dot-com crash).

With the Federal Reserve in tightening mode, and mortgage rates headed up, there is good reason to expect this drop to continue. Assuming it does so on the pace it’s been on since 2015, home-sales growth will fall to levels accompanying prior recessions by the end of 2020—right around election time.

Know your own limits. and dont exceed them. 

I agree completely.  I was typing while you were editing this reply.  LOL!

I agree completely.  lol

I read your post it's so true. I had been a realtor for 4 years so I learned how, what and where to buy. Unfortunately back when I was a realtor the interest rate was 9 % so it was hard to sell properties. By the time I bought my first home the rates had dropped to about 4.5 % what a difference that means long term !!

I had learned to buy the worse house in the neighborhood and bring it back to the same standard of those around it, instant money. When I sold that house I pocketed about 100 grand the next house I bought I paid cash for and like I said this one has appreciated about 300 % to date. 

I did the same thing again, bought one of the worst homes in a good neighborhood and revamped it immediately. I live in a very nice home and have no mortgage or rent. And each day my investment right now increases. 

IMO: Renting is giving your hard earned money away and I cant afford it. 

But to each their own. 

I managed rentals for a real estate company in a retirement community for 1985-86.  People were renting while they made a decision on whether they could acclimate to the region.  LOL!

I have family who have dabbled with building and flipping houses and want to do more.   It can be a very lucrative business.

I have family who have dabbled with building and flipping houses and want to do more.   It can be a very lucrative business.

Real estate is the quickest way to gather wealth that I know of. Good luck to them. I wish I would have had the means to do that myself, But I wasn't doing it on someone's dime. So I didn't do it. Many do though and are quite successful. 

Many do though and are quite successful. 

But you do have to be savvy and keep an eye on the market and never get in over your head on something. My wife was a mortgage broker during the housing boom from 2002 to 2007 and there were a lot of people she knew who made a ton of money flipping houses, but she also knew many who got stuck and lost all their gains when the market crashed and housing prices dropped through the floor. It was like a game of hot potatoes back in 2005/2006 where investors were starting to get skittish because the market couldn't sustain 30% annual increases in home values, so the smart ones would swoop in with cash, give it a facelift and sell within two to four months, pricing it to sell instead of trying to get the maximum price but having to sit on the market for 6 months where they could potentially get stuck underwater if the market tanked, which it eventually did.

But you do have to be savvy and keep an eye on the market and never get in over your head on something.

I read all of your post, Al true.

That's why I didn't do it without being able to finance it all on my own. If you are not at the mercy of others IF the market goes ta hell. you just rent them out till time comes back to liquide.

Sooner or later house prices increase. It cost more to build them for one thing. More population another.

Also I never buy when I know prices are high, that's when renting makes since. By not buying in a high market, I dont have to worry much. 

The last house I bought the price continued down for two months, all up hill since. 

Yep , Timing is important. So is location location location...LOL

Sorry old habit.

lol

Really?  Is it the responsibility of the US to take in all of the world's refugees?

We really need to stop patting ourselves on the back that we're the most generous nation on the planet on this issue, especially for the problem of Syrian and other ME refugees--largely due to US destabilization of that region by the disastrous policies and bungled actions of the Bush/Cheney criminal enterprise in the 00s:

pewresearch

We really need to stop patting ourselves on the back that we're the most generous nation

"we"?  It is that "we" that I don't understand.  

Aren't the majority of world problems caused by empire builders and capitalists (throughout the world) seeking to control and exploit the world's people and resources?

Shouldn't the focus be on stopping the empire builders and capitalists from creating the problems in the first place instead of cleaning up their messes and acting like we supported it?

Every election we are given the choice of which candidate that we want to elect to support the interests of empire builders, capitalists and usually the Christian god. 

"we"?  It is that "we" that I don't understand.  

That's obvious.  There's an old saying that I'll modify for this occasion:  you can't get someone to understand something if their ideology won't permit them to understand it.  

Liberals think so. As long as someone else pays for it.

That ol' dog is so dead.  

We didn't even discuss Paris because she did not want to talk about the trip in front of her mother.

A common reaction, particularly from Americans, who expect the French to understand them rather than even try it the other way round, and who think France should have the same crappy fast food that they gobble down at home.  You know a even a bit of French language and manners and try to be polite and you'd be amazed at how warm the French can be--even Parisians.

who expect the French to understand them

In the interest of promoting understanding of my comment that you cited, I was referencing my granddaughter's aversion to crowded cities.  She had nothing against the citizens of Paris or London.  Her idea of a vacation is similar to mine - she prefers exploring the wonders of nature instead of museums in cities.

The reason that I dropped the conversation was so that we did not further upset my daughter who was disappointed that her daughter was not as enthused with prowling tourist destinations in London and Paris.

In a few years, the granddaughter will be in college (hopefully) and my daughter and her husband can travel the world's cities without dragging along a teenager who would rather see the countryside.

Before or after they surrender?  

The country side is almost always preferable to the big cities 

Pretty difficult to get asylum when we consider slavery as giving material support. The heartlessness of this country is simply appalling.

No surprise that that situation having be a reality in this country for 3 centuries there are still people in this country who think like that.  I sometimes think they'd actually vote to bring that "peculiar institution" back if it was on the ballot.   

Really? 

Alright folks - back on topic please.

Locked, should have been locked 2 weeks ago when the seeder stopped commenting