You're making appeals of the heart to someone without one. Like if you literally cut open some of these folks and looked inside you'd find a lump of coal. I long for the day when we don't have to fight over resources like this and a more sensible generation raises taxes on corporations and the wealthy, pays teachers what they deserve, and doesn't blame unions for ruining the economy (which is a huge, fat, greedy lie). Until then, more coal and CO2 emissions for everyone!

To put this in perspective the top 5% of earners in America own 72% of the wealth, and yet, here we are, blaming unions for budget shortfalls :laugh: #maga

Is there a legal problem with putting a 100% income tax on pensions for people who live out of state?

Just so we’re clear; I’ve never voted Republican in my life.

And not sure what you’d call weathly, but I only really think of 0.1%’ers as wealthy. At that level, you can find all the loopholes to skirt taxes. But someone like myself gives up 50% of my income to the state and government. So you think people like me should give more? Top 5% isn’t egregiously wealthy my friend.

And finally. Pay teachers what they deserve? Maybe in rural America. But Chicago public teacher are absolutely paid “what they deserve.” A tenured teacher makes about the same income as a pediatrician. With better retirement and summers off. Sheesh.....

Okay.. we’re off topic. Mods, feel free to delete these comments or move them to another thread.

One of Chicago's only advantages over the coasts is comparative affordability, take that away by raising taxes and I can't see our economy faring well.

so what, the top 5% paid over 60% of all federal taxes (not including local taxes)... your line of thinking is why people are fleeing this state in droves

Yeah so ideally the top 2% pay A TON more, especially the top 1% and corporations. And then we're going to invest it in schools, infrastructure, health care -- all the goodies. The middle class will grow and there will be plenty of money left over for riverwalk improvements. We can't recreate the post-war manufacturing economy, but we surely can enact similar New Deal policies that really lit a fire under it.

Haha... okay, I'm gonna indulge you just so I understand how someone likes you thinks.

Be specific. A TON more? What does that mean? Taxes on household income going from 50% to.... what percentage?

And just out of interest, do you believe in capitalism, meritocracy, and rewarding people with in demand skills, high academic pedigree, and those who risked everything while making good decisions while seeing the fruits of their labor pay off big? Or should everyone more or less he the same?

So, I know you claim to be a democrat, but do you remember the top tax rates the last time 'America Was Great'?

^ Good idea.

Maybe not 100%, but more like 60-70%

And if the Illinois Supreme Court has a problem with it, just ignore them. They can't do shit

You mean the Carter years? I don't remember the exact percentage, but something like 70%. And no, I don't think that's ok. That's ridiculous.

But most of the reason I'm a democrat is I'm very socially progressive. I can't tolerate the gun loving, Jesus obsessed, immigrant hating, "real 'Merica" types who want to recreate 1955 with iPhones and Netflix. And I believe in a social safety net, investment in infrastructure and public transportation, and fair regulations on businesses and industry. God knows they won't police themselves.

But I also very much believe that our society should be a meritocracy. Those who take the initiative and build business, or those who achieve exceptional skills through high levels of education should be rewarded. A chemical engineer with a degree from U of I Champagne is a less common and more valuable skill than some dude who graduated from SIU with a 2.9 GPA and a degree in English, and couldn't figure out what to do so he decided to teach high school. Those two individuals aren't equal in my own personal opinion. And our society rightfully rewards the first individual with higher compensation. There isn't anything wrong with that, and those who are more accomplished shouldn't always have a target on their back.

Don't listen to TUP Via, he's just a typical white guy...

Ironically the economy is widely considered to be in the best shape across the board (for workers and companies) since the post war boom supposedly caused by the New Deal policies you tout. Though that boom was also caused by massive capital expansion in the way of a huge economic depression.

Where does this belief come from? Real wages are flat to down over the past 12 months and laborforce participation is low. GDP growth was good last quarter, but that is expected immediately after a huge tax cut coupled with increased spending.

The late-80s and mid-to-late 90s economy was far stronger.

^ You’re confusing the economy with wages. These are different. If companies buy a bunch of robots to more efficiently complete tasks previously done by humans, and automation prevents wage growth, that’s good news for the economy. Wage growth means inflation, which is a risk to the economy.

I don’t think we’ll see labor force participation or wages creep up again until the Baby Boomer generation is fully out of their working years.

The world has changed now and you can’t tax people like that. They’ll just leave the country. People can now choose where in the world to live.

And schools don’t need more money. They need accountable parents who aren’t idiots, and less violent neighborhoods.

Lastly, people are correct when they say that NOT spending money on downtown, the lakefront parks, beautifying Michigan Ave etc would turn Chicago into another Detroit or Cleveland. Sorry, but most people (especially most people with money) don’t give a shit about South and West Side neighborhoods. Tourists, conventions, shoppers, big business... they care about downtown. And they’re the ones paying taxes.

That’s right, I’m way out of touch.

Today, for example, my wife Betty and I are headed to the Senior early bird special with our friends Burt and Dale and their wives Rose and Myrtle, and after that we’re going out for some Saturday night bingo. My favorite night of the week!

Gotta be in bed by 9 though or else my heartburn begins to act up...

Sprucing up downtown is investing in the economic engine of this city. Those improvements are not just for downtown rich residents (really all of Chicago is able to enjoy the riverwalk, much like a person like myself who isn't from a lakefront neighborhood finds himself by the lake often this time of year), but rather the tourism dollars the city so eagerly seeks. The Riverwalk attracts a very sizable portion of people who come to visit Chicago. Expanding it and making it more of a draw will increase the number of out of towners/staters spending highly taxed money at coffee shops, restaurants and hotels. This is one of those investments that pays for itself many, many times over.

Probably. But they should try to implement something like this anyway, although 100% is probably too draconian for any politician to suggest. Something like 40% would work as an effective deterrent for retirees leaving the state, IMHO.

This is a canard people keep throwing out. Where are these parkless neighborhoods? Chicago has an excellent park system, I'm struggling to find a spot in the city that is more than 6 blocks from a large park (10 acre/one square block).

Totally, he’s one of those people whom Bill Clinton made it possible to claim to be a democrat with a mixture of republican fiscal policy, republican “law and order”, i.e. systemic racism, with a half-hearted nod to multiculturalism and saving just a little of the safety net. It’s a joke and it’s why no one voted for more of the same from Hillary.

The bright side of living under Trumpian fascism is that people have woken up from this lie and are mobilized af to expose it and build a more egalitarian society. Let the progressive wave come and drown those who would put greed above charity, selfishness above the American dream. You’re winning now but the arc of history is gonna swallow you whole.

The labor force participation was below 60% in the 1950's and 60's until the baby boom hit the workforce and pushed it into the mid 60%'s. Now it's fallen down to 63% or so which is totally reasonable considering millions of baby boomers are retiring.

Also tax rates don't need to be that high anymore, government has gotten significantly more efficient than it once was and those old tax rates aren't even remotely translatable to modern rates anyhow because the way we tax in general has radically changed. People talk about these issues as if they are so simple "taxes were 95% before on the rich" ok genius, what was it that they were taxing 95% of and how do you define it? Were they paying sales tax? Was it all Federal Tax? State Tax? What about VAT?

The song Taxman by the Beatles references "19 for me and 1 for you" which is commentary on the 95% tax rate of the time on the highest earners which hit the Beatles particularly hard because their "income" was actual income and not derived from capital etc. I don't think anyone would say a 95% tax rate on anyone is fair, the Beatles certainly didn't which is why they all decamped for NYC from the UK...

The Democrats are now the party of Free trade, I find it hilarious that people continue to cling to the notion that the "Brand Name" of their political party is correct. Hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are picking your pocket just as much as the GOP is today. I know the Democrats say "WE LOVE POOR PEOPLE TM", but actions speak louder than words.

I'm sure you will have some snarky complaints about Trump or something like that, but look no further than Chicago which has been ruled by the Dems for 70 years and left giant swaths of the city behind with nary an attempt to correct that mess.

^^^ It's a myth perpetrated by the fact that Chicago has a much lower percentage of it's land devoted to park space than many other large metros. Of course that number itself is distorted by the fact that a much larger percentage of Chicago's land area is devoted to infrastructure, industrial, and commercial interests than most cities as well which are uses that don't need park space. Also part of the large portion of Chicago devoted to infrastructure consists of parkways which are technically part of the roadways of the city when you count "infrastructure". Our parkways turn virtually every residential side street into a pseudo park atmosphere and are highly utilized by residents as sort of a giant front yard / commons.

Wait you've never been stopped and asked for a copy of your last two years tax returns and two pieces of mail proving you live downtown when going down to the Riverwalk?

This of course is an attitude that's starting to crop up all over the city as the anti-gents keep spouting their nonsense. For example we just had Somos Logan Square and Logan Square Neighborhood Association demand an analysis of whether the proposed reconstruction of the square will "displace more residents and hurt minorities". Like WTF? In what world should we not repair and improve a major public space that has serious pedestrian safety issues because "it might displace poor people"?? I've got an idea that will really help make Logan Square more affordable, let's clearcut all the bolevards and pave them. That will stop people from wanting to move here! Maybe we can chisel all the historic facades off the buildings too and replace them with 70's lavarock while we are at it, then the rents will really drop!

Nitwits...

Correlation ≠ Causation

Geez, you guys really turned a small issue into huge fight with hyperbole and grandiose ideological bullshit...

My own opinion would be that the pragmatic approach is to fund things like the riverwalk if they are going to grow the tax base. That way there will be more resources for schools and other public services in the future. Maybe the real solution to the academic achievement gap is to deal with 'upstream' issues like poverty and social ills in those communities, schools are 'downstream' and are overstretched. I understand why some people see varying inequities and make it an issue of 'deservedness', like there are more noble causes the money should go to, but that isn't always a good way to run a city if you can see the big picture.

However I disagree with the reactionary statements made by some about the upper class being more important or 'deserving'. How is paying more taxes proportional to your income the same as having a 'target on your back'. Give me a break. I might be something of a contrarian but I despise the term 'meritocracy'. What is merit? Who decides who has it and who doesn't? Why exactly does a capitalist society need a separate system of merit? Why does someone "deserve" anything?

I like a philosophy based on equal rights, positive and negative. Equal doesn't necessarily mean 'the same', it means we all play by the same rules and have the same worth as human beings. People have a right to pursue economic gain, so naturally some people will have more monetary wealth than others. But people also have positive rights to well-being and inclusion, which demands the existence of a social safety net and civic services.

^^^ happy to continue discussing in another thread. We've diverted the topic enough in this thread. But I stand by everything I said.

Anyways... back to general developments :)

llamaorama, couldn't agree more.... Unicorn Wizard!

^ The bitching and moaning will never cease.

If you don't spend money in a neighborhood, you're neglecting us.

If you do spend money in a neighborhood, you're "trying to kick us out".

Oh, and Rahm has to resign!

Blame blame blame. When that's all you know how to do, that's all you'll ever do.

Because you two just so happen to be the single two most outspoken participants on an obscure internet message board dosent mean you speak for the entire city. We get it, you got wealthy on the backs of people losing their homes in the midst an economic collapse, and now on top of it you know what's best for them too. Piss off.

We get it, you have no valid points and think everyone is a 65 year old entitled white guy who did nothing to earn what they have. Guess what, maybe you should pick up a hammer and bust your ass working a 40 hour a week job while renovting three flats for 40 more hours a week for 4 or 5 years and then come spout your nonsense.

No, it's not valid to complain that fixing the Logan Square traffic circulation is going to hurt poor people. No it's not valid to think that downzoning and limiting the supply of housing will somehow decrease the cost. These kinds of ideas are dangerous and stupid because the results aren't going to match the sales pitch. And when your get your absurdly illogical argument demolished you resort to personal attacks because you percieve others to be something they aren't. How do you arrive at these conclusions? Because to you success is toxic, evil, to be reviled. No one else here is stereotyping people and debasing their opinions based on totally baseless assumptions about people's age and race. There is only one person exhibiting such bigoted behavior.

:worship:

Hilarious, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You want to label us as “wealthy on the backs of others” just for the convenience of making otherwise decent people look like the villains that you really want them to be.

I was doing pretty well long before I ever bought property. I am a doctor, after all, because I studied hard and gave up a lot of the fun that others have in their 20’s. But I guess I did that “off the backs of others” too.

Friggin chip on your shoulder, that’s all this is. Carry that around for the rest of your life, why don’t you? :koko:

Laborforce Participation increased because women joined the workforce, not baby boomers. The baby boomers weren't part of the measurement before they were old enough to join the workforce, so that argument doesn't really pass muster. There is no need to go back 60 years, just 5 years ago we had a higher laborforce participation rate during a weak recovery. Somehow in a "booming" economy people aren't joining the laborforce, please explain as this goes against all known labor economics models. Housing starts are also down 12% compared to last year, does that sound like a "boom"?

No, as I said in my last post, the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now for most of the 1950's and 60's and did not start rising until the late sixties. Hmm why would that be the case??? Maybe because the baby boom started in 1948 and boomers started turning 18 in 1966? Clearly the population of women in the US peaked in the year 2000 and they have been disappearing since... Or maybe that's because, GASP, the first baby boomers turned 62 in the year 2000. Naw, the glaring and obvious correlation couldn't be related to baby boomers, it's obviously because women didn't start joining the workforce until 1966...

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/im...ipple-fig1.png
BLS.gov

Here's the thing, if you don't know what you are talking about, then don't spout off about it. Labor force participation, while an interesting and useful statistic, really has nothing to do with the health of the economy in this instance.

Same goes for housing starts, yes in 2008 a giant drop in starts from already collapsing levels is cause for concern. In 2018 a decline from already record levels is actually probably healthy because it indicates builders are being cautious in the face of an already amped up market. Or do you actually believe that this drop portends the second depression in 10 years? Or perhaps it's a drop like the dozens of other times they have fallen over the decades without causing recession:

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/2011/689/image006.gif
Shadowstats.com

The US, and much of the first world, is getting hit by two big demographic shifts. People have been having fewer children the last 50 years as compared to the 50 year period immediately previous to that, and people are living much longer. As a result, the working age population is becoming a smaller segment of the population pie as compared to retired individuals, which has been and will continue to skew the labor participation rate downward. Here in the US that has been offset somewhat by immigration, thus sparing us the demographic crisis that countries such as Russia, Japan, Italy, Spain, etc. are facing (Russia's population is projected to drop by one third in the next 50 years, and Japan's by half. Even China is contending with a potential population implosion in the coming decades). But while our population will keep growing, the proportion of the elderly will continue to increase regardless due to life longevity. The labor participation rate will continue to decline, regardless of market/employment conditions, especially as the Boomers continue to retire en masse, which is a phenomenon that has been occurring for the last decade or so.

The decline in housing starts is definitely worrisome, and is definitely a canary in the coalmine for this now 10 year long bull market (one of the longest on record). That said, the economy is still doing quite well at the moment, as is justified by the Fed's consistent and frequent rate hikes and historically low unemployment rate. It won't last of course, and I'm sure a recession isn't too far off. The next 12 to 18 months could likely see a rapid slowing of quarterly GDP growth.

It seems as if you have a massive chip on your shoulder, and are angry at successful people. Well I can assure you, most people who are successful, are successful because of hard work, not because they are living off of some trust fund.

Based on your posts that i've read you also come off as anti-small business, or at least anti-small business when it comes to small business' providing housing.

I just closed on a 16 unit apartment building in McKinley Park - I plan on renovating the 6 vacant units, and renting at market rate - does that make me a bad guy? or some sort of Thurston Howell III Aristocrat?

I'm the only son of parents who immigrated to the US in 1981, and grew up in a poor immigrant neighborhood in NYC, my father sold produce on Arthur Ave. in the Bronx for 25 years. I'm the first person in my extended family to graduate college (University of Michigan, class of 2005). I went the first two years of College without buying a single textbook, because I couldn't afford to buy them, and didn't want to take on a loan. I used to borrow books from others in my class and take pictures of the pages. I graduated with a 3.8GPA. Aren't I living the American Dream? At what point, in your opinion, did I turn into a greedy, capitalist monster?

I've made a 7 figure income multiple times in the past 6 years - I don't say that to brag, but to show how proud I am of the hard work I've put in to get where I am. Most people would not work as hard as I work. I flew 93 flight segments over the past 12 months for my full time job, and on the weekends, I manage all of my properties - painting hallways, landscaping, fixing clogged toilets. I know people who desperately need the money, who won't do these types of projects.

I provide housing to dozens of immigrant families throughout the City - as I'm guessing TUP and LVDW do as well.

Successful people are not the enemy in Chicago - in fact, they are the ones keeping this city from a full on collapse.

Top Goggle news

Top Drudge news. CHICAGOLAND: 52 people shot since Friday... Developing...




Yeah that shutting down LSD and marching by Wrigley is really working. No arrests had been made. I mean WTF is going on here. I know it was worse in the past but this is unacceptable. NYC doesn't do this, no other alpha city it the world does it either. Luckily most of them are bad shots, that's what happens when you hold your handgun on the side gansta style.

This is way we can't have good things. Now is the time to blame whitey.
H2 I hope you are not seeing this happens every weekend the temps get above 80 degrees.




http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...804-story.html

25 shot in multiple-victim shootings over 2.5 hours in Chicago: 'If they shoot you, they don't even run'

Four people were shot in the 1600 block of South Avers in Lawndale. Eight in the 1300 block of West 76th Street in Gresham. Six in Lawndale again. Four more in West Humboldt Park. Three others in West Garfield Park.
At least 41 people were shot from 11 a.m. Saturday through Sunday morning, four fatally, police said at a Sunday afternoon news conference. Three of those deaths happened since about midnight in a period when 35 people were shot. During one 2½-hour early-morning period alone, 25 people were shot — two fatally — in five multiple-injury shootings, police said.

One of the dead was a 17-year-old girl who was shot in the face.
Another fatality happened after sunrise, when four more were shot in South Austin.

Resources at local hospitals were taxed as victims and their families poured in. Access to Stroger Hospital was tightened. At one point, more than 200 people had converged on the hospital. Mount Sinai Hospital had to stop accepting new emergency cases for a while.
At least 16 of those shot were teenagers. At least a dozen were 17 or younger. In the shooting in Gresham, seven of the victims were 21 or younger.

…


One man stood by himself, leaning his back against a chain-link fence on the north side of 16th Street, watching police work the large crime scene to his east. He estimated more than 1,000 people had been there. He talked freely but did not want to be named. He’s lived in the neighborhood his whole life.

“I know the rules,” he said.
The man had been on his way out when he heard the gunshots, he said. He commented on the brazenness of shootings he’s grown accustomed to.
“If they shoot you, they don’t even run,” he said. “They just walk away, they ain’t trying to run.”

…

Others congregated at Mount Sinai Hospital, leaning against cars and embracing on the sidewalk. Yellow crime scene tape encircled two cars outside the emergency room, a white sedan and a black one that had its front crumpled and windshield cracked.
Mount Sinai’s emergency department for a few hours was on bypass and accepting no new emergencies “just because of the sheer amount of shootings,” said spokesman Dan Regan.

Ald. Walter Burnett, 27th, stopped by to speak with the families. Burnett said the shootings affect whole families and entire communities, as evidenced by the crowd outside Stroger.



Burnett said it’s up to the neighborhoods to stop the violence. He talked about growing up in the former Cabrini-Green housing project.
“It was the mothers, it was the preachers, it was people in the neighborhood who stopped the wars in Cabrini Green,” he said. “It wasn’t the police.”


Activist Eric Russell, an organizer of the anti-violence protest Thursday that shut down Lake Shore Drive, also spoke outside of the hospital.
“This is the reason why we march,”:koko: he said.


…

About 10 minutes earlier in West Garfield Park, three women standing on a front porch were wounded when two groups of males started shooting at each other about 2:25 a.m. in the 4700 block of West Gladys Avenue, police said. A 29-year-old woman shot in the back and 28-year-old woman shot in the left arm were taken to Stroger and stabilized. A 41-year-old woman shot in the right thigh was stabilized at Loretto Hospital.

…


Just after midnight in Lawndale, four people were shot at a block party in the 1600 block of South Avers. Two people got out of a white Chevrolet Impala, fired into the crowd and left, police said.

…

A 17-year-old girl shot in the knee was stabilized at Little Company of Mary Hospital in Evergreen Park. Another 17-year-old girl shot in the left leg was stabilized at Christ. An 18-year-old man shot in the buttocks was stabilized at University of Chicago Medical Center. A 19-year-old woman shot in the left hand was stabilized at Holy Cross Hospital. A 14-year-old girl shot in the left hand was also stabilized. A 21-year-old woman shot in the left leg was stabilized at University of Chicago. A 35-year-old man grazed in the head was stable at Holy Cross. A 19-year-old man shot in the left leg was taken to St. Bernard Hospital and stabilized.
Shortly after 12:20 a.m. in Lawndale, an 18-year-old man was shot multiple times in the 4100 block of West Cullerton Avenue. Witnesses were not cooperative, and the man was taken to Stroger under guard, police said.


…


Around 12:50 a.m. in West Humboldt Park, four people were injured in a drive-by shootout the 900 block of North Karlov Avenue. Two people fired shots from inside a black Cadillac, and three of the people hit shot back, causing the car to crash. The two in the car ran from the scene. A 43-year-old man walking down the street was shot in the thigh during the crossfire, police said. The other three people shot were a 30-year-old man hit in the right ankle and left calf; a 43-year-old man shot in the thigh; and a 29-year-old man grazed in the chest. All were taken to Stroger in good condition.

...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/...105606521.html



Does drill rap incite violence in Chicago?

This controversial genre of music has been widely criticised in the US media for its violent lyrics and images.

by John Hendren
2 Aug 2018


Drill rap is a musical niche that has spread around the globe from the streets of Chicago's South Side, bringing its violent images with it.
Critics say it is also bringing violence itself, with social media spats among rappers erupting into real life gunfights.
But does the music simply reflect the violence in many urban neighbourhoods, or does it foment it?
Al Jazeera's John Hendren reports from Chicago.


…


• Video Link

^ Bnk, get a goddamned grip, man

You know what pisses me off?

About 6 years ago I had the opportunity to buy a 24 unit in McKinley Park for about $650k.

And I passed on it.

Damn!

I dont begrudge anyone for having careers or finding success in life (although I tend to when the success is the result of predatory or economically exploitative actions). Im also not really interested in anecdotal stories of bootstraps and gumption by top 5%'ers in this country, as if timing and luck dont play equal roles. If you're at that level guess what, statistically nearly everyone you pass on the street is worse off than you are, and your story is not somehow the norm. We only tend to hear from the winners in our economic system, and as a result it distorts the way people perceive the way the system really works, or the way the odds are actually stacked. Its pure propaganda fed to the working class to keep them docile and in-line because "one day this could be you!" We're not hearing from the losers or the people who had their only homes foreclosed on during the financial crisis (forget owning investments) just so that other people could swoop in and ride massive profits a decade later. Where is their voice represented in all of this? Wheres the voice of the people who came from similar circumstances as your own and never got out? Its disingenuous of you to say "most people would not work as hard as I work" when there is a huge working/poverty class in our country that puts in insanely grueling hours at multiple jobs and sacrifices to their health simply to put food on the table. Who have seen their earnings hold stagnant for decades and their purchasing power drop, while at the same time the social safety net is systematically dismantled by the rich and powerful (and who have the opportunity to re-write the rules to favor themselves) who then have the audacity to tell them "you just need try harder". Does falling ass backwards into some rental properties that just so happened to hugely appreciate at the time you owned them, give a person the right to swagger through some of the poorest neighborhoods of the city in a leisure suit and a swinging dick acting like they hold all the answers regarding success in this country because they are fortunate enough to be landowners? Is that "contribution" to society somehow greater than that of people in countless other lines of work making infinitesimally less? Is a neighborhood the physical buildings themselves, or the people who inhabit them? Because I see a genuine lack of concern or empathy regarding the people for whom "the dream" never materializes. A shred of humbleness and self awareness dosent hurt but I guess a person who dosent possess it cant really display it.

But yea, dang, if only the family making minimum wage could have just scooped up that investment property for 650k, maybe everything would be different in their lives.

Absolutely no one should have to apologize for being successful. The problems lies with some people to want to trivialize immense problems in the city so they can live in their bubble. In turn, people have less incentive to add on the the successes of the city.

Not sure what you mean that we are not hearing from "the losers or the people who had their only homes foreclosed on during the financial crisis"...Do you mean on this website? It's a free site, they can just as easily as post as anyone else. In real life? I hear from these people quite often - in fact, I've bailed many of them out.
I don't know about you, but as a kid growing up, my parents told me if I wanted to be successful in this country, I needed an education, and I needed to work hard, and I did. The vast majority of my peers growing up, who came from similar backgrounds, decided they would rather party on the weekends, and do cocaine and gamble than study and go mo lawns at 8a on Saturday to save up some cash. All of those kids who didn't take school seriously, didn't bust their ass to get ahead, are some of the ones struggling today. You make your bed...I have sympathy for many people who are struggling, and especially have a soft spot for the Children of these families, and the elderly, but there are too many in the city (and this Country) who are in their physical prime, and are capable of working, but have a poor me attitude, and want a handout. Life is tough, and it isn't fair. Get over it, and make it happen.
To bring this back to the river walk renovation, Downtown is the economic engine of the entire region, and is FREE to all, and benefits literally hundreds of thousands of people...

So I have him figured out, he doesn't have a chip on his shoulders, he's just one of those kids who was told there was a boogeyman under his bed who never had the gumption or bothered to actually get out of bed and look underneath to see if there was actually something there.

Here's the deal, you obviously haven't tried it. You haven't tried to make money buying property on a low income, you don't know what it's like. I know you don't want anecdotes, but just on one block in Little Village I know half a dozen people who DID it. Where do you think I came from myself? Do you think daddy just wrote me a six figure check to play with?

No, I started off with $50k in student loan debt, a $38k/year job (which I was lucky to even have since it was 2010), and saved up my first $5,000 which I used as a downpayment on a $135k two flat just outside of Logan Square. I busted ass 40 hours a week at my job and worked 30 or 40 more hours a week renovating my apartments until 1 or 2 AM every night. Yeah, I got lucky with timing, but I also had the balls to actually jump in when everyone else was running away as fast as they could. Yeah I got lucky getting a job right away, but I also found a job in college before shit hit the fan and busted ass working 20-30+ hours a week the entire time I was in college so I actually had some experience. Yeah I happened to know a bit about real estate, but I got my brokers license while I was still in school and made my interest in RE my passion.

Just on my block in Little Village there's myself, who started on that block with a 6 flat I literally got for free from a bank (again, not screwing anyone here except the bank who had already taken it back from a negligent wannabe developer who started a gut rehab to turn a 6 flat into an illegal 10 flat with no permits) by putting my head on the demo court chopping block, my neighbor who grew up at 21st and Damen (and by the way his Mexican immigrant dad bought the 5 unit that he grew up in and was very successful with it himself despite no education and empty pockets upon arrival here) who owns two two flats on the block that he managed to buy for $30k and $50k on a bank teller's wage, and another neighbor who is older, but doesn't speak a word of English and has managed to accumulate 9 rental properties and spent the money on a 10th property which is a nice house in Oak Park that he moved his family to for the good schools.

That's one block, three different people from different backgrounds who all pulled off what you say is impossible, starting with nothing but low wage jobs and building up to multiple rental properties. An immigrant, a second generation American, and a multi generational American. It's not impossible, it's only impossible if you don't want to try. In fact, you say we aren't aware of our luck or the help we get, but guess what, I'm very aware that I couldn't have done what I did without a boost from an FHA loan, but guess what, that same boost is available to literally everyone here. The only difference is that I decided to take that boost and not to be afraid in 2010 and Via apparently didn't.


Finally, you go on and on about people taking advantage of others. Who was taken advantage of? These homes were already lost to the bank? What did I have to do with that? I just came along and cleaned up the mess. It's ironic that you decry the average family not being able to afford to pick up a $650k 24 unit building, but have you any idea how deranged that is? That's why the last mess happened, a lot of people were able to buy stuff that they couldn't afford or shouldn't have been allowed to own. If a poor family on a minimum wage just jumped in and bought a 24 unit building would you really be surprised if they lost it a few years later? No, you don't just jump in like that, you need to start small. That 24 unit building was $27k/unit. That means a 2 or 3 flat, maybe even a 4 flat, could have been had for less than $100k. With an FHA loan that means a downpayment of less than $5k. Oh and you can count the income from the building you are buying as your own on an FHA loan so don't tell me "they won't qualify". All you need is W2 income and a semi decent credit score (540+). You don't start out buying 24 unit buildings, that's absurd and, frankly, fucking stupid. The fact that you are trying to use that as some sort of knock against TUP just shows that you are one of the boneheads who pushed for the lax regulations and subsidies that led to the crash. It's probably a good thing you aren't in this business yourself because who knows what trouble you would have gotten yourself into by now with that line of thinking.

I'm not sure I could have laid on the sarcasm any heavier.

The point is, plenty of people work hard in life, and regardless of whether they do so flying cross country every week to tend to investments or getting up at 3AM to bake bread every morning for minimum wage, or teaching kids science, the economic rewards for each are vastly different. Some of the most noble careers in life pay very very little. Bragging about 6-7 figure real estate investment returns (which is more or less a form of gambling) when 60% of the country has less than 1000 in savings (and seniors are declaring bankruptcy is increasingly record numbers is really not a good look and displays a lack of appreciation for what the situation really is for the vast majority of our peers in this country. The recovery has perhaps come for you several times over, but many are still hanging out in the cold. And I'm the one advocating for irresponsible behavior? Dude, you're the one who appeared in a video titled "Little Village - Real Estate Gold Mine". What kind of message does that send to people, that you're framing A) a poor neighborhood as some sort of "gold mine" to be harvested, and B) real estate investment as some sort of sure thing/can't loose proposition? I don't think I'm the one channeling a go-go 80s "greed is good" philosophy here

Going from poor to middle class in America is easy. It’s one of the easiest things in the world to do.

Become rich is obviously hard, and it takes work, luck, or a combination of both.

But I’m not shedding tears. Go to India (as I have many times)—them are some really fucking impoverished people who I genuinely feel deep sorrow for. But in America? Just a bunch of whining

You are way overthinking things here. We don't need to go back 60 years or compare to completely different economies (older, less mature, oligarch-run). The following things should never occur together, yet we are seeing them right now:

• Historically low unemployment - 3.9%
• Strong economic growth - 4.1%
• Stagnant real wages - 0.1%, YoY growth
• Stagnant laborforce participation rates - 62.9%, same as December 2013

Something is fundamentally wrong with the economy. If unemployment is low, the economy is growing and the laborforce is expanding; why aren't wages growing? There is no answer for this and the implications are very bad. It implies that nearly all of the growth is going to owners of capital rather than laborers. I worry about the implications of that in the long-term.

^^^ Or it means the economy is coming up with new ways to put workers to better use. For example, uber, instacart, etc. I use the example of my sister who just graduated from PA school and had a job that started 4 months after her graduation. Instead of sitting on her ass for 4 months or trying to find some sort of a part time gig that was fine with her disappearing after 4 months, she did Instacart. That's labor slack that didn't exist previously and it's entirely possible that slack such as that exists throughout the economy and we are slowly pulling it tight. Another example is Uber, how many single parents struggled through a second job or even tried to hold down a first job at a minimum wage establishment only to keep having issues because of other obligations in their life (i.e. 3 or 4 kids or something like that)? Well all of the sudden you have gigs like Uber where, yeah you can just turn your job off to go get the kids without being fired. That job might pay the same overall as McDonalds, but the flexibility adds real value to that single parent's life.

Finally, there may just be an issue with the way we measure things like wages given the radical shifts in the economy since 2008. Do you really think our economic models have kept up with things like Uber? Is it really that easy to measure all these suddenly decentralized businesses? What about the fact that something like Uber cannibalizes a formerly more lucrative career like cab driving? Sure people might be quitting McDonalds to drive Uber, but that's destroying higher paying jobs at a Cab company and holding down overall wage growth.

There is no scenario where "the rich" can just hold down wage gains by having some sort of handshake agreement not to give raises. At some point you run out of workers and wages will go up, that's not a question. It just might be that we've entered a new era of economics where the natural rate of unemployment has fallen slightly because of innovations like the gig economy. Perhaps the economy can employ more people before wage inflation kicks in because there's more flexible roles out there like Instacart that turn my sister, as highly educated and productive of a member of society as she supposedly is, into a worker for 4 months where she would otherwise be sitting on her hands. Think of how many people around the country might be picking up shifts on similar apps, probably hundreds of thousands or millions of workers, that certainly moves the needle. Economics is simply never as cut and dry as "this one statistic so everything". Yes real wages were essentially flat last month, but they've been showing signs of life over the last 24 months. There are too many moving parts for you to say "well every other economic indicator is positive, but this one indicator isn't therefore there's a huge problem"...


PS: as we've said a dozen times, stop harping on the participation rate because it literally does not mean what you think it does. Are you going to cop to having spouted that nonsense about "women joining the workforce" causing the participation rate to increase starting in the late 1960's or are you going to acknowledge that the baby boom seriously skewed that stat?

^^ I don't trust that YoY wage data.

In the construction industry, wages are indeed going up. There is more overtime work available than ever because we cannot fully man the projects because there is a shortage of workers. Therefore, their wages have gone up. Way up. Low wage "driver" and non-union laborer jobs which go to 18-25 year old kids, are up to $15/hr, when they were at $12/hr just a few years ago. I attribute that increase to competition like Uber and Lift and fast food industry, where $15/hr is becoming common. There's a general shortage of workers. When there is a shortage, companies will pay more to keep the people they have, otherwise, they'll jump ship.

Lastly, to your other concern, I want owners of capital to experience as much growth and have as much money as possible. What do they do with that money? They invest it in the construction of new facilities or into new businesses, thus employing MORE people.

EDIT: High five to a fellow free-thinker, LVDW. Posted essentially the same thing at same time.

this statement is completely out of sync with reality

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ty_graph-1.jpg

You seem generally knowledgeable on this forum, but in this case you are mistaken (and rude). From the BLS:

• The labor force participation rate of men has been decreasing since the 1950s, having registered 86.4 percent in 1950, 79.7 percent in 1970, 76.4 percent in 1990, and 73.3 percent in 2005.

• Women’s labor force participation, which was at a rate of 33.9 percent in 1950, increased significantly during the 1970s and 1980s, climbing to 57.5 percent in 1990. In 1999, the women’s participation rate reached a peak of 60 percent.

Please tell me more about my nonsense and things I don't understand.

Then provide something that refutes it or really any data to back up your position. Just ignoring data that disagrees with you isn't being a "free thinker". It's the exact opposite.

And has anyone on this forum been ripping on bakers? No, the only profession being attacked here is real estate developers and landlords. Which, for the record, is not a glamorous career (no matter what HGTV says) and is a very noble one of providing housing for others. Also, I know plenty of teachers (3 of my wive's siblings are) who have invested in real estate, it's not mutually exclusive and that's exactly the point. If you want to invest in real estate in the USA you can, it's exceedingly easy to get started even at a low wage. Anyone who wants to complain that other's are making money doing so needs to acknowledge that they simply haven't tried it themselves, because you could very easily do it and that's a fact plain and simple.

Again, is it really inappropriate to talk about real estate investments on what is essentially the most active real estate related forum in Chicago? No one here is gloating about seniors going bankrupt, they are pointing out the facts that no, downzoning doesn't "hurt greedy developers" and no, it won't lower housing prices. People are simply pointing out that the only way to actually lower housing prices long term is to increase supply and that's what we, the evil greedy developers, are doing.

First of all, I have my issues with the guy who made that video, it was sold to me as educational and he edited a douchey spin on the whole thing. But yes, we did intend to highlight the investment potential of Little Village. Why? Because, whether you like the tone he used or not, there is a lot of "underutilized" property there. Most people who got bitchy about that video were hollering just as you are: "OMG LV ISN'T UNDERUTILIZED! COLONIZER, THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING HERE ALREADY".

Well guess what, there wasn't anyone living in any of the buildings I've renovated down there except one squatter who set fire to one of the buildings I ended up buying and caused a neighboring building that was occupied with 3 families to go vacant. THAT is displacement. The fact that there were 12 units of abandoned housing on that block is displacement. The two vacant lots I got that used to have 2 flats on them is displacement.

Disinvestment is displacement

The Economist article I posted in City Discussions is correct, poverty is already a high displacement condition. The first building I bought on that block went vacant because a gang banger threw a molotov cocktail through the stairwell window to chase a rival gangbanger out. The other two buildings I bought went vacant because no one had invested a dime in them for 130 years. The building next to those two caught fire because the neighboring building was left to rot for 10-15 years and vacant buildings are a hazard. These are stories that have been told many many times over in Little Village. I'm about to buy another 6 unit down on the same block that is 50% vacant because the rear units were left to rot and the storefront, again, was burned by some punk kids shuttering the business. So you have a handful of people, at least one of which I know is a heroin addict because I see him buying it, living in a half abandoned building. Tell me wise sage, is that safe for anyone involved? Or am I evil for pushing a handful of people out of a building that is basically a death trap?

That article is right that redevelopment is the ONLY remedy for these problems. Look at what effect I had:

1. Giant six unit building on the corner was left vacant and unsecured by the bank. Was at one point home to multiple vagrants. Was being used as a party house by the local deuces gang (which no longer exists partly because I deprived them of their meeting spots). I bought it and restored 6 units of housing to the market. I "undisplaced" those six vacant units and removed a serious hazard and blight in the process.

2. I bought another 6 vacant units in two buildings which had already burned (again displacing 3 more units next door which were occupied) and restored them to habitable condition. Creating six more units on that block. Oh and this one was also being used as a deuces party house, deuces "2" tags all over the interior and marijuana plants growing in pots in the windows.

3. I'm about to renovate six more units only three of which have anyone living in them at all (again, this building is the site of constant drug activity now) which will "displace" 3 units, but end up adding 6 new units back to the market when done.

So let's look at the scoreboard: I add 18 units of renovated housing to the market. I displace 3 units so net I add 15 units of housing that was simply uninhabitable before. The fact that these units were vacant so long resulted in 3 more units being destroyed, had I gotten to the blighted buildings sooner that would never have happened. Overall the footprint of my "gentrification" on this block is 18 additional units of housing at the cost of 3 units in what is currently a death trap being vacated.

So is that "80's gogo greed" or is that noble? Is that helping the affordable housing shortage or is it hurting? Is Little Village under utilized or is it the perfect place to bring vacant housing back online to house more people?

You tell me...