Eurostat has released new statistics highlighting the level of electronic waste generated in EU Member States and some EFTA countries.
While much of Scandinavia has earned plaudits for its high standards of living, excellent heathcare and low unemployment levels, Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes that the region is actually Europe’s worst electronic waste offender.
19.6 kg of electronic waste was collected per inhabitant in Norway in 2016, the highest level of any country in Eurostat’s analysis.
Likewise, Sweden came second with 16.4 kg per inhabitant and it had the highest level of any EU Member State.
The United Kingdom followed with 14.8 kg while Denmark had 12.kg – the third-highest level recorded across the EU. The principality of Liechtenstein was third overall with 13.9 kg.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2KBDlsx Tyler Durden
Two top aides to Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh have been convicted by a federal jury for trying to coerce organizers of the Boston Calling music festival into hiring union workers. Kenneth Brissette, the city’s director of tourism, was found guilty of extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion. Timothy Sullivan, chief of intergovernmental affairs, was found guilty of conspiracy to commit extortion. Judge Leo Sorokin had thrown out the charges after prosecutors admitted they could not prove the two men personally benefited from the festival hiring union workers. But Sorokin’s decision was reversed by an appellate court, and at trial, prosecutors argued that the men’s boss, Walsh, benefited politically from the festival hiring union workers.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Kyn4ED
via IFTTT
Two top aides to Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh have been convicted by a federal jury for trying to coerce organizers of the Boston Calling music festival into hiring union workers. Kenneth Brissette, the city’s director of tourism, was found guilty of extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion. Timothy Sullivan, chief of intergovernmental affairs, was found guilty of conspiracy to commit extortion. Judge Leo Sorokin had thrown out the charges after prosecutors admitted they could not prove the two men personally benefited from the festival hiring union workers. But Sorokin’s decision was reversed by an appellate court, and at trial, prosecutors argued that the men’s boss, Walsh, benefited politically from the festival hiring union workers.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Kyn4ED
via IFTTT
Former 3 star General Joachim Wundrak says that Angela Merkel is so politically correct, she cannot even bring herself to talk about the “German people”.
Wundrak announced that he’s going to run for mayor of Hanover as a member of Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
He slammed Merkel for being the front person for enacting “anti-German” pro-mass migration policies and refusing to even acknowledge the existence of German people as a group.
“Merkel has sworn an oath to Germany, but she already has a problem talking about a German people. She prefers to speak of ‘population’. Many German politicians struggle to profess their own nation,” said Wundrak.
“The protection of one’s own borders is no longer a priority goal,” he added.
“Germany is giving more and more sovereignty to the EU, the European Central Bank, to supranational organisations. I do not agree with this. The nation-state is the primary form of organisation for Germany. Where structures become too big, an undemocratic spirit quickly arises.”
Merkel’s paranoia about displaying any form of patriotism is notorious.
During an event in 2015, Merkel was handed a small German flag only for her to appear embarrassed and hand it back. She then flashed a disapproving shake of the head to someone else on the stage.
* * *
There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OVI0K0 Tyler Durden
It’s being proposed as prostitution with the safety and convenience of an Uber. A historic airport in Berlin is the proposed site of “Verichtungsboxen” — orpublicly available prostitution booths where sex workers can meet clients at what’s considered a relatively safe and regulated venue.
The mayor of Berlin’s central Mitte district is leading the initiative to turn the city’s former Tempelhof airport, which was famous for being a Nazi airfield in WWII and afterwards site of the Berlin airlift during the Cold War, into a “drive-in” prostitution site.
The historic Tempelhof airport. Image source: Cairns Post
According to CNN, the plans will include“drive-in booths, where customers can meet sex workers in their own vehicles.”
Since going out of service in 2008, Tempelhof has since been turned into a sprawling public park and recreation area, but previously claimed the title of the world’s oldest operating commercial airport.
The Green party mayor leading the initiative, Stephan von Dassel, says he wants to not only clean up Berlin’s streets, but provide a safer environment for sex workers, ultimately in a bid to improve the lives of “residents and sex workers” alike.
Via The Daily Mail
“Residents and businesses have been calling for a ban on street prostitution for many years,” he said in a statement.
He further described as the Berlin Senate refusing to take any regulatory action “because it fears a deterioration of the overall situation.”
The historic Tempelhof airport turned public park area. Image source: Getty via CNN.
Tempelhof airport has often been referenced as “Hitler’s Airport” but has since 2008 been a popular public park and recreation area.
Dassel also noted that providing Kurfürstenstrasse at the well-known and popular city site would hopefully prevent men “seeking sexual services at such a low price”. One of the problems, he explained, is that sex workers increasingly had to operate as a “bulk business in order to earn a basic income.”
Germany legalized street prostitution in the early 2000’s, and especially over the last decade has seen the sex industry boom, with prostitutes enjoying “worker’s rights” the same as if they were in transportation or the food industry. Berlin has long been known as having among the world’s most liberal prostitution laws.
Verrichtungsboxen in Zürich-Altstetten, August 2013
But similar to the situation the The Netherlands recently, there’s been a slow public backlash given the simultaneous sex worker health crisis, influx of drugs, pimps, human trafficking, and rampant unreported abuse of women.
One classic line of Mitte district’s mayor quoted by CNN is as follows:
The visibility of pimps is having a “negative impact on the safety of residents,” he says.
Another example of regulated sex booths. Source:Uwe Weiser (Express)
The drive-in sex booths idea has actually been implemented on a limited bases in places like Cologne, Zurich, and in The Netherlands.
In practice they ideally include security features like cameras outside the booths and alarm buttons that a sex worker can push if they are under threat.
But one significant roadblock the plan may run into is the fact that as a centrally located public park, where families can often be seen rollerblading or picnicking or having an early evening stroll, is that families may react angrily at the idea that Tempelhof could be partially transformed into a drive-in sex service.
This would of course, simply take the pimps and prostitutes off the streets and bring them to the recreation and “play” area of the landmark airport.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31xY1qW Tyler Durden
Fifty years ago, the Battle of the Bogside in Derry between Catholics and police, combined with the attacks on Catholic areas of Belfast by Protestants, led to two crucial developments that were to define the political landscape for decades: the arrival of the British army and the creation of the Provisional IRA.
An eruption in Northern Ireland was always likely after half a century of undiluted Protestant and unionist party hegemony over the Catholics. But its extreme militarisation and length was largely determined by what happened in August 1969.
An exact rerun of this violent past is improbable, but the next few months could be equally decisive in determining the political direction of Northern Ireland. The Brexit crisis is reopening all the old questions about the balance of power between Catholics and Protestants and relations with Britain and the Irish Republic that the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) of 1998 had provided answers with which everybody could live.
The occasion which led to the battle of the Bogside came on 12 August when the Apprentice Boys, a fraternity memorialising the successful Protestant defence of Derry against Catholic besiegers in the 17th century, held their annual march. Tensions were already high in Derry and Belfast because the unionist government and its overwhelmingly Protestant police force was trying to reassert its authority, battered and under threat since the first civil rights marches in 1968.
What followed was closer to an unarmed uprising than a riot as the people of the Bogside barricaded their streets and threw stones and petrol bombs to drive back attacks by hundreds of policemen using batons and CS gas. In 48 hours of fighting, a thousand rioters were treated for injuries and the police suffered unsustainable casualties, but they had failed to gain control of the Bogside.
Its defenders called for protests in other parts of the North to show solidarity with their struggle and to overstretch the depleted Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). In Belfast, Protestants stormed into the main Catholic enclave in the west of the city, burning houses and forcing Catholics to flee. The RUC stood by or actively aided the attacks. The local MP Paddy Devlin estimated that 650 families were burned out in a single night, many taking refuge in the Irish Republic
I was in Bombay Street, where all the houses were burned on the night of 14-15 August, earlier this year. The street was long ago rebuilt but still has a feeling of abnormality and menace because it is only a few feet from the “peace line” with its high wall and higher wire mesh to stop missiles being thrown over the top from the Protestant district next door.
The most striking feature of Bombay Street is the large memorial garden, though it is more like a religious shrine, to martyrs both military and civilian from the district who have been killed by political violence since 1916. A high proportion of these were members of the Provisional IRA who died in the fighting during the 30 years of warfare after Bombay Street was burned.
The memorial is a reminder of the connection between what many local people see as an anti-Catholic pogrom in 1969 and the rise of the Provisional IRA. It split away from what became known as the official IRA because the latter had failed to defend Catholic districts.
Pictures of the ruins of Bombay Street on the morning of 15 August show local people giving British soldiers cups of tea. But this brief amity was never going to last because the unionist government in Stormont had asked the prime minister of day, Harold Wilson, to send in the troops not to defend Catholics but to reinforce its authority.
It was the role the British army were to play in one way or another for the next 30 years. It was one which was bound not only to fail but to be counterproductive. So long as the soldiers were there in support of a Protestant and unionist political and military establishment, the IRA were always going to have enough popular support to stay in business.
British governments at the time never got a grip on the political realities of the North. Soon after the troops were first sent there, the cabinet minister Richard Crossman blithely recorded in his diary that “we have now got ourselves into something which we can hardly mismanage”. But mismanage it they did and on a grotesque scale. The Provisionals were initially thin on the ground, but army raids and arrests acted as their constant recruiting sergeant. Internment without trial introduced on 9 August 1971, the anniversary of which falls today, was another boost as were the hunger strikes of 1981 which turned Sinn Fein into a significant political force.
What are the similarities between the situation today and 50 years ago? In many respects, it is transformed because there is no Protestant unionist state backed by the British army. The Provisional IRA no longer exists. The GFA has worked astonishingly well in allowing Protestants and Catholics to have their separate identities and, on occasion though less effectively, to share power.
Brexit and the Conservative Party dependence on the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) for its parliamentary majority since 2017 has thrown all these gains into the air. DUP activists admit privately that they want a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic because they have never liked the GFA and would like to gut it. Sinn Fein, which gets about 70 per cent of the Catholic/nationalist vote these days, is pleased that the partition of Ireland is once again at the top of the political agenda.
“I am grappling with the idea of a hard border which I would call a Second Partition of Ireland,” Tom Hartley, a Sinn Fein veteran and former lord mayor of Belfast, told me. He is baffled by British actions that appear so much against their interests, saying that “they had parked the Irish problem, but now Ireland has moved once again into the centre of British politics”.
Would Boris Johnson’s enthusiasm to get rid of “the backstop” evaporate if he wins or loses a general election and the Conservatives are no longer dependent on the DUP for their majority? Possibly, but his right-wing government has plenty of members who never liked the GFA and their speeches show them to be even more ignorant about Northern Ireland politics than their predecessors in Harold Wilson’s cabinet half a century ago.
An example of this is their oft-declared belief that some magical gadget will be found to monitor the border by remote means. But any such device will be rapidly torn down and smashed where the border runs through nationalist majority parts of the border.
Northern Ireland may be at peace, but in a border area like strongly Republican South Armagh, the police only move in convoys of three vehicles and carry rifles, even if they are only delivering a parking ticket.
Catholics are no longer the victims of economic discrimination, though Derry still has the highest unemployment of any city in the UK. There has been levelling down as well as levelling up: Harland and Wolff, the great shipyard that once employed much of the population of Protestant east Belfast, went into administration this week.
Irish unity is being discussed as a practical, though highly polarising, proposition once again. Political and economic turmoil is back in a deeply divided and fragile society in which the binds holding it together are easily unstitched.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Z6WOoS Tyler Durden
When it comes to trade policy, President Donald Trump and his adviser Peter Navarro provide endless examples of incoherent economic thinking. They regularly claim that X is true, and then in the next breath, they assert that not-X is also correct. Let’s consider two recent examples.
The first involves Navarro. Following an announcement that the administration was again ready to hit Chinese imports with a new round of tariffs, Navarro made the rounds on TV to argue that consumers should not worry because this will not affect them at all. Talking to Fox Business Network’s Gerry Baker, Navarro said, “There’s a lot of people who are saying, incorrectly, that somehow the American consumer is bearing the burden of these China tariffs. And it’s just false.” In other interviews, he went on to praise the billions of dollars raised by Uncle Sam from the tariffs.
These claims make no sense. The whole point of Trump’s tariffs is to raise the prices of foreign goods to make them so unappealing to U.S. consumers that these consumers will instead buy more domestically made goods. Some of the Chinese producers of the goods could, in theory, eat the full cost of the tariffs and suffer reduced profit margins. However, in reality, importers pass a large portion of the costs of tariffs on to customers—manufacturers and households in the United States—by raising their prices. In fact, many academic studies have found that most or all of the burden of these tariffs is borne by U.S. consumers.
A 2019 study called “The Return to Protectionism” for the Quarterly Journal of Economics—written by four economists, including the chief economist of the World Bank Group—found that American consumers are the ones shouldering the nearly $69 billion in added costs imposed by the last year’s tariffs on imports from China.
A Congressional Research Service report also found that tariffs imposed on global washing machine imports had jacked up prices by about 12 percent compared to January 2018, before the tariffs came into effect.
And a Peterson Institute for International Economics report found that steel and aluminum import tariffs increased the price of steel products by almost 9 percent, which will “push up costs for steel users by $5.6 billion.” Since then, these costs have gone up even more.
Now multiply all of these cost increases by all the industries downstream of the many Trump tariffs, and you can better assess the damage. The bottom line is that Navarro cannot simultaneously claim that prices aren’t going up and that the tariffs are working to protect American consumers.
The second example comes from Trump himself. On Aug. 6, the president tweeted that “Massive amounts of money from China and other parts of the world is pouring into the United States for reasons of safety, investment, and interest rates! … A beautiful thing to watch!” This boast is stunning because it seems like the president fails to understand that the more foreigners invest in the United States, the higher the U.S. trade deficits are—which he is openly hostile to—and the stronger the U.S. dollar is relative to other currencies like the Chinese yuan—which he also opposes.
You see, one important fact that eludes our president is that the main way for foreign investors to acquire the dollars they invest in the United States is to sell us stuff. They send us goods that we want, and in exchange, we send them dollars. The beauty of the whole system is that the dollars we send across our northern and southern borders as well as abroad come back home when foreigners purchase American exports or make investments in America. U.S. economic growth, innovation and living standards all rise when that happens. Moreover, because the United States is viewed as a great place for investments, there’s a stronger demand for U.S. dollars, and that pumps up the value of the dollar.
Like Navarro, the president is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Their incoherence—including frequent praise for phenomena that result from the economic processes they claim to hate—would be entertaining if the policy consequences weren’t self-destructive trade barriers.
When it comes to trade policy, President Donald Trump and his adviser Peter Navarro provide endless examples of incoherent economic thinking. They regularly claim that X is true, and then in the next breath, they assert that not-X is also correct. Let’s consider two recent examples.
The first involves Navarro. Following an announcement that the administration was again ready to hit Chinese imports with a new round of tariffs, Navarro made the rounds on TV to argue that consumers should not worry because this will not affect them at all. Talking to Fox Business Network’s Gerry Baker, Navarro said, “There’s a lot of people who are saying, incorrectly, that somehow the American consumer is bearing the burden of these China tariffs. And it’s just false.” In other interviews, he went on to praise the billions of dollars raised by Uncle Sam from the tariffs.
These claims make no sense. The whole point of Trump’s tariffs is to raise the prices of foreign goods to make them so unappealing to U.S. consumers that these consumers will instead buy more domestically made goods. Some of the Chinese producers of the goods could, in theory, eat the full cost of the tariffs and suffer reduced profit margins. However, in reality, importers pass a large portion of the costs of tariffs on to customers—manufacturers and households in the United States—by raising their prices. In fact, many academic studies have found that most or all of the burden of these tariffs is borne by U.S. consumers.
A 2019 study called “The Return to Protectionism” for the Quarterly Journal of Economics—written by four economists, including the chief economist of the World Bank Group—found that American consumers are the ones shouldering the nearly $69 billion in added costs imposed by the last year’s tariffs on imports from China.
A Congressional Research Service report also found that tariffs imposed on global washing machine imports had jacked up prices by about 12 percent compared to January 2018, before the tariffs came into effect.
And a Peterson Institute for International Economics report found that steel and aluminum import tariffs increased the price of steel products by almost 9 percent, which will “push up costs for steel users by $5.6 billion.” Since then, these costs have gone up even more.
Now multiply all of these cost increases by all the industries downstream of the many Trump tariffs, and you can better assess the damage. The bottom line is that Navarro cannot simultaneously claim that prices aren’t going up and that the tariffs are working to protect American consumers.
The second example comes from Trump himself. On Aug. 6, the president tweeted that “Massive amounts of money from China and other parts of the world is pouring into the United States for reasons of safety, investment, and interest rates! … A beautiful thing to watch!” This boast is stunning because it seems like the president fails to understand that the more foreigners invest in the United States, the higher the U.S. trade deficits are—which he is openly hostile to—and the stronger the U.S. dollar is relative to other currencies like the Chinese yuan—which he also opposes.
You see, one important fact that eludes our president is that the main way for foreign investors to acquire the dollars they invest in the United States is to sell us stuff. They send us goods that we want, and in exchange, we send them dollars. The beauty of the whole system is that the dollars we send across our northern and southern borders as well as abroad come back home when foreigners purchase American exports or make investments in America. U.S. economic growth, innovation and living standards all rise when that happens. Moreover, because the United States is viewed as a great place for investments, there’s a stronger demand for U.S. dollars, and that pumps up the value of the dollar.
Like Navarro, the president is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Their incoherence—including frequent praise for phenomena that result from the economic processes they claim to hate—would be entertaining if the policy consequences weren’t self-destructive trade barriers.
The Associated Pressreports Congress is seriously considering red flag gun laws.
These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.
President Trump has signaled his backing of bipartisan Senate legislation sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
“We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said in a White House speech.
Red flag laws have garnered support from several conservative intellectuals, as well, including David French of National Review and Ben Shapiro.
Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level.
1. There’s No Evidence Red Flag Laws Reduce Gun Violence
Most people haven’t heard of red flag laws until recently—if they have at all—but they aren’t new.
Connecticut enacted the nation’s first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana (2005). This means social scientists have had decades to analyze the effectiveness of these laws. And what did they find?
“The evidence,” The New York Times recently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”
The Washington Postreports that California’s red flag went basically unused for two years after its passage in 2016. Washington, D.C.’s law has gone entirely unused. Other states, such as Florida and Maryland, have gone the other direction, seizing hundreds of firearms from gun-owners. Yet it’s unclear if these actions stopped a shooting.
With additional states passing red flag laws, researchers will soon have much more data to analyze. But before passing expansive federal legislation that infringes on civil liberties, lawmakers should have clear and compelling empirical evidence that red flag laws actually do what they are intended to do.
2. Congress Lacks the Authority
The Founding Fathers clearly enumerated the powers of the federal government in the Constitution. Among the powers granted in Article I, Section 8 are “the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office.”
Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakersfrom regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
3. We Have Federalism
Unlike the federal government, whose powers, James Madison noted, are “few and defined,” states possess powers that “are numerous and indefinite.”
Indeed, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have red flag laws, and many more states are in the process of adding them. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws if they choose. If red flag laws are deemed desirable, this is the appropriate place to pursue such laws, assuming they pass constitutional muster. But do they?
4. Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process
The Constitution mandates that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”
Depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutionally-guaranteed right in the absence of criminal charges or trial is an affront to civil liberties.
5. Red Flag Laws Could Lead to More Violence
In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.
While red flag laws are designed to reduce violence, it’s possible they could do the opposite by creating confrontations between law enforcement and gun owners like Willis, especially as the enforcement of red flag laws expands.
6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged
In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently.
In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.
“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said. Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel.
“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”
Though comprehensive information is thin, and laws differ from state to state, anecdotal evidence suggests Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.
Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.
7. They’re Basically Pre-Crime
As I’ve previously observed, red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime, a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.
I’m not the only writer to make the connection. In an articlethat appeared in Salon, Travis Dunn linked red flag laws “to the science fiction scenario of The Minority Report, in which precognitive police try to stop crimes before they’re committed.”
That government can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat posed to civil liberties is quite real.
If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the Department of Justice to catch “red flags” using algorithmic technology.
The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat such ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real.
Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies more suited for dystopian thrillers – and police states – than a free society.
It’s clear that laws of this magnitude should not be passed as an emotional or political response to an event, even a tragic one.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31GPqSY Tyler Durden
A staggering 42% of Americans surveyed by Bankrate say they chose to skip taking a vacation over the past year due to finances, while around a third reported that they are less able to afford one now versus five years ago (though 26% reported just the opposite), according to Bloomberg.
More than two-thirds of U.S. adults opted out of a recreational activity due to the cost at some point in the past year, the study found.
You can’t blame them. Trade tensions have economists projecting the likelihood of a recession in the next 12 months at 35 per cent. U.S. student debt is over $1.5 trillion. Almost 40 per cent of Americans think the economy is “not so good” or “poor.” –Bloomberg
Half of those surveyed said that the activities they skipped were too expensive to begin with or not a good value, 41% said they wanted to save money for other things, and 43% reported not having enough money in general after basic expenses were paid.
Suffering the most? Parents – over three quarters of whom with children under the age of 18 reporting that they’ve skipped leisure time vs. 66% of non-parents.
The survey of 2500 adults was conducted online in July.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Tymqts Tyler Durden
You will find more infographics at Statista
