Author: admin

From Brooklyn to San Francisco, developers have been on a high-end housing binge in recent years, with apartments considered “high end” sometimes accounting for more than 75% of all construction.

But how much does it cost to live in a building with amenities that sometimes include a pool, 24-hour fitness and wellness centers, on-site theaters, rooms and cafes?

A recent study by RentCafe found that the national average rent in a luxury complex is around $1,640 per month, or about $490 more than an apartment in a less-fancy building.

But of course, that price can vary wildly from city to city, even when they’re in the same state.

For the same price as a luxury studio in San Francisco, you can rent a luxury 3-bedroom apartment in San Diego. In 12 cities you can rent a luxury studio for under $1,200 per month, and in 11 cities $1,500 gets you a high-end two-bedroom.

But in Manhattan, the most expensive market, a studio will run you $4,500.

Here’s a breakdown of the cities from least expensive to most expensive, courtesy of RentCafe.

* * *

El Paso, Texas

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $976

Price range: $852 (1-bed) to $1,194 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: -1.3%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $291

2. Oklahoma City, OK

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,024

Price range: $872 (studio) to $1,295 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: -0.9%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $368

3. Las Vegas, NV

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,102

Price range: $838 (studio) to $1,322 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +18.4%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $284

4. Louisville, KY

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,123

Price range: $832 (studio) to $1,500 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +4.9%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $3125.

5. Memphis, TN

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,134
Price range: $988 (studio) to $1,476 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.8%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $486

6. Phoenix, AZ

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,154

Price range: $999 (studio) to $1,378 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +16.3%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $351

7. Jacksonville, FL

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,173

Price range: $1,010 (studio) to $1,434 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +12.9%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $347

8. San Antonio, TX

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,176

Price range: $1,029 (studio) to $1,537 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +5.4%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $351

9. Indianapolis, IN

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,191

Price range: $1,137 (studio) to $1,394 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +11.3%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $453 10.

10. Charlotte, NC

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,247

Price range: $1,157 (studio) to $1,455 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +11.0%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $347

11. Columbus, OH

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,319

Price range: $992 (studio) to $2,047 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +10.0%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $528

12. Dallas, TX

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,428

Price range: $1,165 (studio) to $2,049 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +7.4%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $524 13.

Austin, TX

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,432

Price range: $1,247 (studio) to $1,891 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +6.7%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $371

14. Houston, TX

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,448

Price range: $1,229 (studio) to $1,848 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +1.8%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $608

15. Nashville, TN

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,513

Price range: $1,410 (studio) to $1,745 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +14.1%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $502 16.

16. Detroit, MI

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,652

Price range: $1,061 (studio) to $1,878 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +21.7%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $769

17. Portland, OR

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,691

Price range: $1,378 (studio) to $1,950 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +9.0%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $484

18. Baltimore, MD

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,742

Price range: $1,384 (studio) to $2,123 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +0.4%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $680

19. Denver, CO

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,756

Price range: $1,399 (studio) to $2,439 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.4% Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $499

20. Philadelphia, PA

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,197

Price range: $1,623 (studio) to $3,677 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.2%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $925

21. Seattle, WA

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,261

Price range: $1,723 (studio) to $3,595 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +13.2%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $644

22. San Diego, CA

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,376

Price range: $1,847 (studio) to $3,105 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +14.8%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $704

23. Chicago, IL

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,465

Price range: $1,747 (studio) to $4,905 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +4.8%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,078

24. Washington, DC

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,591

Price range: $1,952 (studio) to $4,670 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +1.8%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $841

25. San Jose, CA

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,849 Price range: $2,262 (studio) to $3,716 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.7%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $637

26. Los Angeles, CA

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $3,028

Price range: $2,181 (studio) to $5,201 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +9.7%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,093

27. Brooklyn, NYC

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $3,285

Price range: $2,630 (studio) to $5,728 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: N/A

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,352

28. Boston, MA

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $3,526

Price range: $2,579 (studio) to $5,630 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +5.3%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,048

29. San Francisco, CA

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $4,132

Price range: $3,157 (studio) to $6,812 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +4.2%

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,125

30. Manhattan, NYC

Average rent in a high-end apartment: $4,416

Price range: $3,179 (studio) to $8,163 (3-bed)

Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: N/A

Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,035

via RSS https://ift.tt/2G2mAkw Tyler Durden

Authored by Georges Abi-Heila via Medium.com,

The top 0.1% owns as many assets as the bottom 90%. And it’s getting worse…

One of America’s founding myth is that of the “self-made man”: the idea that, with enough work & dedication, anybody can climb the social ladder and become wealthy. Or at least better off than his or her parents.

Well, that’s complete bullshit.

Data shows that the most important drivers of one’s living standard are determined at birth: most of the people who are poor are so because they made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents.

“No matter what your educational background is, where you start has become increasingly important for where you end”

– Michael D. Carr, economist at the University of Massachusetts

Now the goal of this article is not to languish and complain. By providing a fact-based analysis of the unfairness of our society, I aim to foster empathy and gratitude in the reader’s mind. Acknowledging the luck you have is the starting point towards greater generosity and happiness.

Let’s dig into the facts.

We live in a profoundly unfair society

… and it’s getting worse every year.

Most of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top 0.1%. Inequality is now approaching the extreme level that prevailed prior to the Great Depression.

The top 10% households own ~80% of the wealth.

In fact, inequality is so high that a third of the population has no wealth at alland the top 0.1% owns as many assets as the bottom 90%.

Raw statistics are perfect tools for transmitting the truth of facts but they lack the emotional baggage that a story can deliver. There’s nothing better than tears, blood and immersive storytelling to mobilise people.

I’m unfortunately not very good at that, but I can still rephrase the statistics: if the US was a village of 1000 people, there’s 1 guy that has more money than 900 other villagers combined…

The top 0.1% owns as many assets as the bottom 90%

We can manipulate numbers and discuss hypotheses as much as we’d like: the reality is staggering. Research centers, in their vast majority and coming from all political backgrounds, have drawn the very same conclusion: the US is — by far — the most unequal society in the developed world. And things are getting worse every year.

The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 1, where 0 represents perfect equality and 1 perfect inequality (one person has all of the country’s income)

Now a lot of us can cope with that if there are good chances of improving our situation. If my household’s finances are better than my parents’, the society I’m living in would have enhanced my well-being.

That’s actually one of the cornerstones of modern capitalism: inequalities are accepted as long as the possibility of betterment exists. We tolerate unfairness as long as there are good chances of improving our condition.

The question is: what are the chances?

Moving up is a lottery

… and most of us lose.

To better understand inequality of opportunity, social scientists and economists have increasingly shifted their attention to intergenerational mobility. By assessing the strength of the association between parents’ and offsprings’ income, we can get an approximation of the possibilities given to each generation on their quest for happiness.

So, is social mobility a plausible reality in modern day America?
Well, the answer is quite simply: no.

“The probability of ending where you start has gone up, and the probability of moving up has gone down,”

– Raj Chetty, economist at the National Bureau of Economic Research

According to a research paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, US social mobility fell by more than 70% in the past half-century. If you feel that it’s getting harder to get ahead, you’re not being delusional: in 2016, about half of 30-year-olds earned less than their parents at the same age.

Social mobility is the exception, not the norm.

Another way to look at this is to study income growth. 
Income growth is an interesting metric because it’s a proxy for “better quality of life”: with higher income comes increased purchasing power and better standards of living.

So how is the growth of income distributed among the population?
Well since 1979, all of the income gains have been captured by the top 1% and wages have stagnated for everybody else. This is one of the most depressing statistic I’ve ever read: it basically means that most households in the US have not seen any increase in their revenue since 30 years!

With remarkable consistency, the superrich have managed to capture all the productivity gains made by American workers and convert them to skyrocketing earnings…

For the last 40 years, income and wages have stagnated for most Americans.

The fact is, wealth is so unevenly distributed that one could argue that the US is a failing democracy: power is entirely held by an elite that’s never renewed and that captures all of the income gains.

But what does the 1% think about that? Do they feel empathy and gratitude?
Do they recognise their position being — for a great part — the result of luck and unfair advantages?

Money makes people selfish

… the wealthier you are, the less empathetic you become.

Saying that wealth grants a lot power in today’s capitalistic societies is no great insight. Wealth is what makes you beautiful, what reduces your stress and daily fatigue, what grants you social prestige and education, what gives you time and freedom of choice. Wealth is a big deal.

But does wealth affect your behaviour? In other words, do emotional responses and rational thinking change when income increases? A team of scientists from UC Berkeley’s Institute of Personality and Social Research did a serie of fascinating experiments on this topic.

• The “Cookie Monster”

They first tried to measure if individuals feel more important than others when put in a position of power.

Different groups of three people were brought into a lab. In each group, one person was randomly assigned to be the “leader”. The groups were then given a collaborative writing task. About half an hour into their work, a plate with four cookies was brought: one for each person and one extra.

Who took the fourth extra cookie? In almost all cases it was the person who’d been made the leader. And they were more likely to eat with their mouths open and dropping crumbs. It just seems that, when put in a position of power, we tend to be more impulsive and less empathetic.

This pattern of increased selfishness has been consistently observed across similar studies.

• The “Rude Driver”

The goal here is to check if there’s a difference in driving behavior between the rich and the poor.

The researchers sat at specific crossroads, observing each driver’s attitude as an accomplice appeared on the edge of the curb while cars approached. The results were astonishing: people driving luxury cars like BMWs and Mercedes yielded to pedestrians twice as less as drivers of less expensive cars.

They also watched a 4-way stop intersection, noting when drivers cut in front of others when it was not their turn. The results? The more expensive cars were far more likely to jump their turn.

“You just see this huge boost in a driver’s likelihood to commit infractions in more expensive cars”

– Paul K. Piff, Professor of Psychology at UC Berkeley

• The “Stoic Listener”

This experiment’s objective is to assess wether level of empathy is affected by how powerful the subject considers himself.

Subjects sat down in a face-to-face conversation with people who talked about experiences that had caused them suffering. The listeners’ responses were measured 2 ways: first by self-reported levels of compassion and second by electrocardiogram readings to determine the intensity of their emotional response.

The participants were also asked to rank themselves on questions measuring personal strengths (“I can get people to listen to what I say”) and weaknesses (“My wishes do not carry much weight’’). That allowed the researchers to place them on a “sense of power” scale.

The findings were hugely insightful: participants with a higher sense of power were far more likely to turn a blind eye their partner’s story. More precisely, they “experienced less distress, less compassion and exhibited greater autonomic emotion regulation”.

• The “Blind Observer”

This last study further confirms previous conclusions.

Participants were shown images of suffering — kids with cancer, for instance. People with a greater sense of power had less activation of a part of the brain that helps us connect to one another. To put it bluntly, they just seem less sensitive to what others are feeling.

“When a person is suffering, upper-class individuals perceive these signals less well on average. They tend to underestimate the distress in their social environments.”

– Jennifer E. Stellar, Professor of Psychology at UC Berkeley

Ultimately, it turns out wealth is a very good predictor for unethical behavior and reduced empathy. So what’s happening here? Do you magically become ungrateful & greedy when you buy a new Porsche? What are the psychological mechanisms at play?

Money makes you feel special

… the richer you are, the more entitled you feel.

One thing’s for sure, the wealthy don’t seem to fully recognise their good fortune. If they did, the level of redistribution would be far greater than what it is and tax cuts wouldn’t be so popular among high income brackets.

It also seems that rich and poor largely disagree on factors that lead to success: according to a survey by the Pew Research Center, people with high income are much more likely to attribute success to hard work rather than to factors like luck or being in the right place at the right time.

Poor and rich people largely disagree on the factors of success.

That’s troubling, because we saw earlier that socio-economic background is the main predictor of an adult’s income and that social mobility is the exception, not the norm.

Most behavioral and social scientists know that our brains are fundamentally flawed and that our opinions are not as rational as we might think. Human cognition gives us great insights to why wealthy people tend to underestimate the role of luck in their careers.

• Hindsight bias

… also known as the “knew-it-all-along” effect

This term describes our tendency to rationalise unpredictable events. Humans have a natural inclination, after an event has occurred, to see it as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting it.

Physicians recalling clinical trials, historians describing outcomes of battles, judges trying to attribute responsibility of accidents: examples are numerous.

All of a sudden people were telling me I was a born writer. This was absurd. […] What were the odds?

– Michael Lewis recalling reactions after the publishing of his 1st book, “Liar’s poker”.

This bias operates with particular force for unusually successful outcomes. People don’t like to hear success explained away as luck — especially successful people. As they age and succeed, people feel their success was somehow inevitable.

• Availability heuristic

… also know as the “if-i-remember-it-it-must-be-important” effect

When making decisions or assessing situations, we tend to give a lot of importance to events we immediately recall; thus minimising the role of thing we forgot or never thought about. Under the availability heuristic, people tend to heavily weigh their judgments toward more recent and concrete information. One practical example is that opinions are biased toward the latest news.

A successful career is a subtle combination of multiple factors such as talent, capacity of concentration, amount of work, random encounters, family background, mental resilience, living environment, etc. The thing is, some of those factors are more frequent and easier to perceive than others.

We’re all vividly aware of how many hours we spend working every day and how dedicated (or not) we are. We can effortlessly recall the last time we pulled an all-nighter to deliver on time and how difficult this hugely-important-but-really-complicated project was. But do you perceive how lucky you are not to have been born in Mozambique? How privileged you are to have a college degree? How improbable was your encounter with your business partner? How blessed you are to be healthy and without handicap?

In the construct of our life stories, we unconsciously shrink crucial but abstract factors. Unknowingly, we use mental shortcuts that minor the importance of everything that’s not linked to our close environment. That’s why we tend to largely overestimate the impact we, as individuals, have on our life paths.

In an existence led by randomness, humans tend to overemphasise their personal performance because they’re biased towards their own day-to-day experience.

• Negative memory

… also know as the “we don’t care about planes that arrive on time”

A well known cognitive bias is that we recall negative events more frequently and more intensely than positive ones. For example, it’s been proven that we’re usually more upset about losing $50 than we are happy about gaining $50. The same applies to negative feedback, delayed flights, lost games, etc. The effect of those negative experiences is much more powerful than their positive counterparts.

“Almost everyone remembers negative things more strongly and in more detail.”

– Clifford Nass, professor of communication at Stanford University

From an evolutionary perspective this is justified: survival requires urgent attention to possible bad outcomes (and less urgent to good ones). But in today’s world, it’s a major flaw in our decision-making capabilities. Looking back at our life-choices, we’ll always be more aware of the hurdles and obstacles we faced than of the things that helped us. Think of it as cognitive ungratefulness.

Recognise your luck and practice empathy

… we’re not as great as we think we are.

I feel that we’re at a tipping point. Inequalities are at a record high, social mobility is at a record low, and our elite’s moral values don’t seem to converge towards better redistribution or benevolent sharing.

The extremely wealthy, besides concentrating the vast majority of assets and income gains of the country, fail to truly recognise the role of luck in their good fortune.

This is dangerous because it’s a breeding ground for desperation and hopelessness. When people lose faith in the possibility of improving their condition, when they realise the American Dream has become nothing but a myth, they will resort to extreme means. The subtle combination of political lies, corporate story-telling and public ignorance that has maintained social peace may not last forever.

If a tiny minority has all the wealth, if income is stagnating for 9 citizens out of 10, if chances of climbing are minuscule, isn’t rebellion justified?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2jJKxnW Tyler Durden

Earlier this month, the magazine cover for Chinese aerospace magazine Aviation Knowledge highlighted an artist’s rendition of the next-generation strategic stealth bomber Xian H-20, which Beijing is currently developing.

According to The Diplomat, a small number of English-language newspapers in the region have commented on this secret stealth bomber, “speculating whether its presence on the cover of Aviation Knowledge may indicate some subtle official Chinese military backing.” Development of the stealth bomber was officially confirmed in 2016, although limited details have been provided since.

Some commentary surrounding the H-20 surfaced in 2016 when official PLA-affiliated sources announced the development of the next generation long-range stealth bomber. PLA Air Force General Ma Xiaotian, stated, “our long-range strike capability has much improved compared to the past, and an even bigger improvement is coming. We are developing a new generation of long-range bomber.”

In mid-2017, ChinaMilitary.cn, the only official English-language news website of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), published an intriguing article on details surrounding the H-20 and what its potential missions and parameters could be:

• First, good stealth performance. The new bomber will probably adopt the flying wing layout like American and Russian bombers to meet the requirement for stealth performance.

• Second, ultra long range. The new bomber has an intercontinental flying range of more than 10,000km and combat radius of over 5,000km. With air refueling, it is able to fly and carry out missions around the globe.

• Third, large bomb load. Aimed to lower the R&D cost and enhance strike capability, the new bomber will have a slightly smaller bomb load than B-2A (23 tons) but larger than H-6K.

• Fourth, nuclear-regular integration. The new-generation long-range bomber will have both nuclear and regular strike capability to hit the enemy’s key links and systemic weaknesses.

• Fifth, strong electronic combat capability. The new-generation long-range bomber is almost as good as a special electronic combat aircraft in electronic combat capability. It is able to disturb and destroy incoming missiles and other air and ground targets through a range of equipment including radar, electronic confrontation platform, high power microwave, laser and infrared equipment.

Now, Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), one of China’s most significant aerospace and defense companies (ranked 159th in the Fortune Global 500 lists), has provided a sneak peek into one of the most secretive aerospace projects Beijing has ever created to date — the development of the next-generation stealth bomber. On Tuesday, the company released an unclassified promotional video featuring 60-years of AVIC aircraft. However, at the end of the video, a short scene depicts an outline of an aerodynamic shape of a ‘flying wing,’ popularized by the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. The scene closely resembles the 2015 Northrup Grumman Super Bowl commercial with a B-21 Raider. Seems as the Chinese are not just ripping off airplane designs from American defense companies, but also propaganda videos.

“China’s aviation giant, Aviation Industry Corporation, revealed a model jet, believed to be the US B2 stealth bomber-like model “H-20”, in a 9-second Easter egg in a video commemorating 60 years of its subsidy Xi’an Aircraft Industrial Corporation,” said the Global Times.

China’s aviation giant, Aviation Industry Corporation, revealed a model jet, believed to be the US B2 stealth bomber-like model “H20”, in a 9-second Easter egg in a video commemorating 60 years of its subsidy Xi’an Aircraft Industrial Corporation. https://t.co/yD5k0Ecc0O pic.twitter.com/kLWJkxSaXh

— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) May 9, 2018

In the past few years, State-run media outlets in China have echoed the need for the PLA to develop long-range strategic bombers to strike their adversaries [United States] at a greater distance. There are new reports from Sputnik that the next-generation stealth bomber could be ready for service by the mid-2020s, but the design of the aircraft remains somewhat of a mystery. Pentagon experts have warned that the new bomber could utilize “stealth” technology and be able to carry both conventional and strategic nuclear bombs.

Shi Jian, a senior editor at Aviation World Monthly magazine, said, the “latest AVIC move indicates that the State-owned defense giant believes the new bomber’s design and technologies have advanced enough that the company wants to let people know of the program’s progress.”

“I think the new bomber will be unveiled to the public in the near future,” he said. “It is now not uncommon for the PLA to make public its top weapons before their delivery thanks to the increased level of transparency and confidence brought about by our technological advancement.”

While China is expected to unveil one of its most secretive weapons — a next-generation long-range stealth bomber, the aviation community in China and State-run media outlets indicate that its official release date could be imminent. The news of an advanced Chinese bomber could certainly horrify the West, as both countries are expected to unleash these next-generation stealth bombers by mid-2020s. Is China catching up?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KKX2fj Tyler Durden

Submitted by Jessica Rabe of DataTrek Research

If the unemployment rate is at a 17-year low, then why does wage growth remain so tepid? After last Friday’s jobs report, that’s a question on many investors’ minds. A trip to Google Trends, which measures the search volume of any given word or phrase, starts to tell the story:

• “Ask for a raise” and “Get a raise”: These search queries are flat over the past 12 months. Let’s face it, we ask Google for help on almost everything, and searching for tips on how to get more pay is no different. But if you don’t ask, you likely won’t receive.
• “Hire” vs. “Get a job”: The former term outnumbers the latter phrase by almost 3 to 1 on average over the past 12 months. As the labor market continues to post a solid number of jobs added each month, perhaps employers are having trouble finding qualified workers that still need a job.
• “Quit my job”: While this phrase peaked in January of this year (likely a function of New Year’s resolutions rather than serious intent), it is still up nearly 50% over the past 12 months.
• All in all: workers aren’t necessarily pushing for a pay bump, but they are growingly confident that they could get a better paying position if they leave their current gig. Meanwhile, employers are more eager to hire than Americans are trying to get a job.

This analysis may seem simple, but it actually closely aligns with the data in the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) out today. We always review JOLTS, a one-month delayed take on the state of employment, as it gives a more complete view of the workforce than the Employment Situation report and is based on a larger population sample. Consider these points:

• The number of job openings jumped by 472,000 to a record high of 6.55 million in March 2018 (latest available data), up 16.8% year-over-year. No doubt this shows the tremendous interest that employers have with respect to hiring new workers.
• The trouble comes when looking at how many people are actually getting hired, which slipped by 1.6% m/m to 5.43 million. It is still up 2.4% y/y, but moving in the wrong direction. It’s not like employers are cutting back on their payrolls either, as the number of layoffs and discharges declined by 6.3% y/y to 1.56 million.
• Consequently, job openings continue to exceed the number of people starting new jobs, which has been an unusual development over the past few years compared to JOLTS’ full history. For example, from December 2000 (when the data was first collected) to July 2014, there were more hires than job openings during every single month. In fact, the difference between hires and job openings averaged about 1 million during that time frame.
• For most months since 2014, the reverse has been true with job openings outnumbering hires by an average of 323k. In March, this gap reached a record of 1.13 million in favor of job openings over hiring.

How this explains slow wage growth: if you can’t fill a certain position, by definition you can’t give this nonexistent employee a raise. This dilemma highlights the ongoing difficulty of employers finding qualified workers. The interest is there, but the skills needed to meet many jobs’ requirements are not, as repeatedly highlighted in the Fed’s Beige Book reports.

With all that said, workers are as confident as ever according to one measure we calculate from the JOLTS data. Our “Take this job and shove it” indicator, or quits to total separations, increased to a record high of 63.2% in March. Additionally, the number of quits gained 6.4% y/y to 3.34 million, marking a post-recession high. This shows a greater belief among workers in their own ability to attain a more lucrative position and that the economy is strong enough to offer better jobs.

Summing up, all this data signals that wage growth should accelerate going forward. Otherwise, the mystery of the missing wage growth will continue.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2K9uOKi Tyler Durden

Hawaii’s Mt. Kilauea has been erupting for nearly six days, transforming a formerly ritzy neighborhood into a lake of fire. And given the volcano’s history of sustained eruptions (its longest in the 20th century lasted for 88 days), Hawaii’s Gov. David Ige said late Tuesday that the nearly 2,000 people who’ve been forced to evacuate may need federal assistance.

The number of fissures that have opened up in or around the Leilani Estates neighborhood and the surrounding area, which is situated a few miles northeast of the volcano, has climbed to 14, according to Reuters.

The fissures, according to Hawaii News Now, are scattered across the large Puna subdivision, which is home to about 1,700 residents, most of whom have been evacuated. Hawaiian officials ordered residents in Lanipuna Gardens, another nearby neighborhood, to evacuate late Tuesday.

Of course, it’s not just the magma swelling up from the earth that’s posing a danger to residents; as we pointed out yesterday, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide bubbling up from the fissures have created a hazy volcanic smog – or vog – that could cause headaches, lethargy and an assortment of other symptoms.

With thousands already seeking succor in government shelters, emergency workers are still trying to move people away from the area, and cautioning tourists to stay away.

While the total extent of the damage isn’t known, at least 36 structures have been torched by the lava. It can reach temperatures of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. While not all the fissures are active, lava has been bubbling out of about 2.5 miles of fissures that officials have warned are slowly spreading eastwards.

The Island of Hawaii (also known as the Big Island) where the eruptions are occurring, was rocked by two major earthquakes late last week (including a 6.9 magnitude tremblor that amounted to the largest quake since 1975) and a seemingly unceasing series of aftershocks that experts say have only aggravated the lava flows.

Here’s a rundown of where the fissures are located, according to Hawaii New:

Mohela Street

Makamae Street

Kaupili Street (2)

Kahukai Street

Pohoiki Road

Hookupu Street

Luana Street

Kupono Street

Pomaikai Street

Leilani Avenue

Forest just outside Leilani Estates (2)

via RSS https://ift.tt/2G2lEMX Tyler Durden

Authored by Daniel McAdams via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

Yesterday President Trump announced that he was canceling US participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA) otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. The president’s assertions were ludicrous and factually incorrect, but the neocons who were no doubt behind the speech have never been all that wedded to the truth.

It became obvious fairly early on that Trump’s rationale was not to be taken seriously, when he cited last week’s comical stage performance by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Iran Lied” about its nuclear program.

Netanyahu’s fairy tale required us to believe that the Iranians were storing their most sensitive national security (paper) documents and compact discs in an unguarded desert hut, which the crack Israeli team of intelligence operatives were able to discover and remove by the truckload right under the noses of what they claim is among the most totalitarian “regimes” on earth.

And even if one believes that fairy tale, one is required to suspend logic and reason and conclude that evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons technology but had halted the program by 2003 is actually proof that Iran is currently pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities — despite repeated inspections that have concluded otherwise. Really, it’s something a child could see through. Which is perhaps why the neocons were so successful at packaging it for Trump’s consumption.

Likewise Trump’s claim that Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism…for among other things fighting actual terrorists (al-Qaeda and ISIS) in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government!

Only in the twisted world of the neocons can one country arming al-Qaeda and ISIS (the US) be “anti-terrorist” and another country killing al-Qaeda and ISIS (Iran) be “pro-terrorist.”

But all that aside, there is something potentially earth-shattering in what at first appears to be just bluster and blunder by President Trump. With neocons in charge of the words coming out of his mouth we should not believe it was an accident.

When President Trump uttered this line:

“Iran remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provides assistance to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, al-Qaida, and other terrorist networks.”

He was signaling his official determination that Iran is one of the “associated forces” that is fair game for US bombs as outlined in the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force.

In short, Trump’s sentence indicates, in our convoluted and post-Constitutional current reality, that President Trump believes he has all the authority he needs to initiate an attack on Iran.

Forget all the other speculation on Trump’s speech. This is the only thing to really focus on.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2K9rvCS Tyler Durden

O.F. Mossberg & Sons has become the second gunmaker to sever ties with Dick’s Sporting Goods, and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, in response to their hiring of multiple gun control lobbyists in the wake of the Parkland shooting. 

“The lobbying records show Dick’s hired two Democrats and one Republican from Glover Park Group, a DC-based government affairs firm, for ‘[l]obbying related to gun control’,” reported The Fedrealist in May.

Effective immediately, O.F. Mossberg & Sons will not accept any future orders from Dick’s Sporting Goods or Field & Stream, and is in the process of evaluating current contractual agreements.

“It has come to our attention that Dick’s Sporting Goods recently hired lobbyists on Capitol Hill to promote additional gun control.” said Iver Mossberg, Chief Executive Officer of O.F. Mossberg & Sons. “Make no mistake, Mossberg is a staunch supporter of the U.S. Constitution and our Second Amendment rights, and we fully disagree with Dick’s Sporting Goods’ recent anti-Second Amendment actions.”

The move follows that of Springfield Armory, a major handgun and rifle manufacturer, which announced last week that it would several all ties with Dick’s over the lobbyists. 

The three lobbyists tapped by Dick’s to push for gun control are listed by name in the federal disclosure forms, which are required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to be filed quarterly: Joel Johnson, who worked for both President Bill Clinton and Senate Democrat leadership; Andrew King, who worked for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); and Christina Brown, a former staffer for Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.). –The Federalist

“Springfield Armory is severing ties with Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, in response to their hiring a group for anti-Second Amendment lobbying,” the maker of the popular XD, XDS, and XDm semi-automatic handgun lines wrote on its Facebook page. “This latest action follows Dick’s Sporting Goods’ decision to remove and destroy all modern sporting rifles (MSR) from their inventory.”

In February, Dick’s announced that they would no longer sell rifles to anyone under the age of 21 – to which Springfield Armory replied: 

“In addition, they have denied Second Amendment rights to Americans under the age of 21. We at Springfield Armory believe that all law abiding American citizens of adult age are guaranteed this sacred right under our Constitution.”

“It is clear where Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, stand on the Second Amendment, and we want to be clear about our message in response,” the company wrote. “At Springfield Armory, we believe in the rights and principles fought for and secured by American patriots and our founding forefathers, without question.”

“We will not accept Dick’s Sporting Goods’ continued attempts to deny Second Amendment freedoms to our fellow Americans,” concluded Springfield.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2I31Ajz Tyler Durden

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

It is at times frustrating, but also interesting, to witness the progression of the mainstream’s awareness of economic crisis within the U.S. over the years. As an alternative economist, I have had the “privilege” of perching outside the financial narrative and observing our economy from a less biased position, and I have discovered a few things.

First, the mainstream economic media is approximately two to three years behind average alternative economists. At least, they don’t seem to acknowledge reality within our time frame. This may be deliberate (my suspicion) because the general public is not meant to know the truth until it is too late for them to react in a practical way to solve the problem. For example, it is a rather strange experience for me to see the term “stagflation” suddenly becoming a major buzzword in the MSM. It is almost everywhere in the past week ever since the last Federal Reserve meeting in which the central bank mentioned higher inflation pressures and removed references in its monthly statement to a “growing economy.”

For those unfamiliar with what stagflation is, it is essentially the loss of economic growth in numerous sectors coupled with a marked spike in consumer and manufacturing costs. In other words, prices keep going up while employment growth, wages, production, etc. decline.

I have been warning about a stagflationary crisis as the ultimate result of central bank bailouts and QE for many years. In 2011, I published an article titled ‘The Debt Deal Con: Is It Fooling Anyone?’ in which I predicted that the Fed would resort to a third round of quantitative easing (they did). This prediction was based on the fact that the previous two QE events had not resulted in the kind of results the central bankers were obviously looking for. At that time, the stock market remained a dubious mess on the verge of a renewed crash, the U.S. debt rating was about to be downgraded by S&P, true employment growth was dismal, etc. The Fed needed something spectacular to keep the system propped up, at least until they were ready to trigger the next stage of the collapse.

In that same article I also discussed the inevitable end result of this stimulus bonanza:  Stagflation.

QE3 was a dramatic con, along with Operation Twist. The Fed got exactly what it wanted — an unprecedented bull market rally in stocks and temporary stability in bond markets. As stocks jumped higher and higher despite all negative fundamental data, the mainstream simply regurgitated the fool’s narrative that a “recovery” was upon us. But now things are changing and no illusion lasts forever.

The second observation I have made is that central banking elites and their cronies tend to give warnings on great economic shifts, but only about a year before they occur. They do this for a few reasons. One, because they are the people that engineer these crisis events in the first place and it’s not very hard to predict a calamity you helped create. Two, because it makes them appear prophetic when they are not, while at the same time giving the public as little time as possible to prepare. And three, because it gives them plausible deniability when the crisis actually happens, because they can claim they “tried to warn us”, though unfortunately it was too late.

The Bank For International Settlements warned of the derivatives and credit crash in 2007, about a year before the disaster struck. In 2017, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warned of inevitable “stagflation not seen since the 1970s.” In later comments, he and others attributed this potential crisis to the policies of Donald Trump.

It is important to note that stagflation is entirely the fault of central bankers and not the presidency, though the White House has indeed aided the Fed in its efforts regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

Years ago there was a rather idiotic battle between financial analysts over what the end result of the Fed’s massive stimulus measures would be. One side argued that deflation would be the outcome and that no amount of Fed printing would overtake the vast black hole of debt conjured by the derivatives implosion. The other side argued that the Fed would continue to print perpetually, resorting to QE4 or possibly “QE infinity” and negative interest rates as a means to stave off a market crash for decades (like Japan) while at the same time initiating a Weimar-style inflationary bonanza.

Both sides were wrong because they refused to acknowledge the third option — stagflation.

The Fed clearly found a way to direct inflationary pressures into certain parts of the economy while allowing deflationary pressures to weigh down other parts of the economy. They also are NOT sticking to their previous strategy of holding interest rates down while pumping up markets with talk of further QE.

Deflationary proponents used to sarcastically argue that if people really believed that inflation would be the consequence of Fed activities then they should jump into the housing marketbecause they would make a mint on price increases. Well, this is exactly what has happened.  Home prices have continued to surge despite all fundamentals, including dismal home buyer statswhich hit an all time low in 2016 and have barely recovered since.

I use home prices as a prime example of stagflation because the housing market constitutes around 15 percent to 18 percent of total GDP in the U.S. Since items like food and fuel are not counted in the calculation of the CPI index, housing should be the next consideration. Signs of stagflation in housing are a sure indicator of stagflation in the rest of the economy.

The manner in which housing is calculated in the CPI and GDP is a bit odd, of course. Housing is not included in these stats in terms of home purchases annually. In fact, home purchases and improvements are treated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as an “investment” and not as a consumer purchase, which means they are not considered a measure of inflation. However, home values in terms of their “rental cost and change in cost” are counted in CPI.

As we all know, rent prices across the country have been skyrocketing in the past few years along with home prices, while at the same time home buyers have dwindled and the millennial generation is staying at home with mom and dad rather than paying out monthly for homes and apartments. That is to say, in a normal economic environment fewer buyers should result in lower prices, but this is not what has happened. The question is, how has the Federal Reserve and QE contributed to this example of stagflation?

First, the Fed’s artificial support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after the derivatives debacle allowed for the continued propping up of the housing market when bad debt should have been allowed to cycle out of the system and house prices should have been allowed to fall.

Second, the Fed’s bailout funding of Fannie Mae directly benefited companies like Blackstone, which has become a partner with Fannie Mae and one of the largest buyers of homes in the country. Blackstone has not purchased tens of thousands of homes for resale, but for conversion into rentals. Blackstone’s vast purchases of single family homes has artificially boosted home values across the nation and given the false impression of a housing recovery that does not really exist.

Third, a very interesting discovery; while the central bank under Jerome Powell has become more and more aggressive in its balance sheet reductions, a move which has directly contributed to the recent decline in stock markets, there is one asset class that the Fed has been ADDING to its balance sheet — Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS).  These purchases tend to take place directly after older MBS have been allowed to roll over, meaning, the Fed is maintaining a relatively steady number of MBS while it is dumping other assets.

MBS represent around 40 percent of the Fed’s total balance sheet, and the Fed’s continued fiat support of the MBS market helps explain why home prices refuse to fall despite negative fundamentals. It is also interesting to me that the Fed has chosen to dump certain assets that appear to be causing a downward reaction in stock markets and other sectors while maintaining assets that keep housing prices high. It’s almost as if the Fed wants stagflation…

Finally, while the Fed’s interest rate hikes do not traditionally have a direct correlation to home mortgage rates, there is an indirect correlation. Fears of inflation sometimes ironically create inflation, and as the fed raises interest rates, mortgage rates tend to track. In 2018 mortgage rateshave spiked, climbing 48 basis points since the beginning of the year.

This contributes to higher home prices as well a perceived rental values according to the CPI.

The source of almost every instability within our economy can be tracked straight back to the Federal Reserve and the “too-big-to-fail” corporations they bailed out after the credit crash. The current stagflationary development is no different. Stagflation will ultimately result in extreme price increases on necessary goods and services far beyond what we have already seen while the public’s ability to keep up with those prices will falter.

The fact that this issue is FINALLY hitting the mainstream should be concerning to everyone. For when a crisis development is discussed in the mainstream, it means we are on the verge of that crisis reaching its nexus. In June the Fed will raise interest rates yet again despite failing fundamentals. The Fed will continue to cite inflationary pressures, and the Fed will continue to cut its balance sheet. There is no room for delusion on this anymore.  The Fed will not stop on its current path. In the meantime, central banks will continue to blame external forces such as trade wars and Trump era policies for stagflation while ignoring the trillions in fiat they have expertly poisoned our financial system with.

All bubbles collapse, but not all bubbles collapse in the exact same way. I believe the Fed has created a perfect storm of combined deflationary and inflationary factors; an economic bomb to surpass all economic bombs.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KOARVy Tyler Durden

78-year-old former CIA analyst of 27 years turned anti-war protester, Ray McGovern, was dragged out of Gina Haspel’s confirmation hearing on Wednesday, before being thrown to the ground and tackled by Capitol Police.

The hubbub started when Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, asked Haspel about the morality of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (read: torture) and how she would react if one of her own officers were tortured. Would she consider a CIA officer being waterboarded by “terrorists” to be immoral? Reed wanted to know.

“Sorry to interrupt here,” McGovern said, standing up in the audience. “Senator Wyden, you deserve a direct answer.” Wyden, however, wasn’t questioning Haspel at the time, so it’s unclear what McGovern was referring to. –Vice

Capitol Police can be heard commanding McGovern to “stop resisting” as they pile on top of him, dislodging his glasses and injuring his shoulder. 

McGovern, a grandfather of nine who used to brief President Reagan every morning, demanded that Haspel answer questions about the CIA’s waterbaording of prisoners at a CIA “black site” in Thailand. 

Another protester has been forcibly dragged out—who appears to be Ray McGovern. (H/t @attackerman) pic.twitter.com/KaOyyV4GVc

— Katie Bo Williams (@KatieBoWill) May 9, 2018

Prior to McGovern’s forcible removal, a female protester was escorted out by Capitol Police after shouting “Bloody Gina!” and “you are a torturer!” – the former being a nickname given to Haspel by her colleagues at the CIA according to whistleblower John Kiriakou., 

Haspel came under fire in March after reports in the New York Times and ProPublica reported Haspell’s involvement in the black site, as well as the decision to destroy 92 videotapes of the enhanced interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaeda leader.

As acting head of the CIA following Mike Pompeo’s departure to become Secretary of State, Haspel has promised not to create another torture program – though she wouldn’t condemn the torture which took place at the black site under her watch. On Monday the CIA delivered a set of classified documents to the Senate, describing Haspell’s 33-year career at the agency, “including her time in C.I.A’s Counterterrorism Center in the years after 9/11.” The files are available for every senator to read.

McGovern wrote an op-ed in Consortiumnews titled “Will a Torturer Become CIA Director?“ in which he calls Haspel out for her role in the destruction of the Abu Zubaydah tapes. 

It is no secret that Haspel oversaw detainee torture, including waterboarding, at a CIA “black site” base in Thailand. The nonprofit National Security Archive, housed at The George Washington University, reports that Haspel later drafted a cable ordering the destruction of dozens of videotapes of torture sessions, including some from before her arrival. Haspel also helped feed repeated lies about the supposed effectiveness of torture to CIA superiors, Congress, and two presidents. -Ray McGovern

Haspel was grilled by legislators over a wide range of topics, including of course her tenure running the “black site” in Thailand. As Vice reports, “After McGovern was forced out of the room, Haspel continued to answer Reed’s question.”

“I don’t believe the terrorists follow any guidelines, or civilized norms, or the law,” she said, further insisting there was no comparison to be made between CIA agents and terrorists, even if both employed torture.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2jMJe82 Tyler Durden

Authored by Toni Airaksinen via Campus Reform,

Leandra Westbrook, a junior at Kent State University, claims she was wrongfully detained by campus police after students overheard her talking about her concealed carry license. 

Westbrook, a junior studying political science, told Campus Reform that she had a phone conversation with a friend on the afternoon of April 27, during which she lamented “how it is a shame that I cannot carry a gun on campus, considering I have my carry license.”

Leandra Westbrook getting in some target practice at a shooting range.

Student cadet officers overheard Westbrook’s conversation, and then reported her to campus police at approximately 12:00 p.m., according to a copy of the police report obtained by Campus Reform. 

Then, just before Westbrook was slated to take a quiz for her anatomy class, police entered the lecture hall of 200 students and she was “removed from class and searched,” according to both Westbrook and the police report. 

Though Westbrook understands that the officers were “just doing their jobs,” she maintains that that the student cadets reported her in bad faith. 

“I do not believe they genuinely thought I was a threat, because I specifically said I had a license to carry,” Westbrook told Campus Reform. “In the conversation I had, there was no way to misinterpret what I said, or to even suggest that I had a gun with me.”

She noted that she “would not be surprised if the student cadet who reported me was targeting me for being pro-Second Amendment,” adding that she’s historically faced harassment and vague threats from her peers due to her conservative beliefs. 

As the former Vice President of her campus’s Turning Point USA chapter and a board member of the school’s Students for Life chapter, Westbrook says she’s well-known as a conservative, and she thinks it’s possible that the cadets who reported her knew that.

After police removed her, Westbrook recalled that she “was too shaken up and disturbed to return back to class.” 

Days later, she met with the school’s Dean of Students to sound the alarm about the ongoing harassment she has faced, only to be told that nothing can be done. 

Now, Westbrook says she has decided to “take matters into my own hands,” declaring that “I’ll be reporting the people who harassed me to the police, as well as the student cadets who reported me for having a gun for falsifying a report, as they said that they heard me say I had a gun and was afraid to get caught with it, which is not true.”

She did, however, say that she plans to wait until final exams are over to file the report, so as not to interfere with anyone’s study schedule.

“My main concern is that people are not being held accountable for their actions,” she explained.

“Their words don’t bother me, but if I was to say something like that to them, my guess is it wouldn’t be tolerated by the university.” 

In addition to reporting those students, Westbrook said she also plans to start a concealed carry club at Kent State. 

“My hopes are to teach people about gun safety and the gun control laws we already have in place, because a lot of people who speak on the subject are very uneducated [about gun laws],” Westbrook added. 

Campus Reform reached out to Kent State University for comment, but did not receive a response despite repeated requests. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2IuFoOL Tyler Durden