USA Today says that Los Angeles is the capital of the 2nd Glided Age

The wildfire is an instructive tale of America’s second Gilded Age, a time when the kinds of excesses and extremes that once seemed to have been consigned to U.S. history have come roaring back.


In this Gilded Age, like the one at the end of the 19th Century, the gap between rich and poor is widening; monopolies have more power over business, business has more power over politics and politics are close-fought and hyper-partisan. The pace of change — technological, cultural, social — is dizzying.

In his presidential campaign, Donald Trump simultaneously evoked two Gilded Age types, the plutocrat and the populist. “Trump is the perfect figure for the new Gilded Age. He’s like something out of Mark Twain’’ (who coined the term “Gilded Age’’ in 1873), says David Nasaw, a biographer of Gilded Age industrialist Andrew Carnegie. “Exaggeration is his essence.’’

The most striking feature shared by the two Gilded Ages is growing economic inequality. In the 19th Century, the juxtaposition of squalor and splendor shocked a rural nation that was moving to the city; today, it haunts a nation that can remember the relative equality of the Depression, World War II and the long post-war period. One of several homes destroyed in the Skirball Fire One of several homes destroyed in the Skirball Fire that raged through the exclusive Bel Air section of Los Angeles. It was later determined the fire was started in a nearby homeless encampment. (Photo: Robert Hanashiro, USA TODAY) Nowhere is this inequality more apparent than Los Angeles, where hundreds of encampments have sprung up on beaches, in riverbeds and in canyons as the homeless population has exploded and expanded beyond its old boundaries.

www.usatoday.com...

I gotta admit after reading the article, it sounds like history is repeating itself. It reminds me of the Strauss Howe Generational theory where it states that history comes in cycle.

Like the first Glided Age, there are monopolies everywhere today. Look at the tech industries for example.

As for the homeless situation, in addition to high taxes and rising costs of housing, I blame neoliberalism because it causes jobs to be scarce when factories in LA were shipped overseas back in the early 1990s.

Now most jobs are minimum wage jobs and to get a high paying job, you have to have connections.

Trades will not help you because there is zero emphasis on such jobs here.

Also, living in LA is very expensive and many people in their 20s are still living with our parents because its very hard to find our own apartment since they are pricey.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to compare homeless encampments to the rich. The homeless encampments would be there regardless because these people are homeless because of mental and addiction issues. It is an extreme that has zilch to do with the other extreme of wealth.

With that said, technology and an economy that favors service industries and a high skill / high education workforce is making it harder for people who are below average or makes mistakes taking them off certain career tracks. It used to be that as long as you were willing to work hard, you could find a decent job at a plant to afford a house, car and boat. Any high school screw up could still make a life for themselves.

It isn't like that anymore. Those jobs have all been shipped overseas (ironically creating a middle class and lifing people out of poverty in those countries). The best jobs are reserved for the best students. It is hard to break into the trades on the other end. As a result, you have a lot people who are average who have a hard time making it, especially in urban centers which attract a lot of highly competitive people.

The center of our country's economy has been hollowed out in the name of low prices and shareholder returns...

originally posted by: Edumakated
The homeless encampments would be there regardless because these people are homeless because of mental and addiction issues.

You should get more edumakated.

For women in particular, domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness. the country report that top causes of homelessness among families were: (1) lack of affordable housing, (2) unemployment, (3) poverty, and (4) low wages, in that order.

NLCHP

the fact is that more than half the homeless are families with children. The vast majority of these have been thrust into homelessness by a life altering event or series of events that were unexpected and unplanned for.

HomeAid

Since homelessness is largely about poverty, therefore, we can attribute some of its structural causes to this late twentieth century, capitalist economic predicament. But what are the specific economic reasons for the rise in homelessness within the framework of these general contemporary conditions of poverty? And what additional structural problems account for homelessness in America today?

In particular, structural changes within the American economy over the last twenty years have had a profound impact on the economic landscape of the "bottom" segment of American society. The transformation can be characterized by a general move in America towards a more "post-industrialized" and global economy. Domestically, that implies a shift "away from relatively well-paying manufacturing jobs to minimum wage service jobs and temporary or part-time positions."10

Stanford Study

Boy, does your handle make more sense every time I see you post...

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Edumakated
The homeless encampments would be there regardless because these people are homeless because of mental and addiction issues.

You should get more edumakated.

For women in particular, domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness. the country report that top causes of homelessness among families were: (1) lack of affordable housing, (2) unemployment, (3) poverty, and (4) low wages, in that order.

NLCHP

the fact is that more than half the homeless are families with children. The vast majority of these have been thrust into homelessness by a life altering event or series of events that were unexpected and unplanned for.

HomeAid

Since homelessness is largely about poverty, therefore, we can attribute some of its structural causes to this late twentieth century, capitalist economic predicament. But what are the specific economic reasons for the rise in homelessness within the framework of these general contemporary conditions of poverty? And what additional structural problems account for homelessness in America today?

In particular, structural changes within the American economy over the last twenty years have had a profound impact on the economic landscape of the "bottom" segment of American society. The transformation can be characterized by a general move in America towards a more "post-industrialized" and global economy. Domestically, that implies a shift "away from relatively well-paying manufacturing jobs to minimum wage service jobs and temporary or part-time positions."10

Stanford Study

Boy, does your handle make more sense every time I see you post...

You are confusing temporary homelessness with chronic homelessness...

The chronic homeless are those living in tent encampments or under bridges and the vast majority of them are in fact drug addicts or a small fry short of a happy meal. There is absolutely zilch anyone can do to get them off the street other than forcibly jailing them or putting them into looney hospitals.

A woman who gets kicked out by an abusive boyfriend and sleeps in a car for a night or two or at a women's shelter is not remotely the same thing.

My point, which flew entirely over your head, is that some Hollywood exec living in Bel Aire has absolutely nothing to do with some drugged out heroin addict living in a tent. The person living in the tent is there because they are a drug addict and cannot function in society. They aren't there because the movie exec charges too much for movies.

Yes, the juxtaposition of extreme wealth and extreme poverty in major cities like LA is jarring but the two are completely unrelated for the most part.

Where it might be related as I stated in my post that you failed to actually read or comprehend, is the middle class. You get a few tech barrons making billions from their new technology that completely puts out of work entire industries or severely reduces their compensation. However, it is farce to say that those affected all of a sudden are living in tent encampments.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Edumakated
The homeless encampments would be there regardless because these people are homeless because of mental and addiction issues.

You should get more edumakated.

For women in particular, domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness. the country report that top causes of homelessness among families were: (1) lack of affordable housing, (2) unemployment, (3) poverty, and (4) low wages, in that order.

NLCHP

the fact is that more than half the homeless are families with children. The vast majority of these have been thrust into homelessness by a life altering event or series of events that were unexpected and unplanned for.

HomeAid

Since homelessness is largely about poverty, therefore, we can attribute some of its structural causes to this late twentieth century, capitalist economic predicament. But what are the specific economic reasons for the rise in homelessness within the framework of these general contemporary conditions of poverty? And what additional structural problems account for homelessness in America today?

In particular, structural changes within the American economy over the last twenty years have had a profound impact on the economic landscape of the "bottom" segment of American society. The transformation can be characterized by a general move in America towards a more "post-industrialized" and global economy. Domestically, that implies a shift "away from relatively well-paying manufacturing jobs to minimum wage service jobs and temporary or part-time positions."10

Stanford Study

Boy, does your handle make more sense every time I see you post...

You are confusing temporary homelessness with chronic homelessness...

The chronic homeless are those living in tent encampments or under bridges and the vast majority of them are in fact drug addicts or a small fry short of a happy meal. There is absolutely zilch anyone can do to get them off the street other than forcibly jailing them or putting them into looney hospitals.

A woman who gets kicked out by an abusive boyfriend and sleeps in a car for a night or two or at a women's shelter is not remotely the same thing.

My point, which flew entirely over your head, is that some Hollywood exec living in Bel Aire has absolutely nothing to do with some drugged out heroin addict living in a tent. The person living in the tent is there because they are a drug addict and cannot function in society. They aren't there because the movie exec charges too much for movies.

Yes, the juxtaposition of extreme wealth and extreme poverty in major cities like LA is jarring but the two are completely unrelated for the most part.

First, you're assuming that I don't know the difference, but that wasn't the topic was it? Nor was it the topic of the OP, was it?

Please point out where in the OP it says that these encampments are filled with temporary OR chronic homeless people? Does it make that distinction? Do we even know? Does it talk about drugs at all or drug related problems?

Edumakated, it's a poor attempt to lead the conversation away. I pointed out you were wrong about your preconceptions about the homeless, gave you some examples, and in turn you talked about something unrelated and made assumptions. Keep it up buddy, I can call BS out all day.

The homeless’ ranks have been swelled by military veterans, young people emerging from foster homes, refugees from domestic abuse and inmates released under an initiative that made it easier to parole non-violent offenders. About three in 10 homeless people are mentally ill, and two in 10 are addicts.

I found it. So, it's military veterans and children from foster homes, refuges of domestic abuse... and a whopping 2 out of 10 are addicts, and I'd guess most of those addicts are children out of foster homes who take to the streets - that is not the children's problem, that is our society. And they most likely became so after they took to the street.

The rest of the article explains why it got to be this way. Surely, you can find it yourself?

That's what you took from that article?

a reply to: starwarsisreal

The problem is laying it on one side or one political ideology. The gap between the rich and poor grew quickly under the previous administration.

Local homeless issues are the direct result of local action to be honest. If Los Angeles is in another Gilded Age, it's a direct result of the California economy and the State governments actions. Local housing prices are simply not the result of any actions other than local ones. It's the local housing costs that also add greatly to the homeless problem.

The difference between upper income and lower income workers has steadily grown under both parties presidents.

If you want to be honest here, you can't take that article at face value. It's a pure propaganda piece in this election season.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Edumakated
The homeless encampments would be there regardless because these people are homeless because of mental and addiction issues.

You should get more edumakated.

For women in particular, domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness. the country report that top causes of homelessness among families were: (1) lack of affordable housing, (2) unemployment, (3) poverty, and (4) low wages, in that order.

NLCHP

the fact is that more than half the homeless are families with children. The vast majority of these have been thrust into homelessness by a life altering event or series of events that were unexpected and unplanned for.

HomeAid

Since homelessness is largely about poverty, therefore, we can attribute some of its structural causes to this late twentieth century, capitalist economic predicament. But what are the specific economic reasons for the rise in homelessness within the framework of these general contemporary conditions of poverty? And what additional structural problems account for homelessness in America today?

In particular, structural changes within the American economy over the last twenty years have had a profound impact on the economic landscape of the "bottom" segment of American society. The transformation can be characterized by a general move in America towards a more "post-industrialized" and global economy. Domestically, that implies a shift "away from relatively well-paying manufacturing jobs to minimum wage service jobs and temporary or part-time positions."10

Stanford Study

Boy, does your handle make more sense every time I see you post...

You are confusing temporary homelessness with chronic homelessness...

The chronic homeless are those living in tent encampments or under bridges and the vast majority of them are in fact drug addicts or a small fry short of a happy meal. There is absolutely zilch anyone can do to get them off the street other than forcibly jailing them or putting them into looney hospitals.

A woman who gets kicked out by an abusive boyfriend and sleeps in a car for a night or two or at a women's shelter is not remotely the same thing.

My point, which flew entirely over your head, is that some Hollywood exec living in Bel Aire has absolutely nothing to do with some drugged out heroin addict living in a tent. The person living in the tent is there because they are a drug addict and cannot function in society. They aren't there because the movie exec charges too much for movies.

Yes, the juxtaposition of extreme wealth and extreme poverty in major cities like LA is jarring but the two are completely unrelated for the most part.

First, you're assuming that I don't know the difference, but that wasn't the topic was it? Nor was it the topic of the OP, was it?

Please point out where in the OP it says that these encampments are filled with temporary OR chronic homeless people? Does it make that distinction? Do we even know? Does it talk about drugs at all or drug related problems?

Edumakated, it's a poor attempt to lead the conversation away. I pointed out you were wrong about your preconceptions about the homeless, gave you some examples, and in turn you talked about something unrelated and made assumptions. Keep it up buddy, I can call BS out all day.

You clearly don't know the difference.

Second, anyone with functioning brain cells can infer that when the article above references "homeless encampments," they aren't talking about feel good temporary homeless cases. I've been around the homeless enough living in a big city to know about tent cities and chronic homelessness. The article does not have to distinguish between chronic homeless and feel good cases you reference in when mentioning tent cities because most people with functioning brains know tent cities are full of chronic homeless with mental and drug problems.

This isn't even about education, but street smarts which you clearly are lacking.

Again, my point was that homeless encampments are an extreme form of poverty that is totally unrelated to anything other than the fact that those homeless are socially dysfunctional. They will always be with us because they cannot function in society. The article tried to connect these homeless to people being wealthy and the two are entirely unrelated.

Here is the quote from the article which you didn't read. Last sentence of article quoted...

Nowhere is this inequality more apparent than Los Angeles, where hundreds of encampments have sprung up on beaches, in riverbeds and in canyons as the homeless population has exploded and expanded beyond its old boundaries.

So tell the class what a strung out heroin addict living in a tent has to do with a movie exec living in a Bel Aire Mansion. How are these two connected and results in inequality.

Here is a hint. They aren't connected in any way.

a reply to: Edumakated

You're very wrong Edumakated, but I don't think I'm going to be able to explain that to you. I hope you never have to find out first hand what homelessness is like, or what living in a camp is like, as I have. To someone who has gone through this and come out on top, you appear very ignorant.

But I think with how set you are in being right, I don't think you will change your mind unless you're more than just "around the homeless" living in the city. Also, calling temporary homelessness, the feel good cases, is about as sensitive as calling a quick rape, the good kind.

I hope you remain ignorant and don't have to find out the hard way, I really do. And that's wishing you well. Good night.

Starwars, to get on topic, I lived in California and I ran away as quick as I could. Not because I didn't like it, it's gorgeous, what's not to like? The people are more active, skinnier, the weather is beautiful... and apart from Fresno, or Stockton or the poor parts of Oakland, it's nice and clean and looks beautiful.

I also think it's a closed social experiment. It's like watching the beginning of the making of the world that we eventually see in the movie Elysium - where the rich have completely separated themselves and they live in absolute luxury. This is slowly happening in California, and as Blaine said, it is absolutely to be blamed on local laws that enable this transition. But as more rich move in and as the prices rise, the poor either move away or get stuck in the middle and end up on the streets. More and more of those that linger will end up on the streets.

The article does appear to pick a side, as I obviously have, but regardless, it portrays what is happening very accurately.

originally posted by: Edumakated
I think it is a bit of a stretch to compare homeless encampments to the rich. The homeless encampments would be there regardless because these people are homeless because of mental and addiction issues. It is an extreme that has zilch to do with the other extreme of wealth.

With that said, technology and an economy that favors service industries and a high skill / high education workforce is making it harder for people who are below average or makes mistakes taking them off certain career tracks. It used to be that as long as you were willing to work hard, you could find a decent job at a plant to afford a house, car and boat. Any high school screw up could still make a life for themselves.

It isn't like that anymore. Those jobs have all been shipped overseas (ironically creating a middle class and lifing people out of poverty in those countries). The best jobs are reserved for the best students. It is hard to break into the trades on the other end. As a result, you have a lot people who are average who have a hard time making it, especially in urban centers which attract a lot of highly competitive people.

The center of our country's economy has been hollowed out in the name of low prices and shareholder returns...

With small cities unbounded by green belt legislation and tight housing restrictions, house prices tend to reduce to affordable levels at the outskirts. But when there is planning controls, then the wealthy can afford to live in the city and everyone else gets pushed out into outlying villages.

With somewhere like LA, where there are so many different ethnic groups, there are areas that some groups don't want to live and areas that they desparately want to live in and can't afford. The whole area has sprawled so far there isn't any farmland left to build affordable housing on.

a reply to: Edumakated

Your wrong the homeless problem has gone beyond the mentally ill. For example 1 in 5 community college students in LA is homeless. Also here's s story in LA times as well and it's about a student who has to take care of his family attend college all while living in the streets.

www.latimes.com...



www.latimes.com...

So tell the class what a strung out heroin addict living in a tent has to do with a movie exec living in a Bel Aire Mansion

It's very connected. capitalists through corruption exploitation and destruction have created a wealthy elite which drives up the cost of lving both directly and indirectly (cost of living rises because there are rich people who can afford expensive houses, cars, etc so the average prices go up). We didn't have a huge homeless problem until these capitalists started altering our economy and society in recent decades.