Credit crunch forcing US middle classes to live in their cars »
Posted by: engineer 2 months ago146 Comments Report this Story
Homeless people living in cars and motorhomes across the US are being joined by a new breed: the middle class. As mortgage foreclosures continue to rise, growing numbers of middle-class professionals are losing their homes and downsizing from four bedrooms to four wheels.
Read Full Story at guardian.co.uk
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 146
-
0%

engineer2 months ago
With numbers rising, New Beginnings, a homeless agency in Santa Barbara, California, has launched a safe parking scheme, whose aim is to provide a refuge of sorts for those who have nowhere to go other than their vehicle.
Reply-
-
0%

saintetienne2 months ago
"With this, Bush will veto the foreclosure bill!!!"
You bet, because he aims to protect the vast majority of hard-working, responsible Americans and legitimate, honest businesses from having to pay for the stupid, and/or scheming mistakes made by a small minority, who deserve to take their knocks, not receive a taxpayer-supported safety net.
Reply-
-
-
-
0%

not2needy2 months ago
saint, when you did that 20 years ago you were living under Reagan/Bush Sr. Now we get it again under Bush Jr. then you all have the nerve to try to blame it on the liberals. Bush was the one who didn't want our borders secured, this is a part of the result of that. Our monies are being spent on illegals.
Reply
-
-
0%

Teech2 months ago
They're NOT middle class. They're LOWER class and they should sell those gas-guzzling motorhomes and SUV's and use the money to rent apartments in places they can afford to live. Santa Barbara is for those who can afford it, not for the unwashed, struggling hordes who flock there, go on relief, and pollute and trash the beaches and environment that hard-working, successful people have created out of honest work, toil, government subsidies for huge corporations and huge tax cuts for those who deserve them. They want to live like the upper class, they have to BECOME upper class. The door is open.
Hey, they can move to Texas, or Louisiana, where land, housing, and food is cheap and there are plenty of jobs for those who are not afraid of a little hard work. Or, do they expect the rest of the world to donate money to them so they can move to Beverly Hills? They should have EARNED the money for their toys, and not borrowed it in the first place.
Reply-
0%

DanmLiberals2 months ago
How about getting rid of all the perks the libs have given to Illegal Aliens and give the money to US citizens. Maybe that would help them a little.
Or maybe instead of focusing on Gay marriage they can focus on normal people that are struggling to make ends meet.
Or instead of prosecuting the military they can focus on creating jobs for middle class people.
Or instead of using Bush as a scapegoat for your messed up lies, they can grow some balls and do something about their situation. We have 1,000 fires in California and I don't hear anyone asking for help. Do you hear our Republican Governor blaming Bush like the Lib Governor of Louisiana did after Katrina?
Republicans help themselves. Libs. blame other people and then ask for help. That's why the GOP is the daddy party and the Libs. the mommy party.
Reply -
0%

slate2 months ago
WOW Teech sounds like a neocon LOL , could it be that Teech is a have that caers not for the Have nots that want what he wants?
I wonder what side of the argument you'll take when they want to increase taxes for the rich that have earned their money to donate to the unwashed poor that want what he/she has?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%

libsRfunny2 months ago
"With this, Bush will veto the foreclosure bill!!!"
And he should. You have to be pretty damned gullible to believe people with middle class incomes can't afford apartments.
Reply
-
-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
Sounds like Hoovervilles, tent cities where entire families lived during the Great Depression, have been updated in the 21st century to Bushlots--safe parking zones where families can live in their cars after losing their homes.
Reply-
0%

texangelwings2 months ago
Beau,
It sure does sound just like Hoovervilles/tent cities. There was a tent city set up in Washington D.C., during the Great Depression. One of the local B and B's is for sale, with 9 rooms that are already rented out to different people, along with a laundry mat that is a cash source for the B and B.
Reply -
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
Actually, during the Depression, as much as one-third of the labor force was unemployed. Unemployment remains around 5%, which is quite low.
Reply-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
People who think that what we are experiencing now compares in any way to the Depression have no concept of what it was actually like. People today are experiencing some inflation, which has been under control for many years so they think that the sky is falling.
Reply-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
We're just beginning to feel the effects of the economic downturn.
And you know that government unemployment figures don't include folks who have been unemployed long enough that their unemployment benefits have run out, right? Those people are now considered "no longer a part of the workforce." And tehy're the most likely ones to be living in Bushlots.
By the way--tent cities have already been springing up in some locations:
http://features.us.reuters.com/cover/news/D8C99...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmeHiFZUWtE
Reply-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
You are basically referring to the discouraged worker effect and it doesn't count those who aren't seeking employment. That argument is nothing new. In any case, we aren't missing a third of the workforce, which is the total number unemployed during the Depression.
Reply-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
No. I'm referring to the fact that the government does not count those who have been unemployed long enough for their benefits to expire.
They're not discouraged workers. The government's unemployment statistics simply don't count them.
How would you know exactly how many there are? I'd agree that it's probably not a third of the workforce, but just give it a couple of years, and then we'll see.
Reply-
0%

willottica2 months ago
Which raises another question. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the government statistics counted those workers who have to work 2 full-time jobs to support themselves as 2 people.
Just because someone is employed, it doesn't mean they are making enough money to live on.
Reply-
0%

saintetienne2 months ago
"Just because someone is employed, it doesn't mean they are making enough money to live on."
And just because someone isn't making enough money to live on doesn't mean the rest of us have to contribute to them to see that they do.
Reply-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
Nope, it doesn't. And if you're an employer who doesn't pay his workers enough to live on, you'll have a special place in hell.
On the other hand, if you have a shred of human decency, you should make sure your fellow humans have enough for basic human needs.
I know you believe you could always make a living, and that you've likely made enough to withstand any emergency, saintetienne. But have you ever considered that you could have been born mentally disabled, been abandoned by your parents, and unable to take care of yourself? Or that some day you could possibly be in some horrible accident that requires medical treatment that would wipe out your life savings and leave you unable to work in any capacity?
A little compassion for those less fortunate might do you some good.
Reply-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
f you have a shred of human decency, you should make sure that you obtain the education and vocational skills necessary to obtain gainful employment. A relatively small proportion of people fit into the disabled categories you mentioned and no one minds providing assistance to those who are truely needy.
Reply-
-
0%

saintetienne2 months ago
"I have an advanced education and do recruiting as well as many accolades and it does not help"
There's such a thing as being over-educated, enginonsense. You know, the goofy liberal students who pile on useless degree after useless degree, staving off working for the "man", only to end up 10 years later with 3 PhD's, working for the government in social work, or as the world's most educated barista at Starbuck's.
Sound familiar, enginerd?
Reply-
0%

obiefrommuskogee2 months ago
SaintEtienne is really an unlikable fellow. First of all, who would name themselves "Saint"?
Then, this guy gets off beating his own chest over the misfortunes of others. Yuck.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
Really? No one minds? I believe saintetienne does mind. Let's find out.
What do you say, saintetienne?
Do you mind if we take your hard-stolen "earnings" and give them to disabled people who will never have the skills to take care of themselves?
meanwhile, dropkick, eventually you'll see that sometimes forces beyond your control conspire to drop kick you. When you find out for yourself, you'll be happy the government has a safety net.
Reply -
0%

saintetienne2 months ago
"A relatively small proportion of people fit into the disabled categories you mentioned and no one minds providing assistance to those who are truely needy."
Absolutely correct. And anyone who has read any of my past posts on this matter knows that, despite adhering to free-market, anti-welfare, largely Republican values, I firmly believe that those who are mentally or physically disabled should get cradle-to-grave coverage, at taxpayer expense.
Funny thing is, most people I know who are physically or mentally handicapped don't WANT a handout. They want to WORK for their own living, like anyone else.
Reply-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
Of course they want to work for a living, but they can't get hired by stupid, unregulated businesses.
I've never seen you write that about cradle-to-grave coverage for those who are mentally or physically disabled, but I like the idea. Now how do you ensure a program that provides that doesn't become as frought with waste as our current programs?
Don't you usually want to get rid of government programs that fulfill similar needs but can be abused? Why not fix those programs rather than get rid of them entirely?
Reply-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
The frequently do work, and in a free market too! Can you imagine that?
Reply -
0%

slate2 months ago
Of course they want to work for a living, but they can't get hired by stupid, unregulated businesses.
BINGO! You and Maxine want to nationalize all employment,, set the prices, set the wages, set the job folks are allowed to do,,,,, it sounds familiar to something I just can't place it,,,,,
Reply
-
-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
Actually, my wife works in disability education and most people can obtain gainful employment in spite of disabilities. Her sister is mildly mentally retarded and maintains a full-time job and lives independently.
Reply
-
-
-
0%

slate2 months ago
Nope, it doesn't. And if you're an employer who doesn't pay his workers enough to live on, you'll have a special place in hell.
Ah so I take it that people just show up to work then find out the pay scale?
And if the pay scale is too low they are stuck with the job they have? There is no chance to move where the better jobs are, move up the ladder or maybe find a way to make themselves more valuable and make more money,,,, it works
Reply
-
-
0%

willottica2 months ago
So you think that because someone who's working his ass off at a minimum wage job isn't making enough to live on, it's his own damn fault and to hell with him?
Many of us want the cheapest products no matter what. Government has passed laws requiring that shareholder profits be maximized. Well, in order to maximize profits while keeping prices low, you have to lower your wages to insupportable levels.
Unfortunately, when you use a free market to supply wages, and with industrialization you don't actually NEED the full participation of the workforce. The laws of supply and demand can reduce the wage paid to the employees to an extent that it's just not enough to live on... but since there's ample supply of employees, you take whatever job you can get because otherwise you'll have nothing.
Reply-
0%

slate2 months ago
I worked for 1.65 when I first moved from home and married 2 years latter,,,,, and then moved from job to job,,, Ive been laid off 6-7 times have lost every thing and have come back,,,,, yeah I think you should be able to take your life into your own hands and make it better,,,, if you sit and do nothing about it then yeppers the fault is yours.
Reply -
-
0%

willottica2 months ago
The wage fairy hit me. I don't work for minimum wage, then again, noone does in my city. McDonalds starts at $15 dollars/hour... (we've got a wee bit of an employee shortage)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
You won't see figures even close to that. We currently have something like 5% unemployment. It has even dropped below that in recent years. Many economists hadn't even projected the figure representing full-employment at such a low rate. Today, we have an understanding of fiscal and monetary policy tools that were not understood at the time of the Depression. At that time, the Hoover Administration tightened the money supply and erected tariff barriers. Both factors fed the growing Depression. My concern is that people may be currently turning towards proectionism and the kinds of procyclical policies that plunged us into the Depression.
Reply -
0%

saintetienne2 months ago
"They're not discouraged workers. The government's unemployment statistics simply don't count them."
Which is exactly my point. If the government can't even be relied upon to dispense with easily-obtained information, why do you Libs want to have MORE government oversight of everything under the sun, from banks to healthcare? Isn't it enough that taxpayers are collapsing under the weight of having to support innumerable government agencies, programs and bureaucracies? Few of which show any kind of positive result, yet government's reaction to that is to tax us MORE, open up another agency to oversee the existing agency and charge it to the taxpayer! One agency in Washington tries to subsidize tobacco farmers to grow more tobacco, while down the street another agency is working at cross-purposes, trying to ban smoking!
It's like some nutty Fellini film, except it's actually happening, it's our government and WE'RE PAYING FOR IT ALL!
Reply-
0%

engineer2 months ago
I gave you a positive by accident
UNemployment is based ONLY ON THOSE COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT. WHEN IT RUNS OUT, THEY ARE NOT COUNTED. When the repugnants reduced the number of weeks for collection, the rate went down.
It does not count the type of jobs. If you work 5 hours per week at minimum wage, you are employed. If you have five jobs like that, each one is counted as a job. Don't go by the spin
Reply-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
Actually, no. If you check the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site, the data are based on who is actively seeking employment, not whether unemployment benefits have expired. DenOrat misinformation.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques4
Reply-
-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
The BLS uses survey data and other information in its unemployment estimates. Don't leave that out.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%

saintetienne2 months ago
Come on, Dropkick. Don't you know that surveys and polls are all just a lot of bunkum?
Except, of course, when the surveys and polls show Bush's approval rating is down, or Obama's approval ratings are up. Then they become the gold standard of accuracy.
Reply -
0%

Beau78902 months ago
Really? Where do you get this information? The Census, which isn't conducted every month the way unemployment figures are calculated, is the only large enough government survey to give such stats.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%

SusieQ722 months ago
This is the first post I have seen where you stated your opinion without calling someone a name. I'm impressed. I'll give you a positive just for that.
Reply
-
-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
If those individuals are still actively seeking work, they are considered unemployed.
Reply
-
-
-
0%

libsRfunny2 months ago
"...economic downturn."
The economy grew 1 percent last quarter. That's growth, not a "downturn."
Reply-
0%

engineer2 months ago
The Economy did not grow!!! The numbers look that way because of the obscene increase in energy, gas and food prices. We actually shrank if you were honest. For example, the GAO says we have to create 140,000 jobs per month. Instead we lost 60,000 in the last month. DOWNTURN!!!
Reply-
-
-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
Actually, without hard data, you can't substantiate that. The problem is that oil prices are inflating based on speculative demand and foreign demand (China and India). Food prices have strong foreign demand and speculative demand elements as well. If the demand increases all originated domestically, it would be a sign of growth.
Reply-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
Still, there's a difference between boosting economic indicators that measure GDP as a whole, and the conditions a growing population faces.
None of the economic indicators take into account the disappearing middle class, the growing gap in wealth distribution, or median real income. All of this has gotten worse since the '70s, but accelerated greatly over the past seven years.
Which means the wealth is concentrated at the top, and the rich get much richer while more and more people do the same or worse.
Reply-
-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
If you mean invest more in things that will grow those overall economic indicators, sure. But that does nothing to prevent wealth from growing more concentrated at the top, which makes it harder for everyone else to get out from under the rising costs. Their incomes are stagnant, and they have no recourse.
Reply-
-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
Again, redistributing and concentrating wealth into the hands of the wealthy.
By the way, and as I mentioned on another thread to slate, if you look at Obama's economic plans you'll see that he wants to invest government money in business. He just wants to redirect the investment into businesses that will improve our country on many levels rather than focusing on sectors that do nothing for our future well-being.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Scroll down past the "At A Glance" links to get the details.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%

mesodude2 months ago
"People who think that what we are experiencing now compares in any way to the Depression have no concept of what it was actually like. People today are experiencing some inflation, which has been under control for many years so they think that the sky is falling."
--Awww...C'mon, Dicky L. So the comparison isn't perfect. Ok. But when cons wanna glorify Bush's failed illegal invasion of Iraq, that don't stop you all from conjuring up noble images of WWII and making totally outrageous and almost criminal comparisons. Like, you know when you guys talk about Hitler and stuff and how bad he was and why he had to be stopped? Why do you leave out the part about us having a draft, and rationing (as opposed to cutting taxes, going shopping and burning up oil like there was no tomorrow)? Why don't the cons like to mention that when they shill for Bush's Iraq disaster? Why, Dicky? Can you please tell us? I hope so, Dicky. I'm counting on you. Don't disappoint us. ;-(
Reply-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
mesosimple,
Not perfect? Funny! The comparison was completely inappropriate and you would know that if you had any actual knowledge of what happended during the Depression. We were talking about the Depression, not WWII. Check your historical timeline and get back to me. Why don't you Libs get your history right?
What law was broken by the Iraq invasion? You need rationing when there is a lack of consumer goods. There isn't now. I enjoy the parroting of terms like "shill" since the Libs are so fond of catchphrases and emotional language rather than facts.
Reply
-
-
-
0%

engineer2 months ago
UNemployment is based ONLY ON THOSE COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT. WHEN IT RUNS OUT, THEY ARE NOT COUNTED. When the repugnants reduced the number of weeks for collection, the rate went down.
It does not count the type of jobs. If you work 5 hours per week at minimum wage, you are employed. If you have five jobs like that, each one is counted as a job. Don't go by the spin
Reply-
0%

libsRfunny2 months ago
"When the repugnants reduced the number of weeks for collection, the rate went down."
You still don't deal with reality, do you? Unemployment always has been 26 weeks' duration. Only under qualifying circumstances is it ever extended for longer periods, and that is on a state-by-state basis.
Reply -
-
0%

Skeptic2 months ago
Actually, that is not entirely true. The collection of unemployment data is a more complicated process then simply calling the local unemployment office and asking, "How many checks did you issue this month?"
The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly survey of households conducted by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It provides a comprehensive body of data on the labor force, employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force.
It may not be 100% fail proof, but it does attempt to account for persons who have dropped out of the labor force.
Reply
-
-
-
0%

saintetienne2 months ago
"Sounds like Hoovervilles, tent cities where entire families lived during the Great Depression,"
Admittedly, Herbert Hoover - a Republican - got us into a whole heap of trouble in the early '30's. But read your history. He pushed the country over the brink from 1929-1932 by acting like a DEMOCRAT - enacting stupid laws that regulated businesses and banks, which messing around with the money supply so that investment dried up, stocks fell, and people panicked.
But he was a piker compared to the damage Roosevelt did when he stepped into office in 1933. The depression of '30-33 was in the process of correcting itself - and would have - had FDR not messed things up further. It wouldn't be until after we had entered WWII in '41 that we could truly say we were back on track.
Read all about it:
http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01...
It doesn't paint the pretty picture of FDR that was taught us in school....
Reply-
0%

willottica2 months ago
But he messed with the money supply only after it was messed with in the other direction by the Fed. What I got from the article (along with a host of stupid ideas by Hoover and FDR, was that his 'forced contraction' of the money supply was almost exactly the same size as the irresponsible expansion of the previous administration.
Now, we're seeing more irresponsible expansion of the money supply by the Fed. They're printing money like it was paper to pay for wars and all kinds of superfluous spending, and further inflating it by allowing banks to lend more money than they have. After, it's all just numbers now and apparently having $300,000 isn't necessary in order to lend it to someone to buy their house (at least if you're a bank).
I wanna be a bank. It'd be great to be able to lend people fake money for a percentage. Completely irresponsible, and bordering on fraud, but great!
Reply
-
-
-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
No, just another economic cycle like the early 1970s. This too shall pass.
Reply -
0%

saintetienne2 months ago
"The beginnings of the great fall of American dreams."
Well then perhaps it's time for people to quit dreaming, wake up and get to WORK for a change. You can blame the government all you want - and admittedly, they share a large part of the blame. But ultimately it's the people, or, I should say, the sheeple, who are going to pull the economy up or down, depending on whether they adjust their attitude, roll up their sleeves and get busy helping themselves.... or lay back and whine, gripe and point fingers, and complain that the government isn't doing anything for them.
Reply
-
-
0%

slate2 months ago
Take care of children that have no families or has a mother or father that has lost a spouse and needs monetary help. Make adoption easier and cheaper for those that want to help those children.
Take care of those that are mentally or physically unable to care for themselves.
Take care of those that have been in the work force but have fallen onto hard times due to economic downturns. For a short duration that is, help them with better skills class, relocation help.
Help those that take advantage of the free education etc that try and go into the workforce and work up the ladder.
Reply -
0%

slate2 months ago
Take care of children that have no families or has a mother or father that has lost a spouse and needs monetary help. Make adoption easier and cheaper for those that want to help those children.
Take care of those that are mentally or physically unable to care for themselves.
Take care of those that have been in the work force but have fallen onto hard times due to economic downturns. For a short duration that is, help them with better skills class, relocation help.
Help those that take advantage of the free education etc that try and go into the workforce and work up the ladder.
Reply-
0%

slate2 months ago
Try to break the cycle in families that are into their 2nd or more generation of not working, and not trying. Remember, a very high percent of those that come to this country that don't even know the language have found jobs and in many cases prospered to a great degree.
Americans first,
If any money is still left, help those that decided to not follow the rules of the game of how to come into the country. You see we love immigrants in the US we just would like to know who they are and for them to go through the process like a law abiding person. How can we expect you to be law abiding is you can't even start out that way?
Reply
-
-
-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
Even people with substantial incomes have gotten into the habit of living beyond their means. There wouldn't have been a foreclosure crisis if banks hadn't abandoned traditional measures of creditworthiness.
Reply-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
Why were banks allowed to abandon those traditional measures?
Deregulation and lack of oversight by the feds.
Reply-
0%

DropkickaLib2 months ago
Actually, the Dems were in favor of expanding home ownership at any price and had their role in this. There was a great deal of pressure to put everyone in his or her own home in spite of the fact that the individual doesn't have the means to pay for a home. The secondary mortgage market has played a role in encouraging financial institutions to sell off loans after originating them. This encouraged lenders to make loans on any terms since they wouldn't be servicing the loans themselves. If anything, this should teach bankers that there was no substitute for common sense measures of credit worthiness.
Reply-
0%

Beau78902 months ago
Both Democrats and Republicans were in favor of expanding home ownership using unwise measures.
But for the most part, the Republicans have been driving deregulation and weakening of agencies that would have provided accountability since the days of Ronald Reagan. That was all in the name of "smaller government," which they failed to accomplish even when Bush was president and Congress was run by Republicans between 2001 and 2007.
Reply-
0%

saintetienne2 months ago
"agencies that would have provided accountability since the days of Ronald Reagan."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Spoken like a true blue, Socialist liberal. I hate to be the one to break this news to you, chump, but - are you sitting down? - "accountability" and "government" go about as well together as oil and water.
If you think Barack Obama is going to restore order to the economy by raising taxes, regulating banks and investors and increasing payouts to welfare and the "disenfranchised", you have really fallen off your rocker. The economy may have gone soft (it's cyclical - economies do that), but for the government to try to step in at this point and "fix" things is repeating history. Suddenly it's 1933 all over again, and FDR is ready to take the reins and sell the country down the river.
Reply-
0%

willottica2 months ago
No, I think it's more like 1929, the depression is just starting.
I've got to agree with you, 'accountability' and 'government' don't seem to be at all possible.
I think rather than raising taxes - cutting subsidies is what is needed (which will be labeled by those who are no longer getting them as 'raising taxes'), and getting out of aggressive wars and the war on drugs, etc.
I think some amount of bank regulation is a good idea, because money is no longer real. Banks invent it. And the Fed lets them do it. But you can't just take away that ability right now, or all credit would dry up immediately, and then you'd see a massive crash.
What's your proposed solution, just keep building the bubble by printing
-
-
-
-
-
