Well, one of the reasons for that is that homelessness made its way into the suburbs for the first time. I don't know how old you were in the 80's but I had never seen a homeless person before until one started begging on a street corner near my suburban neighborhood around 1986. I had no idea homelessness was even an issue until it hit me in the face and that was the case in a lot of parts of the country. As urban decay began to tear down once thriving inner city communities in the late 70's and early 80's, many homeless people began to migrate out of the downtowns and out towards the suburbs. Because the downtown areas had been largely vacated (in 1985, according to recent stats, downtown Houston had a 80% vacancy of offices as compared to today where it has only a 2% vacancy) by the mid 80's, homeless people went to look elsewhere for help. As suburbanites began to have to face the problem up front, they began to voice concern and the stories made the papers. Before the mid 80's, it was as if homelessness didn't exist. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
You are absolutely wrong, mrpaige. Media bias is the only possible explanation for the varying numbers of homeless articles. Remember Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor says "If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick media bias." (sort of a bastardized version of Occam's Razor to begin with, I know)
I prefer to subscribe to Occam's Corollary which states, "I'm right, and you're full of s**t." ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
If you call the Reagan years "economic expansion" I sure would like to hear your definition of "recession". You obviously were not in the workforce during the 1980s. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
A recession is when the economy doesn't expand, but retracts (negative growth). An expansion is when the economy expands. The economy expanded consistently and at previously unprecedented percentages from 1983 to 1991. It was the longest peacetime expansion in history to that point. Here in Texas, we weren't able to enjoy most of the fruits of that expansion (especially in Houston, mostly because of the dependence on oil, which was extremely cheap during this period), but for the nation as a whole, the bulk of the Reagan years were an unprecedented economic expansion. You may not like to admit that because it doesn't fir your world view, but that's the way it was. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Of course there was that little thing during the 80s in Texas called the oil bust! But of course no one remembers that. Although my dad and our family sure did. ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
Call it what you will, Mr. Paige, and as far as my "world view" goes, it's probably nearsighted at best. If you want to call double-digit unemployment "economic expansion", you just go right ahead. I would call it something different, especially here in Houston during the early 1980s. The only expansion that went on in Houston during that time was the expansion of unemployment claims, and, yes, the expansion of the number of homeless people on the streets of Houston. The only expansion I know of in the economy nationally at that time was President Reagan's expansion of the budget deficit, which, regardless of his personal sleaziness, President Clinton actually paid down. And I, for one, am glad he did. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker [This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited February 13, 2001).]
You don't think that if you looked, you could find an area of the country during the '90s that had double-digit unemployment, etc? Not every part of the U.S. grows at the same rate. Some parts are in recession at times when are parts are booming. You just happened to live in a place where the expansion didn't reach during the Reagan years. The national unemployment rate was never in the double digits during the Reagan expansion. You seem to have wanted Reagan to come to Houston and solve the economic problems here and refuse to give credit for what was done in the rest of the country. The budget deficits were a problem, though I will note that revenues to the treasry increased dramatically during the Reagan years. Spending simply outpaced it. In the '90s, the budget didn't grow as fast, so we were able to balance the budget (and just as Democrats should get some credit and some blame for what happened in the '80s since they controlled the House the whole time and the Senate part of the time, the Republicans should get partial credit and partial blame for anything that happened in the '90s when they controlled Congress. Stuff that affects the country happens in the Congress, too). And banking deregulation, which helped to cause the S&L bailouts, are responsible for many of those extremely large budget deficits during the Bush Administration. If not for those, Bush's deficits would've been smaller (still defecits, though). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Just because the overall economy is expanding doesn't mean that the benefits necessarily translate to everyday workers. Sure, a lot of rich people got richer and a lot of wise investors made their fortunes in the 80's and many companies expanded, but many people also got laid off and companies downsized with frightening regularity. In addition, the deep cuts to social welfare didn't exactly help those on the lower end of the economic spectrum who shouldered much of the load. For every person who made it rich in the 80's, there were a couple of people who lost everything. As for the oil bust, well, I certainly recall hundreds of northern licence plates all over Houston roads in the mid 80's as people streamed out of the midwest and Rust belt to the land of economic opportunity in Texas. We weren't the only one's suffering from the effects of industrial problems. The most recent trend in employment has large companies wondering why company loyalty seems to be so scarce among younger employees. If you had seen your parents get laid off after 40 years of working for the same company, you'd withhold your loyalty as well. I'm all for economic growth, but how it adapts to practical reality isn't always as rosey a picture as the concept itself. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
It's funny. I lived in Connecticut in 1985 and 1986, and what I remember most is how many people who lived there who were from Texas and had moved to Connecticut because that's where the jobs were. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
LOL!!! Actually, I owe my marriage to the oil bust because my wife and her family moved here from New Jersey during that time. Her dad was a chemical engineer. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
repression, recession... it's all the same.. ------------------ The Psychedelic Groove House of Rockets Basketball Love!
"National coverage tends to spike when we have a Republican in the White House." Can you back this up? Do I take your word for it? You've been watching a random sample of national news coverage for the past X years? How long has this trend existed? Seems to me like the homeless didn't become a big national media issue until Reagan was in office. We've only had 2 presidents since then.
Remember John Knowles' quote regarding the use of sarcasm? If you don't want to discuss the issue, hey, great, but I think we can do without the little you're currently contributing. As for the rest of the thread, the naivete some are displaying regarding macroeconomics is astounding, especially given that even an English/History major like me can define and identify recessions and expansions. Look, I love arguing, so don't stop the music, but I wish some of you would at least play by the rules and not invent your own specious definitions mid-stream. The economy expanded from 1982 to mid-1991. Texas took it in the ass; that sucks. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't an economic expansion, just like what happened to my dad's company from 1991-1999 doesn't prove there was no Clinton expansion: * It bought and merged with a competitor, 1991 * It was sold by its parent company and subsequently "reengineered" (downsized), 1996 * It was sold again, absorbed by the purchaser, and downsized again, 1999 I mean by what I'm seeing in this thread, I can now argue that there was no expansion in the 1990s because my dad's company got smaller every year. Neither the Reagan nor Clinton expansions were perfect (as we've known about the 80s and are finding out about the 90s), but to deny either existed is the height of foolishness. Now, did someone say something about homelessness...? [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited February 14, 2001).]
BK, can you conceive of another explanation? Or, in your opinion, is media bias the only possibility?
You should also note that in DC the homeless are actually secret service agents. And it's no myth. I've seem the "homeless" on their cell phones and what have you. Think about all the secret service Bush will need, and you can account for the increase! ------------------ humble, but hungry. [This message has been edited by PhiSlammaJamma (edited February 14, 2001).]
I'm not denying that economic expansion existed in either the Reagan years of the Clinton years. What I am trying to point out is that expansion hardly "trickled down" to the middle class during Reagan's years, while the middle class benefitted greatly from the expansion during the Clinton years. If you were in the workforce during the Reagan era, you would know this. The last time we had double-digit unemployment in this country was in June 1983. It was at 10.1%. Ronald Reagan had been President for a little over two years. The highest unemployment rate during the Clinton years was 7.3%. That was in January 1993, Clinton's first month in office. It was never that high again during his 8 years. It steadily dropped, and this past January, as he left office, it was at 4.2% The difference is that Ronald Reagan tripled the budget deficit, while Bill Clinton paid it off. That's what kept interest rates down during Clinton's term, and enabled everyone to benefit from the expansion, rather than just the rich. I agree with you that the President does not nearly have the effect on the economy that the chairman of the Fed has. Alan Greenspan is more responsible for the prosperity of the last few years than Bill Clinton is. However, the fact that Clinton, not the Congress, put together budgets that paid down the deficit during his term demands that he be given credit where credit is due. I've said it before....Bill Clinton is a pure scumbag personally, but he did actually do things for this country that benefitted everyone, not just the rich. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
