The Lady and the Latte

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Imagine a 65 year-old retired teacher from Bergen County, New Jersey, traveling down the turnpike to visit his daughter and two grand kids living in Maryland. He owns a modest home in the suburbs and has a 30 year old retirement account, but lives off his pension. He is financially comfortable. He orders a latte at the Starbucks. 

The barista taking his order is a 28 year-old single mom financially struggling with two children living in a small two bedroom apartment. In 90 seconds she takes the man’s order, makes his latte, and hands it to him.

In this brief exchange, the barista lady made 45¢ based on the average hourly wage for her type of work. Because the retired teacher's home and IRA combined are worth a million dollars, he made the wage equivalent of 48¢ in capital gains and investment dividends during this brief transaction. In other words, the teacher made 2¢ more on a wage equivelant bases than the barista. (I hope he tipped her.) 

This example highlights the stark divide between the investment class and the working class in America. The teacher, a recently minted millionaire, is at the bottom rung of the investment class while the barista, making $17 an hour, is in the lower-middle end of wage earners. Neither considers the other to be rich or poor, but the teacher's 48¢ adds to his wealth and gets compounded over time, while the young woman's 45¢ mostly goes to pay her rent.

Unknowingly, the retiree is about to crossed the event horizon between America's investment class and wage earners, working class Americans. And like a black hole, once that event horizon is crossed, the wealth gap between the two groups grow exponentially. For an excellent video that clearly explains what I mean by the event horizon of the ultra rich, click here. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14hFudMphQU/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Big numbers are difficult to comprehend, and the exponential growth of wealth even more so. We can start by thinking of one million dollars as being 10,000 one-hundred-dollar bills, or a stack of $100 bills from the floor to above your knee. A billion dollars is a 1,000 times more than a million, enough to fill your bedroom with million dollar stacks of $100 dollar bills. A trillion dollars is a 1,000 times more than a billion dollars, or enough to fill two football fields with million dollar stacks of $100 bills.  

The rich get richer at an exponential rate, a fact due in part because they have more money than they can spend, but also because the rich have investment opportunities that increase their rate of return (ROR) on their investments. And they have banking opportunities that mak it so they never have to pay taxes on their growing investments. A retired teacher can manage a ROR of 6% on their IRA while most billionaire can earn between 10% to 15% returns on their investments. And, as we recently saw, the richest billionaire just doubled his wealth in just a few years. 

While wage earners struggle to keep up with higher prices, the ranks of ultra rich investors grows at a phenomenal rate. Just ask an AI search engine, “Is there a new billionaire every week?”

The Answer: “No, a new billionaire does not emerge every single week; on average, a new billionaire is minted much more frequently, at a rate of about one every 36 hours. Globally, the ranks of the ultra-wealthy are swelling rapidly, with an average of nearly four new billionaires added every week.”

“However, if you meant millionaires, those milestones happen far more often. Driven by factors like compound interest, inflation, and global wealth creation, a new millionaire is created roughly every 45 seconds worldwide, with the United States alone minting over 1,000 new millionaires every day.” 

In a democracy, the power to make choices on behalf of the common good is ideally distributed evenly in that every adult member gets one vote, the majority rules, and our human rights are protected under the the rule of law. In a corporation, governing choices are distributed based on shares of ownership under a corporate charter. But in a world where private wealth can approach or exceed a trillion dollars, and all wealth is endlessly passed along to one's children, the result is a return to kingdoms and royal succession of wealth and power. Nothing could be farther from the hallmark of a democratic society, self-rule. So for all of you who idealize and worship the captains of industry and ultra wealthy, beware. They will own the land and our children will work for them. We have seen this before. 

ADDENDUM  

Key Drivers of Billionaire Returns

• Private Equity: Over a 25-year period, private equity funds have historically outperformed standard indexes (returning around 13.1% annually compared to the S&P 500's 8.4%). Billionaires dominate this space by accessing top-tier funds and direct co-investments that are typically unavailable to everyday investors. [1, 2, 3]
• Wealth Management Resources: Billionaires retain top-tier financial advisory teams to craft highly optimized, blended portfolios designed for aggressive growth and higher risk tolerance. [1]
• Capital Arbitrage: Rather than selling stock and triggering massive capital gains taxes, the ultra-wealthy often borrow against their equity at lower interest rates. They then deploy this liquidity into private deals yielding returns that outpace their borrowing costs. [1]
• Alternative Investments: Billionaires heavily allocate to hedge funds, real estate, and venture capital, yielding higher risk-adjusted premiums compared to standard index funds.

The Randall Hill Forrest - To Be or Not To Be? That is the Question!

Brian T. Lynch, MSW

What follows is an AI generated Q&A (our questions posed to an AI chat) to organize basic information about the pros and cons of preserving the Randall Hill Forrest in Mine Hill for future generations versus building 305 luxury apartments on the property. We must realize that development of the land has been tied to New Jersey's Fair Housing law in a way that now severely limits the town's options for preserving the property.

The underlying gamble (I've been told ) in rezoning the property for high-density housing is that the costs associated with capping the 134 year old abandoned mineshafts on this property will make development financially unfeasible. Under this scenario, it is important that development proceeds by the book, without shortcuts that could undermine (no pun intended) safety in order to lower construction costs.

Having committed the town to developing this property to meet our fair housing obligations, town officials cannot pursue any alternate plan without the risk of a law suit. They can't even discuss other options. So, it is up to us to consider, discuss, or pursue possible alternatives. Are you interested? I will post Q&As on this blog and on the Mine Hill Environmental Facebook Page with a place for comments and discussions.

Spring Brook Headwaters at base if Randall Hill

FIRST AI QUESTION (June 13, 2026): 

WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES OF PRESERVING THE RANDALL HILL FORREST OVER DEVELOPING IT FOR 300 LUXURY APARTMENTS?

 

Evaluating the environmental value of preserving Randall Hill Forest in Mine Hill versus replacing it with a 300-unit luxury apartment complex highlights the common tension between suburban economic development and natural land preservation. Even when projects claim to practice "safe" or low-impact development, clear-cutting a continuous forest ecosystem causes irreversible local environmental changes. [1, 2]

A direct comparison of the environmental value of preservation versus the impacts of safe luxury development highlights several key differences:

 

🌿 Ecological Impact Matrix

Environmental Metric [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]	Preserving Randall Hill Forest	Developing 300 Luxury Apartments
Stormwater & Flood Control	Natural absorption prevents erosion and protects local waterways.	Impervious surfaces (roofs, parking garages) accelerate runoff and risk infrastructure stress.
Carbon Sequestration	Living biomass actively captures and stores atmospheric CO₂.	Severe loss of carbon storage capacity; heavy carbon footprint from construction.
Wildlife Habitat Connectivity	Maintains unbroken corridors for native species to breed and forage.	Fragments habitats; displaces wildlife into surrounding suburban areas.
Local Climate Regulation	Canopy shade cools the ground, mitigating the heat island effect.	Pavement, concrete, and HVAC systems retain heat and raise local temperatures.
Groundwater Recharge	Forest floor filters rainwater directly back into local aquifers.	Diverts rain into storm sewers, reducing natural aquifer replenishment.

---

Key Environmental Arguments for Preservation

• Preserving the Watershed: Central northern New Jersey relies heavily on forested hillsides to filter and absorb rainwater. Removing acres of mature forest to build large structures increases local stormwater runoff, risking erosion and downstream flooding. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Biodiversity Protection: Fragmenting a intact forest isolates plant and animal populations. Even "green" development layouts create artificial edges, disrupting interior forest species and encouraging invasive species growth. [1]

• Historical and Topographical Hazards: Given Mine Hill's rich iron mining history, undeveloped areas often conceal old mine shafts or historical workings. Extensive excavation for apartment foundations and large parking garages can disturb unstable subterranean terrain, alter natural water drainage pathways, or stir up legacy iron-ore runoff. [1, 2, 3, 4]

•  

The Developer's Counter: Can Development Be "Safely" Managed?

Proponents of high-density housing note that modern luxury complexes can incorporate strict Low-Impact Development (LID) techniques. These include green roofs, permeable pavement, engineered detention basins, and localized tree replanting.

Additionally, environmental planners sometimes favor dense, multi-family construction over single-family sprawl. Concentrating 300 units into a single high-density footprint preserves more macro-regional acreage than spreading 300 single-family homes across a wider landscape, which would require extensive new road and utility networks.

 

The Trade-off

Ultimately, while engineered systems can partially mitigate urban runoff and resource strain, they cannot replicate a mature forest canopy. Preserving Randall Hill Forest maintains permanent, zero-cost ecosystem services—carbon storage, aquifer purification, and habitat stability—that artificial systems cannot fully replace.

WAGE SUPPRESSION AND ITS EFFECTS

By by Brian T Lynch, MSW

It is hard to see how initially small dollar changes in wage compensation lead us to wage suppression, higher taxes, and a growing wealth gap. These problems in the USA economy today are best reflected in the fact that only a fraction of our working people make comfortable wages. 

Wage suppression in the US started about 50 years ago. That is when owners organized and stopped sharing company profits with their workers. Productivity raises ended and only cost of living raises were offered to workers. This has a yearly compounding effect as the gap between worker wages (total compensation) and growth (in GDP) widen. Growing national wealth leads to higher prices in addition to inflationary pressures. The gap between per capita GDP and wage compensation grow ever wider.  Essentially, the rich are get richer and the poor are getting poorer at an accelerated rate over time. 

This gap between GDP and wage compensation pushes wage earners down the economic ladder a little further each year. One result is that the number of families applying for government assistance is growing.  A growing reliance on public assistance expands government welfare budgets, which increases taxes.  Subsidizing working families is the equivalent of  subsidizing cheap labor. So, while businesses love cheap labor, they hate the higher taxes to support cheap labor. They lobby to cut the cost of government and lower taxes. The pressure to do this degrades all government services making the government appear less effective in the eyes of the public. 

At the same time, earnings for the well off rise more quickly and increase their consumption of more costly goods and services. This shift in consumption patterns distorts our economy. So, for one example, we get to the point where there is plenty of good housing for the well off, but no housing for the working poor. It isn’t even economically possible to build affordable housing for the poor working family income is too low to afford the amount of rent needed to cover the building costs. The result even more taxpayer subsidy to fund affordable housing. The, to keep tax subsidy down, towns are encouraged to allow builders to construct around 10 more expensive housing units to cover the loss on each low cost unit. 

This is how the playing field became tilted in favor of the rich. Clawing back a fair share of worker productivity pay raises from the wealthy won’t be easy. Very wealthy business owners/stock holders feel entitled to all the wealth their employees produce.

There are other side effects caused by decades of wage suppression, and many other surprising examples of its impacts. But let’s look instead at another large pocket of  resistance to wage growth; the financially happy folks making between $100,000 and $250,000 a year. If this is you, how much might you be making if wage composition rose in step with GDP growth, as it did for decades prior to 1975?

See the supporting data here: https://tinyurl.com/2uzt6hzt 

Affordable Housing Plan Alternatives to Save the Trees

 by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Randall Hill in Mine Hill, NJ

Mine Hill, like most New Jersey towns, has a history of planning and zoning practices that, in effect, disadvantage creation of low- cost housing for the poor. The reasons for this are many, but this is a much longer discussion. Suffice it to say, these practices violate the New Jersey State Constitution. Remedies needed to fix this problem have been forged in decades of litigation and codified in state legislation, with mixed results. The current set of laws creates a developer-friendly approach to building new, affordable low-income housing. Current law focuses on setting low-cost housing goals and limiting municipal discretion to create or impose barriers for land developers who agree to include new affordable housing units as part of their larger housing development projects. In effect, if the developer perceives that a town is placing unreasonable demands on them through zoning enforcement, they can sue the town in court. If they prevail, they are granted a “builders remedy” which allows them to bypass some restrictive local zoning enforcement measures.   

From a municipal perspective, these new Fair Housing laws creates unnecessary burdens in many urban and suburban towns that have little undeveloped land or environmentally sensitive lands under environmental zoning restrictions or within the Highlands protection areas. Sky-high building prices coupled with decades of U.S. wage suppression have priced many people out of the home ownership market. Moreover, it has created greater competition for affordable rental stock. Building costs for new construction have grown over four times faster than inflation since the 1970s. Many low-income renters cannot afford rental rates high enough to cover the construction costs. Coupled with this is that many municipalities don’t want low wage families in their community, which is discriminatory. This latter point not only suppresses the building of low-cost housing; it causes towns to restrict homeowners from converting excess space in their older homes to apartments for relatives in need, such as elderly parents or disabled adult children.  In high-density neighborhood especially, it has become common for homeowners living in single-family homes to build unauthorized, non-conforming apartments such as basement units or garage conversions. These off the books apartment nevertheless provide a cache of affordable housing for which towns are not receiving credit.  

Research suggests this is a widespread and growing phenomenon, particularly in high-cost areas.  Estimates in some more densely populated localities suggesting that as many as 25% to over 50% of older housing stock may contain unauthorized units. In specific urban neighborhoods with high demand, as many as 75% of basements may be rented illegally. Similar less dramatic trends are observed in older suburban, "inner-ring" neighborhoods where homeowners convert spaces to manage high mortgages or create "missing middle" housing, or duplexes, in areas that technically only allow single-family detached homes. These apartments exist because they offer more affordable housing options. These of-the-books apartments helping fill the gap between single-family homes and large apartment buildings. They also assist struggling homeowners to cover their mortgage payments. Because they are unregulated, these apartments often lack proper exits, ventilation, or smoke detection leading to higher risks for tenants during disasters such as fires or flooding. Non-conforming apartments exist, and will continue to grow in number but are not yet counted as a housing resource for low-income residents.  

Given this research, it is possible that Mine Hill may already have a shadow stock of low-income housing that can help us meet our Round Four Fair Housing quota. Instead of acknowledging these non-conforming units, we are potentially allowing dangerous conditions for the low-income families who live in these apartments. 

Planning boards, including Mine Hill’s board, are mostly meeting State’s affordable housing quotas through new construction. This opens the town up for pressure from developers and set affordable housing needs at odds with the need to conserve our forest lands in the Highland Region, where 70% of New Jersey residents get their water.  

Little consideration is given to older home conversions. Yet, the acute need for affordable housing often impacts extended families within the community. The housing crisis is already driving homeowners to convert a garage, attic or basement into small apartments for elderly parents, children just starting out on their own or other friends and family. We as a community should embracing these conversions and work with homeowners to bring existing unregistered conversion units up to safety standards. We should ease some zoning restriction when it is prudent to do so or issues special variances to owners of certain “eligible” homes that can be converted to duplex housing. Grant money should be made available for home conversion projects to help offset costs involved.

 Here is an article that explores these concepts from 2017. It is entitled, “Learning from a Non-Conforming Neighborhood.”

https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/9/learning-from-a-non-conforming-neighborhood

The Two-Bit News - Concept for Democratized Local News

 by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

The Two-Bit News



I have a proprietary idea to restore public access to local community news that is edited and vetted, and very inexpensive. Local newspapers were something we enjoyed and took for granted. It kept us informed and engaged with our towns.

Not too long ago, the Daily Advance in Morris County had several dozen fulltime reporters covering everything from scholastic sports to municipal council meetings. This, and many other local newspapers, were funded by local advertising. But the world turned digital and internet based. Local advertising revenue migrated there as well and readership in printed news declined. Today, only one or two reporters cover most towns and many places have no reporting at all. As local news organizations declined, they were purchased and consolidated into the larger media companies. Local daily news coverage was no longer profitable for big media companies, so it disappeared almost entirely. Along with it went our engagement with the community and our knowledge of local affairs and municipal governments. Grassroot democracy dies in a vacuum.

All of this led to a shift away from local interests, over which we have more direct control, to the larger, more profitable news media only covering issues over which we have less direct control. If we manage to hang on to our democracy over the next five years, the work needed to strengthen It against the weaknesses that have allowed it to come under attack have to be matched with an effort to strengthen the “fourth estate” of journalism as well, restoring reliable local news to every town and village in America. What we need is an economically democratic way to collect and distribute local news. It must be inexpensive so everyone can afford it. For the sake of giving the idea a name, I will call it the “Two Bit News.”

THE READERS PERSPECTIVE: Two bits equals 25 cents. From a reader's perspective signing on to the local news site would cost them 25¢ per week. You can sign on at any time to receive a daily summary of local, state and national news for a seven-day period. No contracts, no commitments, no refunds!

For this sum, readers on the site would see a list of daily news headlines with bylines for free. Headlines would be prioritized by local news, regional, state, and national articles, in that order. If any reader would like to receive the full summary of any news article they see, they need only click on a headline. For the sum of 25¢ a reader would then have access to all news summaries for the next seven days. If readers like the weekly summary. They can opt to open an account and save the hassle of weekly payment transactions. A debit account would operate much the same way as an Easy Pass account, but with a two dollar minimum balance with the option of automatic balance replacement for money deducted from their account.

This is the basic service. The daily summary page would be a list of the story headlines. To read the summary for a headline, the reader would click on the headline for no extra fee. In addition, every summary article could be opened in full for an extra nickel, or more for more popular stories or lengthy enterprise pieces. The up charge for full access to any story that interests you would be automatically deducted from your debit account when you click on the price symbol at the end of a summary. You only pay extra for the stories that most interest you.

THE REPORTER PERSPECTIVE: Anyone can submit a local news story about anything happening in their community by registering themselves on the site and agreeing to the conditions and payment terms for their work. All payment is piece rate based on unduplicated viewership. New registrations are vetted for accuracy and verification. Once approved, registrants are legally protected by First Amendment rights. (All other liability conditions need to be developed.)

By submitting a news story, the writer must agree to the conditions and standards outlined on the webpage. Every story submitted for publication must meet the journalistic standards enumerated on the website. Basic editing changes would be free, and an edited version would be sent back for the writer’s approval before publication.

The general payment scheme is designed to encourage as many participants as possible to smf cover as many news items as possible. The payment rates may be as follows:

1. Writers would receive $2.00 per accepted story submitted without a related picture and $5.00 for a story submitted with a good quality picture taken by the author that is related to the story.

2. Writers receive 2¢ per summary reviewed.

3. Writers receive 5¢ (or more) for every summary that is opened for the full story.

4. At the editor’s discretion, multiple stories written about the same event may be combined, with attribution, to a single story. Otherwise, the best, most accurate account will be published. Multiple authors on a story will be paid, at minimum, at a fraction of their numbers, and more per author for stories that have high circulation numbers.

THE EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVE: EXECUTIVE EDITORS and part-time editors would be hired full-time and paid regular compensation. They would be responsible for overseeing any part-time editors or freelance editors.

Freelance editors, like reporters, would work from home and be paid piece rate for the articles to which they are assigned. The details of this area of the concept plan here will be developed further.

The structure of local reach in general would be similar to the Neighbor News model, which is really an international, publicly traded company.

The reach of every article submitted would expand according to the popularity, (i.e. Number of views) for the article. Any article written would have an equal opportunity for regional, statewide, or national circulation without regard for the popularity of any given reporter.

Root Cause of Affordibility Crisis - And Other Economic Woes In America

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Americans have suffered from wage suppression since 1975. That is when business owners stopped giving wage earners productivity raises. It was intentional. For decades before, companies regularly shared their growing profits with their employees. Cost of living adjustments (or COLAs) were a bonus to keep dollars earned in line with inflation.

I have been writing about this issue as long as I have been blogging. It seems too few citizens realize just how diabolical this change was, or how much impact it is having still.

Before about 1975, wage compensation and U.S. economic growth grew in tandem. We all shared in the new wealth that, working together, we all created. The middle class grew stronger every year, as did business owners. After America’s corporations colluded to eliminate productivity wages, all new economic growth (new wealth) accrued to corporate and business owners, not to their employees. As a result, while the American economy grew, wages compensation no longer grew in proportion. American workers only received COLAs to adjust for inflation. Our income and wealth began shrinking relative to the U.S. economy. It continues to shrink every year.

As of the end of 2025, when adjusted for inflation, the economy of the United State is over five times larger than it was in 1975. If wage compensation and U.S. economic growth continued to rise in tandem over these past 50 years, our wages would also be five times higher than what they were in 1975. The difference between what our wages should be and what they are is roughly equal to the total growth of wealth inequality in America. Moreover, the loss of middle-class income due to wage suppression results in a loss of state and federal income tax revenue needed to fund our growing nation. To put it another way, income tax revenue would be five times higher without any tax rate increase in 50 years. The failure of wealthy owners to share America’s economic growth with the American people is the root cause of our present affordability crisis.

Here is one example of how wage suppression impacts an economic issue. In 1968 the federal minimum wage $1.60/hour. Adjusted for inflation, that would correspond to a minimum wage of $15.06 per hour today. If you compare the dollar increase in minimum wages between 1968 and now with the inflation adjusted minimum wages for the same period, you get two very different graphs:

Federal Minimum Wage Rate (1968-2026)
Federal Minimum Wage Rate: $7.25 as of 2026
HISTORICAL RATES HISTORICAL RATES ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION



The graph on the left is the dollar increases in federal minimum wage over time while the graph on the right is the purchase power of a minimum wage over the same time. The one on the left rises while the one on the right declines.

In New Jersey, we set out to raise our minimum wage. This year it stands as $15.92. That means it is eighty-six cents higher now than in 1968. Great! But wait! The national economy is five times greater than it was in 1975 (and how much larger than in 1968?). If wages rose in proportion to the growing wealth of our economy, our minimum wage should have grown five times more than in 1975 as well. That means our current minimum wage should be $15.06 X 5, which is $75.30 per hour.

That may seem ridiculous until you compare that wage rate to the current rate of a living wage in the Country. A living wage is the minimum hourly income necessary to meet a person, or a family’s basic human needs. It varies from region to region, but in New Jersey, the average living wage is higher than you might suspect. Here is what a search for the current living wage in New Jersey has to say:

As of early 2026, the estimated living wage for a single adult in New Jersey is approximately $27.35 per hour ($56,888 annually, assuming 2,080 hours) to cover basic necessities. A separate 2025 analysis suggests a higher, broader estimate of roughly $72,773 annually, while families with children require significantly more, with a single parent of three needing over $73 per hour.

There it is. Fifty years later, the minimum wage in 1975 was close to what a family of four required to meet their basic needs. Today that same minimum wage in New Jersey (again, adjusted for inflation) is inadequate to pay for the basic needs of a family of four.

The U.S. Affordability Crisis - By The Numbers

By AI search (and Brian T Lynch, MSW)

The United States is a very rich country with a poor citizenry. It is structurally organized to grow and maintain this vast disparity, and we the people are beginning to catch on to that fact.  I asked  an AI search about this topic and here is what came up. 

The average American net worth* is estimated at approximately $620,654 (as of 2024/2025), though this figure is heavily skewed by high-wealth households. A more representative figure, the median net worth, is significantly lower at roughly $124,041. 

Average (Mean): Calculated by taking total household wealth and dividing it by the number of households. This number is often high because billionaires and ultra-high-net-worth individuals pull the average upward.

Median: The exact middle point. Half of the population has more, and half has less. This is generally considered a more accurate reflection of American’s lived experience  

Approximately 88% to 97% of U.S. families have less than $1 million in specific investments or retirement savings. While average net worth is high due to top-tier wealth, only about 4.7% of Americans hold at least $1 million in retirement-specific accounts. Roughly 1 in 6 (about 16-18%) households have a total net worth exceeding $1 million. 

Retirement Account Data: Only 4.7% of Americans have $1 million+ in dedicated retirement accounts (e.g., 401(k) or IRA).

Total Household Assets: Roughly 88% of U.S. households have a total net worth under $1 million.

Liquid Assets: Estimates suggest only about 2% of US adults have over $1 million in liquid assets like cash, stocks, or bonds.

Median vs. Average: While the average U.S. household net worth is over $1 million, the median (typical) net worth is only around $192,700

Age is a Factor: While 65-74 year olds have the highest average net worth ($1.2M), their median net worth is only $266,400.

Here is a startling fact;  According to the most recent comprehensive Federal Reserve data (2022 SCF, typically cited through 2025), couples with children have a median net worth of $250,620, while single parents have a median net worth of $50,750.

As of recent federal data, the median household net worth in the United States is approximately $192,700 (based on 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances data released in 2023). While average net worth exceeds $1 million due to high-wealth outliers, the median provides a more accurate "middle point" for the typical American family. 

Here is a particularly sad fact given America’s great wealth:  The United States consistently records higher child poverty rates than most European countries. Recent data indicates the U.S. child poverty rate has been observed at approximately 21% to 26%, whereas many European nations, particularly in Scandinavia and parts of Western Europe, frequently report rates between 5% and 12%.

While temporary policy shifts like the expanded Child Tax Credit briefly reduced U.S. rates, the U.S. generally remains at the high end of developed nations. 

Me here: As a child welfare worker for 30 years I have observed first-hand that the financial welfare of our children isn’t a priority in America.

* Note that the average net worth of $620,654 per person is what each of us would have if America’s personal wealth was equally distributed.

The United States is a very rich country with a poor citizenry. It is structurally organized to grow and maintain this vast disparity, and we the people are beginning to catch on to that fact. I asked an AI search anout this and here is what came up:

The average American net worth* is estimated at approximately $620,654 (as of 2024/2025), though this figure is heavily skewed by high-wealth households. A more representative figure, the median net worth, is significantly lower at roughly $124,041.

Average (Mean): Calculated by taking total household wealth and dividing it by the number of households. This number is often high because billionaires and ultra-high-net-worth individuals pull the average upward.

Median: The exact middle point. Half of the population has more, and half has less. This is generally considered a more accurate reflection of American’s lived experience

Approximately 88% to 97% of U.S. families have less than $1 million in specific investments or retirement savings. While average net worth is high due to top-tier wealth, only about 4.7% of Americans hold at least $1 million in retirement-specific accounts. Roughly 1 in 6 (about 16-18%) households have a total net worth exceeding $1 million.

Retirement Account Data: Only 4.7% of Americans have $1 million+ in dedicated retirement accounts (e.g., 401(k) or IRA).

Total Household Assets: Roughly 88% of U.S. households have a total net worth under $1 million.

Liquid Assets: Estimates suggest only about 2% of US adults have over $1 million in liquid assets like cash, stocks, or bonds.

Median vs. Average: While the average U.S. household net worth is over $1 million, the median (typical) net worth is only around $192,700

Age is a Factor: While 65-74 year olds have the highest average net worth ($1.2M), their median net worth is only $266,400.

Here is a startling fact; According to the most recent comprehensive Federal Reserve data (2022 SCF, typically cited through 2025), couples with children have a median net worth of $250,620, while single parents have a median net worth of $50,750.

As of recent federal data, the median household net worth in the United States is approximately $192,700 (based on 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances data released in 2023). While average net worth exceeds $1 million due to high-wealth outliers, the median provides a more accurate "middle point" for the typical American family.

Here is a particularly sad fact given America’s great wealth: The United States consistently records higher child poverty rates than most European countries. Recent data indicates the U.S. child poverty rate has been observed at approximately 21% to 26%, whereas many European nations, particularly in Scandinavia and parts of Western Europe, frequently report rates between 5% and 12%.

While temporary policy shifts like the expanded Child Tax Credit briefly reduced U.S. rates, the U.S. generally remains at the high end of developed nations.

Me here: As a child welfare worker for 30 years I have observed first-hand that the financial welfare of our children isn’t a priority in America.

* Note that the average net worth of $620,654 per person is what each of us would have if America’s personal wealth was equally distributed.

Thoughts on Building Better, More Responsive Municipal Planning Boards

 Posted Here by Brian T. Lynch

Residents in Mine Hill do not currently have a citizen Environmental Commission tasked with assisting our Municipal Planning Board to balance environmental protection of our natural land resources with developers build-out proposals, land-use regulations, and code enforcement.

The Environmental Commission we once had, which was praised for its contribution to our townships first Master Plan in June of 1977, was dissolved decades ago. The Planning Board may have drifted a bit from its original mission to balance land stewardship with zoning oversight and enforcement. For example, the chairman of the Board recently stated, at a well attended public hearing on the Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan (HEFS Plan), that the Board operates more like a court to interpret and enforce zoning regulations when construction proposals are submitted to the Board. This is a narrow and less dynamic role in guiding future development in this community.

The Board seldom solicits public input in matters that impact the community and its public meetings are usually poorly attended. It seems the final HEFS Plan developed by the Board were developed with little public participation. When citizens did show up to inquire about environmentally sensitive areas under consideration for development, the Board's reaction was guarded and defensive rather than welcoming this opportunity to engage with an interested public.

These issues are not limited to Mine Hill. It reflects a much broader trend being discussed throughout the region and the country. To facilitate discussions on this topic, and promote interest in improving municipal planning, the following is extracted excerpts of A Research Paper Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University that explores this topic.

Thoughts on Building Better, More Responsive Municipal Planning Boards

Published April 7, 2026

The relationship between municipal planning boards and stewardship is defined by the board’s responsibility to act as the legal steward of a community’s long-term development, balancing land-use regulations with the protection of natural, historic, and community resources. Planning boards often bridge the gap between regulatory policy and on-the-ground stewardship efforts, such as community-led environmental initiatives. 

Key aspects of this relationship include:

Long-Term Vision and Master Plans 

Planning boards are responsible for creating, adopting, and re-examining the municipal master plan, which sets the strategy for land use over many years. This function is viewed as a stewardship role because it ensures that decisions made today benefit future generations.

Balancing Development and Conservation

Boards, often in partnership with local environmental commissions, act as stewards by integrating environmental protection into land-use planning. This involves using zoning ordinances, site plan reviews, and subdivision regulations to protect natural resources.

Civic Stewardship Collaboration

Effective municipal stewardship often involves partnerships between planning boards and civic stewardship groups (e.g., land trusts, community garden groups). These groups can provide local knowledge, capacity, and labor to achieve sustainability goals, acting as a "broker" in "mosaic governance".

Institutionalizing Stewardship

Planning boards help institutionalize stewardship by embedding it into municipal policy, such as establishing design guidelines, historic preservation districts, or open space preservation in master plans.

Overcoming Implementation Gaps

A critical challenge is the gap between planning and action. Effective planning boards provide the implementation guidance needed to turn stewardship goals into practical, legally binding actions. 

Municipal Planning Boards and Institutional Stewardship

Municipal planning boards function as institutional stewards of long-term community development, tasked with reconciling land-use regulation with the preservation of environmental, historic, and social resources. Through instruments such as master plans, zoning ordinances, and site plan review, these boards operationalize long-range policy objectives into legally enforceable decisions that shape the built environment. Stewardship is most effective when supported by collaboration with community-led organizations, which contribute localized knowledge and participatory capacity. Nonetheless, a persistent challenge within municipal planning lies in bridging the gap between articulated policy goals and their practical implementation.

Critiques of municipal planning practice frequently question whether limited positive outcomes at the community level result from insufficient institutional support for community-led planning initiatives. In New York City, the Department of City Planning (DCP) is legally obligated only to consult such initiatives, a constraint that allows community-generated proposals to be subordinated to more powerful political or economic interests. While centralized planning structures offer advantages in efficiency, coordination, and policy consistency, they are also associated with diminished accountability and reduced community influence. Decentralized approaches, by contrast, tend to enhance public participation, foster a sense of local ownership, and improve responsiveness to neighborhood-specific conditions. The 1989 Charter revisions, which expanded the authority of the City Planning Commission while relegating Community Board–initiated Section 197-a plans to an advisory role, exemplify this tension. Case studies from Queens—ranging from community-led plans that were ultimately rejected to initiatives developed in partnership with the DCP—suggest that sustained and substantive collaboration yields more effective and equitable planning outcomes. This paper contends that meaningful institutional support for community-led planning is essential to successful urban governance and proposes evaluative frameworks and policy reforms aimed at strengthening municipal planning processes through enhanced community engagement.

What Is Community-Led Planning?

Community-led planning is a participatory approach in which residents take a central role in identifying local needs, setting priorities, and shaping strategies for the development of their built environment. By engaging a representative range of local stakeholders, this process seeks to empower communities to influence decision-making and exercise greater control over their social, economic, and spatial futures. When community members collectively organize to guide planning outcomes, they are actively enacting community-led planning.

Historically, such participatory values were largely absent from American urban planning. From the 1920s through the mid-twentieth century, planning was dominated by deterministic and efficiency-driven ideologies that emphasized physical design, urban renewal, and suburban expansion, often at the expense of marginalized communities. Policies associated with suburbanization and urban renewal—including the use of eminent domain—frequently resulted in displacement, segregation, and the erosion of community cohesion. Alternative planning movements, such as the City Beautiful and Garden City traditions, offered differing visions but similarly failed to address structural inequalities affecting low-income residents.

Community participation emerged more forcefully in response to these exclusionary practices, particularly during the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Influenced by civil rights activism and grassroots organizing, planning theory began to reconceptualize planning as an inherently political process. This shift gave rise to advocacy, incremental, communicative, and collaborative planning theories, all of which emphasized citizen engagement, deliberation, and power-sharing. More recent approaches, including critical pragmatism, further stress the importance of context, lived experience, and structural justice. Collectively, these theoretical developments underscore the growing recognition that equitable and effective planning depends on sustained, meaningful community leadership and participation.

 ________________________________________

The Above was Extracted from:

AN ARGUMENT FOR THE MUNICIPAL STEWARDSHIP OF COMMUNITY-LED PLANS: THREE CASE STUDIES IN QUEENS

A Research Paper Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Regional Planning by Joshua Kogut May 2023.

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c004ff10-f3e1-479b-86ff-dade29850902/content

______________________________________

Related Blogpost Article

Affordable Housing Plan Alternatives

In high-density neighborhood especially, it has become common for homeowners living in single-family homes to build unauthorized, non-conforming apartments such as basement units or garage conversions. Research suggests this is a widespread and growing phenomenon, particularly in high-cost areas.  Estimates in some more densely populated localities suggesting that as many as 25% to over 50% of older housing stock may contain unauthorized units. 

https://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2026/05/affordable-housing-plan-alternatives-to.html