Michael Collins

PCEF will invest nearly $92 million in climate projects around the city. Leaders say nonprofit grantees were thoroughly vetted and the projects align with the city's climate goals. by Taylor Griggs

Energy efficiency upgrades in low-income housing complexes, an urban forestry internship program, and a plan to get more kids to walk to school: These are just three of the 71 projects that will receive support from the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) in its latest round of community grants, intended to reduce local carbon emissions at the grassroots level. 

On Wednesday, Portland City Council approved PCEF’s recommended allocation of nearly $92 million in community grants. The vast majority of the money will go toward implementation of 65 carbon reduction projects in categories including energy efficiency and transportation. About half a million dollars is allocated for planning grants. 

PCEF has held two competitive funding cycles in the past, distributing a combined $108 million for more than 100 projects in 2021 and 2022. But PCEF’s third grant cycle, which opened to applicants last November, was the program’s first since going through a massive overhaul last year. The program is housed in the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS), now part of the Community and Economic Development service area. 

The program, approved by voters as a 2018 ballot measure, is funded by a small surcharge on large retailers in Portland, and its financial success vastly outperformed initial estimates. But PCEF has taken a few years to find its footing, in part because it had trouble getting all that money out the door. The fund has also been criticized for a lack of oversight of nonprofit contractors. 

Despite some lingering skepticism, program leaders maintain the program is now on track to deliver real climate and equity results for the city—and they say this latest round of grants is the perfect example of what’s possible through PCEF. 

“Through the incredible response we received to our third request for [grant] proposals, we have witnessed the growth in capacity of our community organizations,” Sam Baraso, PCEF program manager, said in a press release. “This shows us the urgent need for climate action projects that increase resiliency in our communities. That need is not tomorrow, but right now. And our partners are eager to keep this positive momentum going.” 

Changes at PCEF 

When PCEF was first adopted, the program was heavily reliant on grant contracts with nonprofit partners to carry out carbon reduction work in underserved communities. But the program’s structure has significantly changed over the past few years. 

During PCEF’s first grant award cycle in 2021, the fund awarded nearly $12 million to an organization whose leader had a history of financial impropriety. The funding was rescinded, but PCEF received significant backlash for its perceived lack of due diligence when awarding grants. Community concerns about the program’s rollout were validated by a 2022 city audit, which said its performance metrics and standards were unclear. The audit advised PCEF leaders to set transparent, clear goals for project implementation, and to be more specific about how the fund is aiding Portland’s carbon reduction goals. 

Program leaders apparently took the feedback to heart. The fund’s programming is now centered on a $750 million Climate Investment Plan, which is mainly dedicated to specific strategic initiatives to be overseen by PCEF staff. 

After receiving an unexpectedly optimistic financial forecast late last year, the fund has also been able to bail out struggling city bureaus, with the caveat that the money will help with carbon reduction projects. For example, the money PCEF allocated to the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) will pay for projects to boost bicycle use and reduce carbon emissions in the transportation sector. 

However, it’s evident by the recent $92 million investment in nonprofit projects that community grants are still a program cornerstone. 

PCEF leaders were sure to emphasize the transparency and accountability present throughout this round of grant applications and awards. 

“As this process moves forward, we are committed to ensuring that every dollar allocated through PCEF is spent responsibly and delivers real, measurable outcomes for our communities,” Donnie Oliveira, interim deputy city administrator for Community and Economic Development, said at a City Council meeting on September 5. “This means we are continuously strengthening our oversight mechanisms to track the progress and performance of projects that receive funding…Grantees have clear, measurable targets and report requirements so that everyone can see exactly how the funds are being used.” 

The program has begun using Webgrants, the new grant tracking system that will soon be rolled out for the rest of the city’s outgoing grant process. Members of the public can view all PCEF grant applications on the Portland Map App. And earlier this year, PCEF released its program dashboard, which tracks money the fund spends and other metrics, including climate benefits and workforce development. 

Despite improvements in process and oversight, at least one city commissioner still has doubts.

At the September 5 City Council meeting, as PCEF leaders introduced the recommended grantees, Commissioner Mingus Mapps appeared skeptical about the program’s ability to cut carbon emissions to the extent necessary to meet Portland’s climate goals. 

PCEF has estimated the $91.9 million it spends on this round of grants will result in a lifetime reduction of roughly 85,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). However, according to Portland’s Climate Emergency Workplan, this is a mere fraction of the millions of metric tons of CO2e necessary to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. 

“That makes me awfully concerned. This is one of our major investments in the climate space, and it gets us about 3 percent of where we hope to go in the next six years,” Mapps said. “It seems we have a scale problem.” 

In response, Oliveira said while PCEF is making a major investment in carbon reduction projects, it was “never designed to meet all the city’s climate goals.”

“PCEF was originally intended to provide an avenue for resources to communities, for resiliency, and to spur innovation as well. When we talk about the major reduction goals that we have as a city, as a state, and globally, we're talking about systemic shifts,” Oliveira said. “I don’t want to minimize [PCEF’s investments], but the big maneuvers we’re looking at are going to require multi-jurisdictional investments that are much bigger than PCEF.” 

In other words: PCEF won’t solve everything. But leaders maintain it’s a good start, and could have far-reaching benefits beyond carbon reduction metrics. 

Where is the money going? 

In its third round of grant funding, PCEF will dole out 71 implementation and planning grants to local organizations for climate action projects that prioritize under-resourced populations in the city. In this way, the projects have multiple proposed benefits: In addition to their carbon reduction potential, a project may also set out to reduce energy costs for low-income households or increase job opportunities for people of color.  

“Project benefits provided to households and individual community members goes well beyond greenhouse gas reduction and includes improved indoor air quality and comfort in homes, climate resilience, reduced utility bills, training, connection to living wage jobs, access to high quality fresh foods, and connection to community,” PCEF’s funding recommendations report states. 

PCEF split the grants into several categories, which align with the program’s Climate Investment Plan. These categories include energy efficiency, transportation decarbonization, regenerative agriculture and green infrastructure, and workforce development. Here’s a look at some notable projects from each category. 

Energy efficiency: 

• $5.2 million to Northwest Native Chamber for a project to conduct energy efficiency retrofits on 210 homes, with funds targeted toward Native households and Native-owned clean energy construction companies. 
• Nearly $2.9 million to Verde for a project to install more than 1,200 residential heat pumps, at low or no cost, to priority populations in Portland (specifically BIPOC and low-income communities). The project is a partnership with the Energy Trust of Oregon. 
• $3.46 million to Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church for a project to build an energy efficient resilience hub at a church in the Cully neighborhood, which would serve as a place for community refuge during extreme weather events or other emergencies. 

Renewable energy: 

• $1.09 million to Bridges to Change for a project to install solar energy infrastructure in recovery housing complexes. 
• $6 million to REACH Community Development, Inc for energy efficiency projects at three affordable multifamily housing sites in Portland, through installing rooftop solar panels, heat pumps, and completing air sealing. 
• $4.1 million to APANO Communities United Fund to install solar panels and energy efficiency upgrades for low-income residents along 82nd Avenue, as well as to install five electric vehicle charging stations on the corridor. 

Workforce development and contractor support: 

• Nearly $1.5 million to the Blueprint Foundation for an urban forestry internship program designed to help communities of color access careers in urban forestry and environmental restoration, increasing local tree canopy cover and enhancing local green spaces in the process.
• $1.5 million to Oregon Tradeswomen, Inc to provide training and employment for women in the clean energy construction trades. 
• Roughly $1.4 million to Growing Gardens to provide regenerative agriculture workforce training to people in correctional facilities, with the aim of helping people find post-incarceration employment opportunities, reducing recidivism rates, and building up the green agriculture workforce.

Regenerative agriculture and green infrastructure:

• $1.3 million to Bird Alliance of Oregon for restoration of the organization’s Wildlife Care Center on 82nd Avenue, with the goal of improving habitat conditions for local wildlife, increasing biodiversity, and helping the community connect with natural resources. 
• $1.04 million to Equitable Giving Circle for a project to create a hub for distribution of fresh, locally-sourced produce. Project goals include supporting local farms and helping educate community members about nutrition and sustainable agriculture.
• $1.2 million to Depave for turning underutilized paved areas into green spaces at five sites, with the goal of reducing urban heat islands, improving stormwater management, and adding more urban green space in underserved areas. 

Transportation decarbonization:

• $965,000 to Oregon Walks for a program to develop more walking school bus programs in underserved communities, helping students’ health and safety and reducing traffic congestion around schools by increasing active transportation options for children.
• $310,700 to BikeLoud PDX to expand its “Bike Buddy” program, which aims to connect experienced volunteers with people who want to start riding their bikes for transportation in Portland, with the goal of increasing bicycle usage among underrepresented communities through connection and mentorship. 
• $2.2 million to Forth Mobility Fund to increase community electric mobility in Portland through installing electric vehicle charging stations at affordable housing sites, helping community organizations electrify their transportation operations, and more. 

A complete list of all 71 approved grants can be found here.

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt:

The IMF is used by the G-5 nations and their allies to put their reputational capital behind the international monetary order. Obviously, the backing countries are only going to underwrite a system that they largely approve of and benefit from.

If the IMF didn’t exist, failed nations still periodically would be bailed out by rich ones, if only because the G-5 politicians wouldn’t wish to endanger the stability of the global financial order. But problems would arise as the bailouts would have to be organized anew each time. Which nation would put in how much? Who would pull the plug on failing nations and when? Who or what would enforce repayment? All those questions are regularized and institutionalized through the existence of the IMF.

The cronyist element is that the G-5 nations use the IMF and its lending facilities to protect the creditworthiness of their own banks and financial systems. In contrast, an IMF serving “the citizens of the world,” whatever that might mean, would be an IMF without much support from the biggest and most important financial players. It would be more like the undercapitalized Unicef than an institution that can move world markets or help preserve them…

If the directorship and board governance of the IMF were picked by a vote from all 190 member countries, the leading G-5 nations would put much less of their reputational capital behind the institution. The IMF is an international public good, but such public goods only get produced when it is in somebody’s selfish interest to do so.

And to close:

Successful international economic orders typically have been based on a fair degree of hegemony, whether it was the British-led gold standard of the 19th century, or the more recent post-World War II American dominance. Once you realize that, a lot of the current questions about the IMF answer themselves rather automatically. The real issue isn’t how to improve the IMF, but how we are going to cope as current hegemonies continue to lose their sway.

Recommended.

The post Why the IMF is intrinsically conservative and hard to reform appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

The post Thursday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
We could also kill all the happiness researchers, but that would only produce a short-term uptick in happiness.

Today's News:

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
For the record, this comic is not directed at anyone in particular. You are welcome to praise or damn me for whomever you think I'm talking about, though!

Today's News:

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Maybe we can fix conspiracies with The Blockchain.

Today's News:

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Thanks to my patreon geeks for correcting an earlier version of this comic!

Today's News:

The post Banksy is the Real Deal appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Also, suddenly the per-pound value of dragon meat has cratered.

New comic!
Today's News:

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Also, while being a pointless stimulus-response machine, you smell bad.

New comic!
Today's News:

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
It is taking every atom of my being to not make a joke about applied evil being a branch of finance.

New comic!
Today's News:

The post The fight for liberty in our time, SB 827 appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
The simplest way to become drunk is likely to be the best one.

New comic!
Today's News:

Last full day to get in a proposal for BAHFest London!

It could give middle-class families a tax cut, too!

Now that the Republican tax reform bill is officially law, blue states are scrambling to figure out ways around one of the law’s few actual tax increases: its new limit on deducting state and local taxes.

Under current law, taxpayers not claiming the standard deduction can deduct both their state and local property taxes, and either their state and local income taxes or their state and local sales taxes, whichever is higher. The Republican bill added a new $10,000 maximum for all state and local tax deductions, effectively raising taxes on wealthy people in those states and reducing a key federal subsidy that makes it easier for states to charge high taxes on rich residents.

A few possible options have emerged to evade the new limit, reduce taxes on blue state residents, and reduce future pressure for state tax cuts that the federal law could create. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, and the government of DC are urging residents to prepay their 2018 property taxes in 2017, so they can still be deducted. Another route would be for states to create dollar-for-dollar tax credits for all charitable contributions made to the state government. Charitable donations are still deductible under the GOP, so reclassifying state taxes as charity would enable residents to still deduct them at the federal level.

But perhaps the most promising option, teased by a large group of tax law experts and vocally championed by prominent liberal economist Dean Baker, is for states to repeal their income taxes and replace them with employer-side payroll taxes. This might appear like a minor technical change. But it would not only totally offset the new limit on deducting state taxes — it would amount to a sizable tax cut for many middle-class families and would vastly simplify tax preparation by freeing people up from filing their own state taxes.

How the payroll tax fix works

You can levy payroll taxes in one of two ways: on the employer side or the employee side. In the US, we do both: Social Security and Medicare taxes amount to 7.65 percent on each. So for a hypothetical employee earning $100,000 a year, the employer first pays $7,650 to the government, and then deducts another $7,650 from the employee’s paychecks and sends it to the government, leaving the employee’s post-payroll tax take-home pay at $92,350.

Most economists agree that the distinction between having the employer and employee pay is basically arbitrary, and the employee ultimately pays the tax’s full burden. Think of it this way: Assuming no other taxes and benefits, an employer paying $100,000 in wages has to effectively budget $107,650 to pay them, given the payroll taxes on the employer’s side.

You could in theory eliminate the employer-side payroll tax, just tax the employee’s wages, and get the same ultimate effect. Suppose instead of a 7.65 percent payroll tax on each side, there was a 14.2 percent tax just for employees. The employer would pay the $107,650 they already determined the employee’s labor was worth, the employee would pay $15,286.30 in payroll taxes, and have $92,363.70 in take-home pay— almost exactly the same as under the old system. (You could set the tax rate at 14.2127264 percent if you want to get even closer, the $13.70 difference is just a rounding error.)

Or you could, equivalently, put everything on the employer’s side. They budget $107,650 for the job, pay a 14.2 percent employer-side payroll tax, and set the employee’s salary at $92,363.70, for the same ultimate effect.

This second option is what the state payroll tax fix to the Republican tax bill involves. States usually impose income rather than payroll taxes when raising general revenue, and levy them on the individual side. But they could tax wages on the employer side instead and accomplish the same thing.

And — this part is crucial — employer payroll taxes are still deductible under federal law. The business can just write them off their corporate income tax (or individual tax, if the business is a pass-through entity). Here are the 13 tax law experts mentioned above explaining why this works:

Taxes imposed on a business are still deductible. Therefore states can shift from non-deductible over-the-cap state income taxes to still-deductible employer-side payroll taxes. It is important to repeat that that states already impose a payroll tax for unemployment insurance purposes, and many localities impose an additional payroll tax as well—and employers currently can claim a deduction for their portion of these taxes.

Instantly, the federal change would be counteracted, at least as concerns state income taxes.

States could in theory only do this for income taxes in excess of the $10,000 cap. But they shouldn’t, because employer-side payroll taxes are actually better policy for everyone, for two keys reasons.

First, payroll taxes are collected by businesses, not individuals, which vastly simplifies tax preparation for average individuals and families. I have paid vastly more in Social Security payroll taxes than state income taxes over the course of my career — but I’ve always had to manually file my state taxes, whereas Social Security taxes are collected for me automatically. Shifting state income taxes to payroll taxes would eliminate that effort for everybody, and make taxes significantly easier for average people.

California does offer an automated filing system for state income taxes, but its prefilled return option is rarely used and has been fiercely fought by TurboTax, H&R Block, and the tax preparation lobby. A payroll tax shift accomplishes the same thing, without making people opt in.

The second reason is it amounts to a tax cut for many middle-class people. Right now, you can only deduct state and local taxes if you itemize your tax return. Since the standard deduction is typically larger than itemized deductions for most lower and middle-income people, they don’t really benefit from the SALT deduction at the present, and that will be even more true under the new tax bill, which nearly doubles the standard deduction.

But if states shift to payroll taxes, then businesses will be able to deduct all these employees’ taxes for the first time, freeing up more of the money they’ve set aside for that employee to go to wages. It’s possible, of course, that businesses would just pocket the cash — in which case it’s no harm, no foul from the employee’s perspective, and a windfall for businesses that choose to locate in these states. Then again, as the labor market tightens, it will get harder for employers to get away with that kind of thing, and there will be more pressure to use the money for wages.

The change might lead to higher take-home wages through another mechanism, too. Recall the example of the employee currently earning $100,000 a year. An employer-side payroll tax would effectively reduce their advertised salary from $100,000 to whatever their post-tax wage is, which could be many thousands of dollars lower.

Economically, that’s all the same, and that person can expect to make the same amount of money. But it feels like a pay cut. Economists have found consistently that nominal (that is, not inflation-adjusted) wages are sticky. If you make $100,000 now, it’s really hard for your employer to start paying you $90,000 in the future. If they think you’re not worth $100,000, they’re much likelier to just wait for inflation to slowly degrade your salary.

If that dynamic holds, then employees won’t pay the ultimate cost of the new, higher payroll taxes. Employers will pay a big chunk. That amounts to a substantial windfall for the employees.

One wrinkle is that payroll taxes only affect, well, payroll. Other kinds of income like capital gains, interest, and dividends aren’t hit by payroll taxes. To still tax that income and avoid a major tax cut for investors, states would need to pair the payroll tax shift with a new tax on capital income. There’s plenty of precedent for that. Tennessee and New Hampshire don’t have general income taxes, and only tax interest and dividend income. Under the payroll tax shift, a number of new states could join them, perhaps adding capital gains in the mix too.

The plan could run into some speed bumps, but they’re likely surmountable

Baker and veteran California policy journalist David Dayen both report that policymakers in California are considering this kind of shift. In theory, there could be appetite in a number of liberal-dominated states, from New Jersey to Connecticut to Hawaii to New York (where Republicans control the State Senate, but only with the consent of a dissident faction of Democrats who might back this change). If Republican governors get on board out of a desire to look out for home state residents, Massachusetts and Maryland could be in as well.

But the plan isn’t necessarily foolproof. The biggest obstacle would come if Republicans in Congress change the tax code to limit deductibility of employer-side payroll taxes, perhaps eliminating it at the state level. Then again, with tax reform signed into law Republicans have already used up their one opportunity for passing legislation with 51 Senate votes, and would need nine Democrats to support this change. It’d be a coup if they could get those defectors, but it’s very unlikely.

The plan also jeopardizes state-level income tax deductions. States tend to allow fewer deductions and credits than the federal government does, but especially in states with state-level Earned Income Tax Credits, eliminating deductions and credits outright (perhaps except for a standard exemption, but even that could be hard to implement) would be a significant change, and potentially a tax hike on poor families. These states would need to think hard about how to implement the change in a way that ensures those families still get the benefits they receive under the current income tax regime.

Many state payroll taxes are also progressive, with lower and higher tax brackets just as under the federal tax code. If you work exclusively at one employer, that’s fine, as they know your total income and can apply tax rates accordingly; this is how income tax withholding works, after all. But if you work at a bunch of different employers, and the brackets apply to your overall wages, reconciling that could be an administrative nightmare. This might be surmountable, but would require careful drafting of the law and regulation by tax collectors.

The plan could also lead to a significant backlash if employers decide to ignore their general tendency not to issue pay cuts and start slashing salaries to pay for their new tax burden. Employees shouldn’t be alarmed if that happens, as it’s a natural adjustment. But they probably will be alarmed. That could politically endanger the proposal. Then again, it could endanger employers more, and if they feel threatened and avoid pay cuts, that amounts to a big net boon for workers.

Overall, though, the change has significant upside. It makes taxes easier for workers, could result in a big net tax cut for the middle-class, and insulates states from the Republican tax bill. That should be enough to make Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo’s ears perk up.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Of course, the real trick is to adjust the top marginal tax bracket up or down by 2 percent.

New comic!
Today's News:

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Anyone emailing me to mention that Moby-Dick is actually a good book will be forced to sit in town square on a short stool, wearing a hat that reads 'stater of the obvious.'

New comic!
Today's News:

I am not a fan of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but I would most definitely wear this shirt if I owned it.



See more: Fear and Loathing in the Mushroom Kingdom

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
On the plus side, now the housing prices are wayyyyyy lower.

New comic!
Today's News:

Hey Austin! See you tonight at Dragon's Lair.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Someone needs to control the rate of dream inflation, because it's making us all crazy.

New comic!
Today's News:

Whee!

Two neutron stars collided 130 million light-years away. Thanks to LIGO, scientists were able to witness it.

Gravitational waves — ripples in space and time — have changed the world, again. On Monday, a huge team of scientists working in collaboration with LIGO, the US-based gravitational wave observatory, and VIRGO, an observatory based in Italy, announced they had for the first time used gravitational waves to locate an object in the sky. Specifically, they found two neutron stars that had crashed into one another 130 million light-years away.

The discovery means we’re truly in a new age of astronomy: one in which scientists can listen for ripples in spacetime and figure out where to look in the universe to see amazing phenomena unfold in real time.

Here’s a brief rundown of why today’s announcement was so damn cool

For the first time, scientists have detected the gravitational waves that formed during the collision of two neutron stars.

At the same time the gravitational waves were detected, a space-based observatory recorded a gamma-ray burst. These are high-intensity beams of radiation that periodically blast through the universe like a strobe laser light. This confirms that binary neutron star collisions can create gamma-ray bursts, and that gamma rays and gravitational waves travel at the same speed, the speed of light — something Einstein correctly predicted 100 years ago.

The neutron stars collided 130 million years ago. But scientists were able, in a sense, to study the entirety of the event: from when the neutron stars were orbiting one another to the moment they crashed to the burning aftermath. (LIGO-VIRGO recorded 100 seconds of gravitational waves from the collision. Previous recordings of black holes only lasted a few seconds.)

When neutron stars collide, they produce an explosion called a kilonova, and astronomers have never witnessed one before. The kilonova produced the gamma-ray burst, but it also contained the right ingredients and energy needed to create heavy elements like gold, platinum, and uranium.

Now that there are three gravitational wave observatories up and running across the world (one in Louisiana, one in Washington state, and one in Italy), scientists can zero in on where in the sky the gravitational waves are coming from. They used this data to create a map of where to look for the kilonova and sent it to a worldwide network of astronomers. (All of this occurred within a 12-hour window.)

Astronomers found the kilonova that very night! And then they sent the exact coordinates to our biggest, baddest telescopes (Hubble, Chandra, and others).

Observations from those telescopes studied the light from the kilonova and how it evolved over the course of a few weeks. By reading the color of light from the kilonova, scientists figured out which elements it produced.

And lo and behold, it produced gold and platinum. That means all the gold on Earth was likely produced in a kilonova. With these observations, scientists were able to peek at a tiny slice of creation.

Also cool: Astronomers have now observed this kilonova in every wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, and in gravitational waves. No other event has been recorded so thoroughly.

And, all of this took the work of thousands of scientists (one of the papers published Monday has 4,500 co-authors!), working collaboratively, world over.

NASA and ESA. Acknowledgment: N. Tanvir (U. Leicester), A. Levan (U. Warwick), and A. Fruchter and O. Fox (STSc)

Further reading:

• Gravitational waves just led us to the incredible origin of gold in the universe. How LIGO kick-started a worldwide treasure hunt for a kilonova.
• Gravitational waves, explained. Why gravitational waves exist, how LIGO works, and why the effort to detect them won a Nobel Prize.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
To be clear, I have no intention to talk to my neighbors. I just want to know what they're thinking.

New comic!
Today's News:

The Soonish book tour is nearly upon us! Come see me and Kelly and events around the US!

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
It would've been so easy to make an avocado joke, BUT I RESISTED.

New comic!
Today's News:

The sad part of this story is that buying a home can often be cheaper than renting an apartment. But good luck getting a down payment and a mortgage when you are on the hook for huge school loans, and good luck finding a job with security in a stable community. This is the latest comic by Dami Lee, inspired by a Tweet from duumb!

[wheel of fortune]

me: id like to buy a vowel
pat: arent u a millenial
me: [sigh] id like to rent a vowel

— duumb (@duumb) July 7, 2017

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
What I really want is a Star Wars Lego kit made of exactly two enormous pieces.

New comic!
Today's News:

Hey geeks! The submission round is now open for BAHFest Seattle (it's back!) and BAHFest SF. WOOP!

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Would you perhaps accept equity in my future earnings?

New comic!
Today's News:

In case you missed it, we abridged ALL OF SCIENCE.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
I actually wrote that last panel several months ago. Hopefully it's still 'funny'.

New comic!
Today's News:

If you're a US backer and haven't yet signed up for bonus rewards, please go here!