My definition is a meaningful work process and an environment in which I am comfortable, which includes other people or not, in which I have the opportunity to develop my own potential which is inclusive of but not limited to my income earning ability.

I think the world would be better if everyone had this definition, but they don’t. To a politician, a quality job is one that brings more money into the state coffers than it pays out in social support.

I think it is more like politicians control the talking points of the election dialogue, which often includes hiding information or protecting disinformation.

Well, the media plays their part here too, but I agree with the basic premise, which is that voters require accurate information to make informed decisions, and that there are entrenched interests working overtime to keep them from having that information in order to manipulate the vote.

but the political rhetoric used to sell the state monopoly portrayed the private companies as a monopoly and the bill was named by the Maine Legislature as “Take back local control” .

Yep. Good example. Here in Texas, we had a proposition that sounded very solidly patriotic by title, but we had to actually vote NO on to get the result everyone expected from the title. :-(

You assume that costs or service rise because there was a demand for it.

This is generally the case. I quite agree that politicians often manufacture demand via propaganda.

That is the rational for gentrification.

Yep, very similar.

It drives the pre-existing culture out and does not serve them, even though the populations driven out are the ones who voted the politicians in.

Convoluted, eh? Racism in the 60’s and 70’s resulted in cities with minority slums located close to downtown, with white suburbs. Then, all of a sudden, the white suburbs realized that they were tired of commuting an hour each way to downtown, and demanded the downtown real estate back, driving up prices and ….. well, you know where THAT ended up.

The intent of the corporate state of Maine has always been to replace the existing population with wealthier people so the state can collect more taxes.

Good luck. Maine’s tax structure is not friendly to retirees. Real estate prices are, but not the tax structure.

You have failed to establish any substantiation for your belief.

I think it obvious, prima facie. There is no motivation for a jurisdiction to offer abatements OTHER than tax revenues. Everything that you are writing about is just a decision on how to use the proceeds.

I mean, I have no idea why anyone lives in Maine. I’ve read Stephen King. The entire state is full of monsters, vampires, and psychopaths. :-)