Bill Gross – Xanax world

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=The-Shoveler]The age of abundance.[/quote]

I agree. But that works only is if we find a way of spreading the abundance. No matter how cheap the goods are, people who have no jobs and no income cannot buy them.
More leisure jobs and spending would be a win-win.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=The-Shoveler]The age of abundance.[/quote]

I agree. But that works only is if we find a way of spreading the abundance. No matter how cheap the goods are, people who have no jobs and no income cannot buy them.
More leisure jobs and spending would be a win-win.[/quote]

I have a slightly negative or less optimistic view on that.
More productivity or abundance means the more dilution of individual labor hence the less per-unit value an individual worker will have for the top 1% which in turn means the 1% will have means to exert more control.
For example, look at what ERP did to finance teams in companies.

[livinincali]

[quote=dumbrenter]
I will stick my neck out for this prediction: Nobody will be able to stop the coming wave of massive increase in production. The consequences of that are the ones which are hard to predict.[/quote]

You do realize that a massive increase in production will require a massive increase in energy production. Tell me where we’re building a massive increase in low cost energy production for this country? Where’s the thorium nuclear research. Where’s the permits for the nuclear power plants. I guess we better hope for a miracle in the fusion nuclear space because solar and wind probably aren’t going to be enough. Efficiency improvements can only go so far and even they can be rather expensive to implement.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=dumbrenter][quote=flyer]From what I’ve read, although many of us late boomers do plan to leave substantial wealth to our kids, the highly discussed “wealth transfer” when broken down, will be concentrated at the top, and will only amount to a few thousand for most as it filters down. Here’s one interesting article on that topic:

http://www.barrons.com/articles/boomers-spend-their-kids-inheritance-on-supporting-them-1435313494
[/quote]

With more money flowing out of 401Ks than coming in, what do you think it will do to the funds & the fund managers? More importantly, what will it do for folks who are still putting money in hoping to get tax free gain in say, 30 years from now?
I think the fund fees will go higher since we have smaller number people contributing lower amounts to support the lifestyle of the fund managers.[/quote]

I saw this article as well. I don’t understand why the article insinuates that there isn’t enough active worker-bees today who are putting away $$ for retirement to offset the boomers and beyond who are now removing money from their retirement funds.

Of course, many boomers are helping their Gen Y kids. Especially if they have a straggling kid or two (whom they had later in life) who is still in college. IIRC, flyer’s kids (who don’t reside in SD County) already had paid-off homes in SD which they could sell for a downpayment to buy elsewhere and also had an older family benefactor who provided their college funds. However, the vast majority of families do not have this set-up in place.

I don’t mind helping my kid thru college (essentially just room and board for 4 years). But I myself would be reluctant to financially help my kid if they foolishly trashed their own credit, were addicted to drugs, alcohol or gambling or kept having children without any means to support them. That is, helping them beyond getting them into rehab or directing them to the proper social service agencies and possibly helping them set up appts. And I wouldn’t help them to live above my own means if they couldn’t otherwise afford it.

A lot of us boomers sacrificed our own wants and needs for our children for at least two decades (while they were age 0-22 or so (thru K-12 and often college as well) and we have needs, too. Maybe some of us are willing to take care of grandchildren FT for years for free but I don’t feel like I owe the rest of my life to my kids. And I certainly wouldn’t give them money which would cause ME to go under at a later date, when I am older and more vulnerable to living in poverty.

I feels those boomers who were interviewed for the Barrons article who are giving to their kids to such as extent that it is jeopardizing their own retirement are fools. Their kids (whom they gave a gift of a downpayment on a house, for example), aren’t likely going to have the time, money or inclination to help their parent-benefactor out financially or take them in if they should fall on hard times (or ill health) as a senior citizen.

No one gifted ME any downpayments for a house or even offered to help with my college expenses when I was young and I managed to go thru life paying all my own bills. I expect the same of my kids. If that means living within their means, so be it. That’s life.

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=flyer]From what I’ve read, although many of us late boomers do plan to leave substantial wealth to our kids, the highly discussed “wealth transfer” when broken down, will be concentrated at the top, and will only amount to a few thousand for most as it filters down. Here’s one interesting article on that topic:

http://www.barrons.com/articles/boomers-spend-their-kids-inheritance-on-supporting-them-1435313494%5B/quote%5D

I think Barrons assumes millennials will never grow up and never get good paying Jobs etc… Seems very familiar to what they were saying about the boomers in the late 70′ early 80’s.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=dumbrenter][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=The-Shoveler]The age of abundance.[/quote]

I agree. But that works only is if we find a way of spreading the abundance. No matter how cheap the goods are, people who have no jobs and no income cannot buy them.
More leisure jobs and spending would be a win-win.[/quote]

I have a slightly negative or less optimistic view on that.
More productivity or abundance means the more dilution of individual labor hence the less per-unit value an individual worker will have for the top 1% which in turn means the 1% will have means to exert more control.
For example, look at what ERP did to finance teams in companies.[/quote]

You’re assuming the social system won’t change.
In America, there be will change because angry white men with guns and no jobs will demand change. That will give new meaning to spreading the wealth.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=dumbrenter]
I will stick my neck out for this prediction: Nobody will be able to stop the coming wave of massive increase in production. The consequences of that are the ones which are hard to predict.[/quote]

You do realize that a massive increase in production will require a massive increase in energy production. Tell me where we’re building a massive increase in low cost energy production for this country? Where’s the thorium nuclear research. Where’s the permits for the nuclear power plants. I guess we better hope for a miracle in the fusion nuclear space because solar and wind probably aren’t going to be enough. Efficiency improvements can only go so far and even they can be rather expensive to implement.[/quote]

A decent net metering scheme plus some improvements in storage technology (energy, that is) plus a breakthru or two in fuel cell or bacterial methods of energy generation might get us there. …ok, I’ll stop here before I go too far into the dreamland!

Agreed that energy efficiency can only go so far, but increase in productivity need not be linearly related to consumption of energy. I give you the examples of TSMC or even INTC for that matter.

[no_such_reality]

Net metering dies this year for new installs. The real cost of providing energy, much like water, isn’t the cost of the energy, it’s really the cost of maintaining that ubiquitous delivery network.

Installing batteries for storage and solar panels really aren’t a set it and forget proposition either.

[spdrun]

That’s why we need a global power grid if solar is to really take off. Buy power from North Africa or Australia if the sun is not shining here.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]That’s why we need a global power grid if solar is to really take off. Buy power from North Africa or Australia if the sun is not shining here.[/quote]

Do you have any idea how much power would be lost in a transmission line from here to Australia or North Africa. Probably 30% if not more.

[The-Shoveler]

You should see how DWP gets power from Washington state.

They use 1 DC line with the Ocean acting as a return.

Very efficient from what I understand.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=dumbrenter][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=The-Shoveler]The age of abundance.[/quote]

I agree. But that works only is if we find a way of spreading the abundance. No matter how cheap the goods are, people who have no jobs and no income cannot buy them.
More leisure jobs and spending would be a win-win.[/quote]

I have a slightly negative or less optimistic view on that.
More productivity or abundance means the more dilution of individual labor hence the less per-unit value an individual worker will have for the top 1% which in turn means the 1% will have means to exert more control.
For example, look at what ERP did to finance teams in companies.[/quote]

You’re assuming the social system won’t change.
In America, there be will change because angry white men with guns and no jobs will demand change. That will give new meaning to spreading the wealth.[/quote]

This could be one of the consequences.
But is there a historical example for this? I’m thinking tea party is NOT what you had in mind as an example!

[Author]

Posts