- This topic has 90 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 8 months ago by Eugene.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM #165336March 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM #165349bsrsharmaParticipant
There is another issue that has not been addressed: as the Baby Boomers start to finance their retirement, the equity will start going down further. This has started in 2006 and will continue all the way till 2025. So, net household wealth has nowhere to go but down (with all the implications for consumer spending etc.,) as the mean age of population rises. The years 1946 – 2006 were the rising tide of household wealth; 2006 – 20xx will see the reverse of these changes.
March 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM #165357bsrsharmaParticipantThere is another issue that has not been addressed: as the Baby Boomers start to finance their retirement, the equity will start going down further. This has started in 2006 and will continue all the way till 2025. So, net household wealth has nowhere to go but down (with all the implications for consumer spending etc.,) as the mean age of population rises. The years 1946 – 2006 were the rising tide of household wealth; 2006 – 20xx will see the reverse of these changes.
March 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM #165446bsrsharmaParticipantThere is another issue that has not been addressed: as the Baby Boomers start to finance their retirement, the equity will start going down further. This has started in 2006 and will continue all the way till 2025. So, net household wealth has nowhere to go but down (with all the implications for consumer spending etc.,) as the mean age of population rises. The years 1946 – 2006 were the rising tide of household wealth; 2006 – 20xx will see the reverse of these changes.
March 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM #165341bsrsharmaParticipantThere is another issue that has not been addressed: as the Baby Boomers start to finance their retirement, the equity will start going down further. This has started in 2006 and will continue all the way till 2025. So, net household wealth has nowhere to go but down (with all the implications for consumer spending etc.,) as the mean age of population rises. The years 1946 – 2006 were the rising tide of household wealth; 2006 – 20xx will see the reverse of these changes.
March 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM #165028bsrsharmaParticipantThere is another issue that has not been addressed: as the Baby Boomers start to finance their retirement, the equity will start going down further. This has started in 2006 and will continue all the way till 2025. So, net household wealth has nowhere to go but down (with all the implications for consumer spending etc.,) as the mean age of population rises. The years 1946 – 2006 were the rising tide of household wealth; 2006 – 20xx will see the reverse of these changes.
March 6, 2008 at 12:39 PM #165456SHILOHParticipantAll things considered (ie data) it appears to be chaos.
The gov cannot afford to do either…sit and not intervene, or get involved. In one year since the first reset wave — southern CA alone price drop, to say the problem is enormous without a solution – is an understatement.Babyboomers (the largest group) who have not saved for retirement, who want to use their home equity to live off…will not have disposable income to consume.
And the workforce will shrink –with the tax revenue. I heard last night on the *news* that you must have $250K for medical bills alone in retirement. There was an interview with someone who appeared 50ish talking about the daunting task of saving that much while sending 4 kids to college.
(oh…yeah –and in many foreign countries, college is free).March 6, 2008 at 12:39 PM #165038SHILOHParticipantAll things considered (ie data) it appears to be chaos.
The gov cannot afford to do either…sit and not intervene, or get involved. In one year since the first reset wave — southern CA alone price drop, to say the problem is enormous without a solution – is an understatement.Babyboomers (the largest group) who have not saved for retirement, who want to use their home equity to live off…will not have disposable income to consume.
And the workforce will shrink –with the tax revenue. I heard last night on the *news* that you must have $250K for medical bills alone in retirement. There was an interview with someone who appeared 50ish talking about the daunting task of saving that much while sending 4 kids to college.
(oh…yeah –and in many foreign countries, college is free).March 6, 2008 at 12:39 PM #165367SHILOHParticipantAll things considered (ie data) it appears to be chaos.
The gov cannot afford to do either…sit and not intervene, or get involved. In one year since the first reset wave — southern CA alone price drop, to say the problem is enormous without a solution – is an understatement.Babyboomers (the largest group) who have not saved for retirement, who want to use their home equity to live off…will not have disposable income to consume.
And the workforce will shrink –with the tax revenue. I heard last night on the *news* that you must have $250K for medical bills alone in retirement. There was an interview with someone who appeared 50ish talking about the daunting task of saving that much while sending 4 kids to college.
(oh…yeah –and in many foreign countries, college is free).March 6, 2008 at 12:39 PM #165360SHILOHParticipantAll things considered (ie data) it appears to be chaos.
The gov cannot afford to do either…sit and not intervene, or get involved. In one year since the first reset wave — southern CA alone price drop, to say the problem is enormous without a solution – is an understatement.Babyboomers (the largest group) who have not saved for retirement, who want to use their home equity to live off…will not have disposable income to consume.
And the workforce will shrink –with the tax revenue. I heard last night on the *news* that you must have $250K for medical bills alone in retirement. There was an interview with someone who appeared 50ish talking about the daunting task of saving that much while sending 4 kids to college.
(oh…yeah –and in many foreign countries, college is free).March 6, 2008 at 12:39 PM #165351SHILOHParticipantAll things considered (ie data) it appears to be chaos.
The gov cannot afford to do either…sit and not intervene, or get involved. In one year since the first reset wave — southern CA alone price drop, to say the problem is enormous without a solution – is an understatement.Babyboomers (the largest group) who have not saved for retirement, who want to use their home equity to live off…will not have disposable income to consume.
And the workforce will shrink –with the tax revenue. I heard last night on the *news* that you must have $250K for medical bills alone in retirement. There was an interview with someone who appeared 50ish talking about the daunting task of saving that much while sending 4 kids to college.
(oh…yeah –and in many foreign countries, college is free).March 6, 2008 at 1:20 PM #165043patientlywaitingParticipantThat means a lot. Americans have been borrowing against their houses to buy a standard of living higher than they could afford. Globalization in the form or cheap Chinese and a previously strong currency allowed us to feel flush.
What people forget is that housing was NOT an ATM. That implies cash in your account. Equity loans were credit cards that now need to be paid back.
As a nation, we’ll have to get used to a lower standard of living. We’ll have to sell some of the family jewels to foreigners to stay solvent.
This is the wealth effect in reverse. The poverty effect?
I’m better off than the average person. But I’m feeling pretty depressed about the state of our country right now. That feeling sucks especially if you have to step outside of our borders.
March 6, 2008 at 1:20 PM #165365patientlywaitingParticipantThat means a lot. Americans have been borrowing against their houses to buy a standard of living higher than they could afford. Globalization in the form or cheap Chinese and a previously strong currency allowed us to feel flush.
What people forget is that housing was NOT an ATM. That implies cash in your account. Equity loans were credit cards that now need to be paid back.
As a nation, we’ll have to get used to a lower standard of living. We’ll have to sell some of the family jewels to foreigners to stay solvent.
This is the wealth effect in reverse. The poverty effect?
I’m better off than the average person. But I’m feeling pretty depressed about the state of our country right now. That feeling sucks especially if you have to step outside of our borders.
March 6, 2008 at 1:20 PM #165356patientlywaitingParticipantThat means a lot. Americans have been borrowing against their houses to buy a standard of living higher than they could afford. Globalization in the form or cheap Chinese and a previously strong currency allowed us to feel flush.
What people forget is that housing was NOT an ATM. That implies cash in your account. Equity loans were credit cards that now need to be paid back.
As a nation, we’ll have to get used to a lower standard of living. We’ll have to sell some of the family jewels to foreigners to stay solvent.
This is the wealth effect in reverse. The poverty effect?
I’m better off than the average person. But I’m feeling pretty depressed about the state of our country right now. That feeling sucks especially if you have to step outside of our borders.
March 6, 2008 at 1:20 PM #165371patientlywaitingParticipantThat means a lot. Americans have been borrowing against their houses to buy a standard of living higher than they could afford. Globalization in the form or cheap Chinese and a previously strong currency allowed us to feel flush.
What people forget is that housing was NOT an ATM. That implies cash in your account. Equity loans were credit cards that now need to be paid back.
As a nation, we’ll have to get used to a lower standard of living. We’ll have to sell some of the family jewels to foreigners to stay solvent.
This is the wealth effect in reverse. The poverty effect?
I’m better off than the average person. But I’m feeling pretty depressed about the state of our country right now. That feeling sucks especially if you have to step outside of our borders.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.