OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]Like I’ve suggested before…I’m sure most public workers would be happy to roll back their compensation to 1995 levels. But in order for them to maintain their ~1995 purchasing power, we’d have to see asset prices fall to 1995 levels. That means “the rich” would take some pretty significant losses. Not only that, but we should restore ~1995 tax rates in order to correct all the imbalances as well.

In other words, let’s ALL go back to ~1995 levels.

Would you agree to those terms?[/quote]

Well, how about we use 1998 just because I have the stats at my fingertips (and there was no meaningful Bubble Action between 1995 and 1998, so this shouldn’t make a big difference).

The CPI has increased by 2.4% since 1998. The S&P 500 has returned 4.1% (nominal) annually since January 1998. So, where stocks are concerned – a pretty big asset of “The Rich,” I think you’d agree – going back to 1998 wouldn’t be a huge drop from here (in fact, it would be about a 22% decline from current levels – which would be healthy, frankly). But I think you’d agree that this 1.7% annualized real return for The Rich from stocks is nothing to brag about (but certainly better than nothing).

Rents have increased by 3.6% (nominal) annually since 1998, or 1.2% greater than the overall inflation rate. U.S. housing – not adjusted for increased average size – appears to be about 13% higher in real terms (see graph below) than it was in 1998, but two caveats: (1) again, the average home is larger today, which isn’t captured in the graph, and (2) as one of Rich’s graphs (House Payment-to-Income Ratio) illustrates, the actual cost of ownership (here in SD) is lower today than it was in 1998 (and well below 1995 levels).

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housingbubble/

So, when you say, “Let’s ALL go back to ~1995 levels,” I don’t think we’re that far off in real terms (yes, I’ve used 1998 as my base year).

So, I don’t think most public workers’ purchasing power is too far off of mid- to late-90s levels, but I’ll grant you that it probably hasn’t improved much over the last 13+ years. But, recall, that wasn’t your argument… you said they’d be happy roll back to that level of purchasing power parity, and I think they’re very close to being there now. They just don’t like the fact that it hasn’t gotten any better. (And a lot of these folks have probably gotten into debt keeping up with the Joneses over the last many years – that is, it *feels* like they’re struggling more – and that’s not the taxpayers’ fault.) But that’s a separate argument. An argument could be made that with the stability of a government job comes little in the way of real (as opposed to nominal) wage gains. I’m just sayin’…[/quote]

So, there was “no meaningful Bubble Action between 1995 and 1998”? What about the stock/internet bubble?

http://www.nyse.tv/djia-chart-history.htm

You mention stocks, as if that’s all that the wealthy own. How about bonds, gold, real estate (foreign and domestic — HUGE run-ups in foreign RE this past 10-15 years), foreign currencies, commodities, foreign stocks, etc.? THAT is where much of the wealth belonging to “The Rich” has been going this past 10-15 years. I’m quite sure the return has been a tad over the 1.7% annualized real return you quoted for the stock market.

http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2007/07/09/historical-financial-charts-are-you-invested-in-these-markets/

So, let’s go back to 1995 levels. EVERYONE gives up all gains made in wealth and income since then, and all asset prices (not just stocks, but **everything** people own today) go to 1995 levels. How well do you think that would go over with “The Rich”?

See, that’s the problem. In order for The Rich to keep their gains, somebody else has to lose. The union members understand who their opponents are, and it’s NOT Joe Sixpack who’s been brainwashed into thinking he’s one of “The Rich.” The unions are not going to back down on this, nor should they. At least they’ve **earned** their income over the years, unlike “The Rich.”

——————

Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it’s not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few. Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 7% during the Clinton presidency and 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]CAR: Thanks for re-posting your write-up. Its well thought out and I like the fact that you spread the pain equally (cutbacks and taxes). I can remember my dad thundering on about Prop. 13 as a kid, and I think you’re exactly right as to how fix that particular problem (and it is a huge one).

The overall problem, as I see it, is this: California is gridlocked between a large Dem base and a vociferous GOP “insurgency”. Due to gerrymandering, both sides are ideologically reactionary, and thus unable to meet in the middle (i.e. agree to spread the pain) to fix the problems.

Regarding your #4 (illegal immigration): These are good ideas and they could be implemented and they would show results. The problem? Immigration is a political “third rail” type issue. The Dems sure as shit don’t want to touch this, and largely because Hispanics comprise a large (and growing) voting bloc for the Democratic Party. I think its safe to say that everyone in California knows about the issues tied to illegal immigration, but no one wants to fix it. So, the Dems will hammer away on raising taxes (which the Republicans will fight tooth and claw), which would “solve” the problem, in the sense that increased tax revenues would help cover some of the expenses related to illegal immigration, as well as support their constituents on the public union side. The GOP would then go to war on this issue, meanwhile screaming about cuts (which ARE necessary), and the Dems would go to the wall in opposition to those cuts. We’re then back to square one, wherein no one does shit and the circus continues.

I’ll also admit to a bias here: I loathe unions. I’m forced to work with them on a daily basis, and they add nothing but unnecessary costs and heartache to my projects. I have to pay a premium (which I refer to as an “asshole tax”) to use union workers on certain projects and I have no choice but to employ them. On average, I spend about 2x as much on union workers, and I generally get a poorer result in terms of quality and time- and cost-effectiveness.

I also own/run a business in California and, if not for our relationship with UCSD, I’d be in Nevada, Arizona or Texas in a heartbeat. California has become an intensely anti-business state. We can still innovate with the best of them (hence our relationship with UCSD), but this state is doing its level best to drive employment out.

The only way I see us not driving this thing off a cliff, is for both sides, GOP and Dem, to figure out how to meet in the middle and equally spread the pain. Sadly, I really don’t see that happening.[/quote]

Thank you for your response, Allan.

Believe it or not, I’ve had issues with union members, too. However, having worked in both public and private sectors, based on my personal experiences, the union members tended to be more highly educated and more experienced than their private sector peers (this is true in education, for instance).

I used to know a lot of journeyman carpenters and iron workers in my youth, and you just can’t compare the quality of their work with the quality of work provided by today’s “non-unionized” workers. I think you know this as well. When you consider the fact that, in the mid-late 1980s, they were making 2-3 times (NOMINAL) what today’s workers are making, one has to wonder where the savings has gone? Buildings certainly aren’t any cheaper today than they were then, and the quality of union work is far superior to that of non-union workers.

While the profit margins of the corporations (and executive compensation) have gone up rather significantly, Joe Sixpack’s wages have been stagnant or declining. IMHO, that’s a problem that’s not going away, and it’s beginning to create social instability. I believe that gross wage/income inequality breeds serious problems. I don’t see any entities (with any political power) other than unions who are willing to discuss this. Why are we, as a country, not addressing this issue instead of bashing unions?

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]CAR: Thanks for re-posting your write-up. Its well thought out and I like the fact that you spread the pain equally (cutbacks and taxes). I can remember my dad thundering on about Prop. 13 as a kid, and I think you’re exactly right as to how fix that particular problem (and it is a huge one).

The overall problem, as I see it, is this: California is gridlocked between a large Dem base and a vociferous GOP “insurgency”. Due to gerrymandering, both sides are ideologically reactionary, and thus unable to meet in the middle (i.e. agree to spread the pain) to fix the problems.

Regarding your #4 (illegal immigration): These are good ideas and they could be implemented and they would show results. The problem? Immigration is a political “third rail” type issue. The Dems sure as shit don’t want to touch this, and largely because Hispanics comprise a large (and growing) voting bloc for the Democratic Party. I think its safe to say that everyone in California knows about the issues tied to illegal immigration, but no one wants to fix it. So, the Dems will hammer away on raising taxes (which the Republicans will fight tooth and claw), which would “solve” the problem, in the sense that increased tax revenues would help cover some of the expenses related to illegal immigration, as well as support their constituents on the public union side. The GOP would then go to war on this issue, meanwhile screaming about cuts (which ARE necessary), and the Dems would go to the wall in opposition to those cuts. We’re then back to square one, wherein no one does shit and the circus continues.

I’ll also admit to a bias here: I loathe unions. I’m forced to work with them on a daily basis, and they add nothing but unnecessary costs and heartache to my projects. I have to pay a premium (which I refer to as an “asshole tax”) to use union workers on certain projects and I have no choice but to employ them. On average, I spend about 2x as much on union workers, and I generally get a poorer result in terms of quality and time- and cost-effectiveness.

I also own/run a business in California and, if not for our relationship with UCSD, I’d be in Nevada, Arizona or Texas in a heartbeat. California has become an intensely anti-business state. We can still innovate with the best of them (hence our relationship with UCSD), but this state is doing its level best to drive employment out.

The only way I see us not driving this thing off a cliff, is for both sides, GOP and Dem, to figure out how to meet in the middle and equally spread the pain. Sadly, I really don’t see that happening.[/quote]

Thank you for your response, Allan.

Believe it or not, I’ve had issues with union members, too. However, having worked in both public and private sectors, based on my personal experiences, the union members tended to be more highly educated and more experienced than their private sector peers (this is true in education, for instance).

I used to know a lot of journeyman carpenters and iron workers in my youth, and you just can’t compare the quality of their work with the quality of work provided by today’s “non-unionized” workers. I think you know this as well. When you consider the fact that, in the mid-late 1980s, they were making 2-3 times (NOMINAL) what today’s workers are making, one has to wonder where the savings has gone? Buildings certainly aren’t any cheaper today than they were then, and the quality of union work is far superior to that of non-union workers.

While the profit margins of the corporations (and executive compensation) have gone up rather significantly, Joe Sixpack’s wages have been stagnant or declining. IMHO, that’s a problem that’s not going away, and it’s beginning to create social instability. I believe that gross wage/income inequality breeds serious problems. I don’t see any entities (with any political power) other than unions who are willing to discuss this. Why are we, as a country, not addressing this issue instead of bashing unions?

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]CAR: Thanks for re-posting your write-up. Its well thought out and I like the fact that you spread the pain equally (cutbacks and taxes). I can remember my dad thundering on about Prop. 13 as a kid, and I think you’re exactly right as to how fix that particular problem (and it is a huge one).

The overall problem, as I see it, is this: California is gridlocked between a large Dem base and a vociferous GOP “insurgency”. Due to gerrymandering, both sides are ideologically reactionary, and thus unable to meet in the middle (i.e. agree to spread the pain) to fix the problems.

Regarding your #4 (illegal immigration): These are good ideas and they could be implemented and they would show results. The problem? Immigration is a political “third rail” type issue. The Dems sure as shit don’t want to touch this, and largely because Hispanics comprise a large (and growing) voting bloc for the Democratic Party. I think its safe to say that everyone in California knows about the issues tied to illegal immigration, but no one wants to fix it. So, the Dems will hammer away on raising taxes (which the Republicans will fight tooth and claw), which would “solve” the problem, in the sense that increased tax revenues would help cover some of the expenses related to illegal immigration, as well as support their constituents on the public union side. The GOP would then go to war on this issue, meanwhile screaming about cuts (which ARE necessary), and the Dems would go to the wall in opposition to those cuts. We’re then back to square one, wherein no one does shit and the circus continues.

I’ll also admit to a bias here: I loathe unions. I’m forced to work with them on a daily basis, and they add nothing but unnecessary costs and heartache to my projects. I have to pay a premium (which I refer to as an “asshole tax”) to use union workers on certain projects and I have no choice but to employ them. On average, I spend about 2x as much on union workers, and I generally get a poorer result in terms of quality and time- and cost-effectiveness.

I also own/run a business in California and, if not for our relationship with UCSD, I’d be in Nevada, Arizona or Texas in a heartbeat. California has become an intensely anti-business state. We can still innovate with the best of them (hence our relationship with UCSD), but this state is doing its level best to drive employment out.

The only way I see us not driving this thing off a cliff, is for both sides, GOP and Dem, to figure out how to meet in the middle and equally spread the pain. Sadly, I really don’t see that happening.[/quote]

Thank you for your response, Allan.

Believe it or not, I’ve had issues with union members, too. However, having worked in both public and private sectors, based on my personal experiences, the union members tended to be more highly educated and more experienced than their private sector peers (this is true in education, for instance).

I used to know a lot of journeyman carpenters and iron workers in my youth, and you just can’t compare the quality of their work with the quality of work provided by today’s “non-unionized” workers. I think you know this as well. When you consider the fact that, in the mid-late 1980s, they were making 2-3 times (NOMINAL) what today’s workers are making, one has to wonder where the savings has gone? Buildings certainly aren’t any cheaper today than they were then, and the quality of union work is far superior to that of non-union workers.

While the profit margins of the corporations (and executive compensation) have gone up rather significantly, Joe Sixpack’s wages have been stagnant or declining. IMHO, that’s a problem that’s not going away, and it’s beginning to create social instability. I believe that gross wage/income inequality breeds serious problems. I don’t see any entities (with any political power) other than unions who are willing to discuss this. Why are we, as a country, not addressing this issue instead of bashing unions?

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]CAR: Thanks for re-posting your write-up. Its well thought out and I like the fact that you spread the pain equally (cutbacks and taxes). I can remember my dad thundering on about Prop. 13 as a kid, and I think you’re exactly right as to how fix that particular problem (and it is a huge one).

The overall problem, as I see it, is this: California is gridlocked between a large Dem base and a vociferous GOP “insurgency”. Due to gerrymandering, both sides are ideologically reactionary, and thus unable to meet in the middle (i.e. agree to spread the pain) to fix the problems.

Regarding your #4 (illegal immigration): These are good ideas and they could be implemented and they would show results. The problem? Immigration is a political “third rail” type issue. The Dems sure as shit don’t want to touch this, and largely because Hispanics comprise a large (and growing) voting bloc for the Democratic Party. I think its safe to say that everyone in California knows about the issues tied to illegal immigration, but no one wants to fix it. So, the Dems will hammer away on raising taxes (which the Republicans will fight tooth and claw), which would “solve” the problem, in the sense that increased tax revenues would help cover some of the expenses related to illegal immigration, as well as support their constituents on the public union side. The GOP would then go to war on this issue, meanwhile screaming about cuts (which ARE necessary), and the Dems would go to the wall in opposition to those cuts. We’re then back to square one, wherein no one does shit and the circus continues.

I’ll also admit to a bias here: I loathe unions. I’m forced to work with them on a daily basis, and they add nothing but unnecessary costs and heartache to my projects. I have to pay a premium (which I refer to as an “asshole tax”) to use union workers on certain projects and I have no choice but to employ them. On average, I spend about 2x as much on union workers, and I generally get a poorer result in terms of quality and time- and cost-effectiveness.

I also own/run a business in California and, if not for our relationship with UCSD, I’d be in Nevada, Arizona or Texas in a heartbeat. California has become an intensely anti-business state. We can still innovate with the best of them (hence our relationship with UCSD), but this state is doing its level best to drive employment out.

The only way I see us not driving this thing off a cliff, is for both sides, GOP and Dem, to figure out how to meet in the middle and equally spread the pain. Sadly, I really don’t see that happening.[/quote]

Thank you for your response, Allan.

Believe it or not, I’ve had issues with union members, too. However, having worked in both public and private sectors, based on my personal experiences, the union members tended to be more highly educated and more experienced than their private sector peers (this is true in education, for instance).

I used to know a lot of journeyman carpenters and iron workers in my youth, and you just can’t compare the quality of their work with the quality of work provided by today’s “non-unionized” workers. I think you know this as well. When you consider the fact that, in the mid-late 1980s, they were making 2-3 times (NOMINAL) what today’s workers are making, one has to wonder where the savings has gone? Buildings certainly aren’t any cheaper today than they were then, and the quality of union work is far superior to that of non-union workers.

While the profit margins of the corporations (and executive compensation) have gone up rather significantly, Joe Sixpack’s wages have been stagnant or declining. IMHO, that’s a problem that’s not going away, and it’s beginning to create social instability. I believe that gross wage/income inequality breeds serious problems. I don’t see any entities (with any political power) other than unions who are willing to discuss this. Why are we, as a country, not addressing this issue instead of bashing unions?

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]CAR: Thanks for re-posting your write-up. Its well thought out and I like the fact that you spread the pain equally (cutbacks and taxes). I can remember my dad thundering on about Prop. 13 as a kid, and I think you’re exactly right as to how fix that particular problem (and it is a huge one).

The overall problem, as I see it, is this: California is gridlocked between a large Dem base and a vociferous GOP “insurgency”. Due to gerrymandering, both sides are ideologically reactionary, and thus unable to meet in the middle (i.e. agree to spread the pain) to fix the problems.

Regarding your #4 (illegal immigration): These are good ideas and they could be implemented and they would show results. The problem? Immigration is a political “third rail” type issue. The Dems sure as shit don’t want to touch this, and largely because Hispanics comprise a large (and growing) voting bloc for the Democratic Party. I think its safe to say that everyone in California knows about the issues tied to illegal immigration, but no one wants to fix it. So, the Dems will hammer away on raising taxes (which the Republicans will fight tooth and claw), which would “solve” the problem, in the sense that increased tax revenues would help cover some of the expenses related to illegal immigration, as well as support their constituents on the public union side. The GOP would then go to war on this issue, meanwhile screaming about cuts (which ARE necessary), and the Dems would go to the wall in opposition to those cuts. We’re then back to square one, wherein no one does shit and the circus continues.

I’ll also admit to a bias here: I loathe unions. I’m forced to work with them on a daily basis, and they add nothing but unnecessary costs and heartache to my projects. I have to pay a premium (which I refer to as an “asshole tax”) to use union workers on certain projects and I have no choice but to employ them. On average, I spend about 2x as much on union workers, and I generally get a poorer result in terms of quality and time- and cost-effectiveness.

I also own/run a business in California and, if not for our relationship with UCSD, I’d be in Nevada, Arizona or Texas in a heartbeat. California has become an intensely anti-business state. We can still innovate with the best of them (hence our relationship with UCSD), but this state is doing its level best to drive employment out.

The only way I see us not driving this thing off a cliff, is for both sides, GOP and Dem, to figure out how to meet in the middle and equally spread the pain. Sadly, I really don’t see that happening.[/quote]

Thank you for your response, Allan.

Believe it or not, I’ve had issues with union members, too. However, having worked in both public and private sectors, based on my personal experiences, the union members tended to be more highly educated and more experienced than their private sector peers (this is true in education, for instance).

I used to know a lot of journeyman carpenters and iron workers in my youth, and you just can’t compare the quality of their work with the quality of work provided by today’s “non-unionized” workers. I think you know this as well. When you consider the fact that, in the mid-late 1980s, they were making 2-3 times (NOMINAL) what today’s workers are making, one has to wonder where the savings has gone? Buildings certainly aren’t any cheaper today than they were then, and the quality of union work is far superior to that of non-union workers.

While the profit margins of the corporations (and executive compensation) have gone up rather significantly, Joe Sixpack’s wages have been stagnant or declining. IMHO, that’s a problem that’s not going away, and it’s beginning to create social instability. I believe that gross wage/income inequality breeds serious problems. I don’t see any entities (with any political power) other than unions who are willing to discuss this. Why are we, as a country, not addressing this issue instead of bashing unions?

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]That’s pretty much it, bearishgurl. There’s not much we can do about the immigrants already here. They are us and we need to treat them that way.

We could cry all we want about what might have been and what could be; but the reality is that we’ve got to make do with what we have.

What could be is for the future. We should be most concerned with what can be fiscally achieved right now.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here[/quote]

That would mean commensurate layoffs of teachers, police officers, prison guards, etc…[/quote]

Yes, exactly. I’m not at all suggesting that cuts don’t need to be made. They do. Some people will experience layoffs, and the rest would experience reduced wages and benefits.

As for the immigration issue, there is no reason at all to force taxpayers to subsidize the profits of employers who hire illegal immigrants. Let them hire them, but let them pay for it, too. How is that not fair or just?

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]That’s pretty much it, bearishgurl. There’s not much we can do about the immigrants already here. They are us and we need to treat them that way.

We could cry all we want about what might have been and what could be; but the reality is that we’ve got to make do with what we have.

What could be is for the future. We should be most concerned with what can be fiscally achieved right now.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here[/quote]

That would mean commensurate layoffs of teachers, police officers, prison guards, etc…[/quote]

Yes, exactly. I’m not at all suggesting that cuts don’t need to be made. They do. Some people will experience layoffs, and the rest would experience reduced wages and benefits.

As for the immigration issue, there is no reason at all to force taxpayers to subsidize the profits of employers who hire illegal immigrants. Let them hire them, but let them pay for it, too. How is that not fair or just?

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]That’s pretty much it, bearishgurl. There’s not much we can do about the immigrants already here. They are us and we need to treat them that way.

We could cry all we want about what might have been and what could be; but the reality is that we’ve got to make do with what we have.

What could be is for the future. We should be most concerned with what can be fiscally achieved right now.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here[/quote]

That would mean commensurate layoffs of teachers, police officers, prison guards, etc…[/quote]

Yes, exactly. I’m not at all suggesting that cuts don’t need to be made. They do. Some people will experience layoffs, and the rest would experience reduced wages and benefits.

As for the immigration issue, there is no reason at all to force taxpayers to subsidize the profits of employers who hire illegal immigrants. Let them hire them, but let them pay for it, too. How is that not fair or just?

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]That’s pretty much it, bearishgurl. There’s not much we can do about the immigrants already here. They are us and we need to treat them that way.

We could cry all we want about what might have been and what could be; but the reality is that we’ve got to make do with what we have.

What could be is for the future. We should be most concerned with what can be fiscally achieved right now.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here[/quote]

That would mean commensurate layoffs of teachers, police officers, prison guards, etc…[/quote]

Yes, exactly. I’m not at all suggesting that cuts don’t need to be made. They do. Some people will experience layoffs, and the rest would experience reduced wages and benefits.

As for the immigration issue, there is no reason at all to force taxpayers to subsidize the profits of employers who hire illegal immigrants. Let them hire them, but let them pay for it, too. How is that not fair or just?

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]That’s pretty much it, bearishgurl. There’s not much we can do about the immigrants already here. They are us and we need to treat them that way.

We could cry all we want about what might have been and what could be; but the reality is that we’ve got to make do with what we have.

What could be is for the future. We should be most concerned with what can be fiscally achieved right now.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here[/quote]

That would mean commensurate layoffs of teachers, police officers, prison guards, etc…[/quote]

Yes, exactly. I’m not at all suggesting that cuts don’t need to be made. They do. Some people will experience layoffs, and the rest would experience reduced wages and benefits.

As for the immigration issue, there is no reason at all to force taxpayers to subsidize the profits of employers who hire illegal immigrants. Let them hire them, but let them pay for it, too. How is that not fair or just?

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

So, there was “no meaningful Bubble Action between 1995 and 1998”? What about the stock/internet bubble?[/quote]

Ok, going back to 1995, the S&P 500 is up 6.8% annualized including dividends (about 2.5%). So, that’s about 4% real return, and 3% real after taxing the dividends. Don’t get me wrong, 3% real after-tax is much better than nothing. But, again, it’s nothing to write home about in absolute or historical terms where the stock market is concerned (and barely worth the risk involved).

[quote=CA renter]
You mention stocks, as if that’s all that the wealthy own. How about bonds, gold, real estate (foreign and domestic — HUGE run-ups in foreign RE this past 10-15 years), foreign currencies, commodities, foreign stocks, etc.? THAT is where much of the wealth belonging to “The Rich” has been going this past 10-15 years. I’m quite sure the return has been a tad over the 1.7% annualized real return you quoted for the stock market.
[/quote]

Commodities aren’t heavily owned by the Rich (or any one particular group, for that matter, except for farmers and commodity producers), although clearly they have some exposure. But, 90% of the wealth is in cash (where there is no real after-tax return – it’s zero by design), stocks (covered that above), bonds (about 1.5% real after-tax return over the last 15 years), and real estate. We covered residential, so that leaves CRE. The fact is that CRE values are up from 1995, but the annual appreciation is quite low after the recent 40%+ decline. So, the return has been from CASH FLOW… which brings me to my larger point: While the primary assets of the Rich have increased fairly modestly in value over the last 15 years in real terms… it’s the CASH FLOW that increased enormously over that time. Whether as an executive getting paid a lot of money, a financial services professional getting paid a lot of money, or a CRE investor getting cashflow from properties… it’s the CASH generation that’s really made the Rich richer over the last 15 years. Again, I’m not saying that assets haven’t played a role, but it’s been modest in the whole scheme of things – the CASH is what’s played the major role. And that cash flow has grown at a rate much greater than that of Joe Sixpack and what has fueled much of the growing inequality.

Now, in 2006 – prior to the stock and property bubbles bursting – your argument would have been much stronger. But post-correction, it’s the cash that’s played the major culprit. Although if we get another bubble (or bubbles) then you’ll be able to make the charge against asset inflation again. But my suspicion is that stocks and real estate are in for low returns for quite some time.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

So, there was “no meaningful Bubble Action between 1995 and 1998”? What about the stock/internet bubble?[/quote]

Ok, going back to 1995, the S&P 500 is up 6.8% annualized including dividends (about 2.5%). So, that’s about 4% real return, and 3% real after taxing the dividends. Don’t get me wrong, 3% real after-tax is much better than nothing. But, again, it’s nothing to write home about in absolute or historical terms where the stock market is concerned (and barely worth the risk involved).

[quote=CA renter]
You mention stocks, as if that’s all that the wealthy own. How about bonds, gold, real estate (foreign and domestic — HUGE run-ups in foreign RE this past 10-15 years), foreign currencies, commodities, foreign stocks, etc.? THAT is where much of the wealth belonging to “The Rich” has been going this past 10-15 years. I’m quite sure the return has been a tad over the 1.7% annualized real return you quoted for the stock market.
[/quote]

Commodities aren’t heavily owned by the Rich (or any one particular group, for that matter, except for farmers and commodity producers), although clearly they have some exposure. But, 90% of the wealth is in cash (where there is no real after-tax return – it’s zero by design), stocks (covered that above), bonds (about 1.5% real after-tax return over the last 15 years), and real estate. We covered residential, so that leaves CRE. The fact is that CRE values are up from 1995, but the annual appreciation is quite low after the recent 40%+ decline. So, the return has been from CASH FLOW… which brings me to my larger point: While the primary assets of the Rich have increased fairly modestly in value over the last 15 years in real terms… it’s the CASH FLOW that increased enormously over that time. Whether as an executive getting paid a lot of money, a financial services professional getting paid a lot of money, or a CRE investor getting cashflow from properties… it’s the CASH generation that’s really made the Rich richer over the last 15 years. Again, I’m not saying that assets haven’t played a role, but it’s been modest in the whole scheme of things – the CASH is what’s played the major role. And that cash flow has grown at a rate much greater than that of Joe Sixpack and what has fueled much of the growing inequality.

Now, in 2006 – prior to the stock and property bubbles bursting – your argument would have been much stronger. But post-correction, it’s the cash that’s played the major culprit. Although if we get another bubble (or bubbles) then you’ll be able to make the charge against asset inflation again. But my suspicion is that stocks and real estate are in for low returns for quite some time.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

So, there was “no meaningful Bubble Action between 1995 and 1998”? What about the stock/internet bubble?[/quote]

Ok, going back to 1995, the S&P 500 is up 6.8% annualized including dividends (about 2.5%). So, that’s about 4% real return, and 3% real after taxing the dividends. Don’t get me wrong, 3% real after-tax is much better than nothing. But, again, it’s nothing to write home about in absolute or historical terms where the stock market is concerned (and barely worth the risk involved).

[quote=CA renter]
You mention stocks, as if that’s all that the wealthy own. How about bonds, gold, real estate (foreign and domestic — HUGE run-ups in foreign RE this past 10-15 years), foreign currencies, commodities, foreign stocks, etc.? THAT is where much of the wealth belonging to “The Rich” has been going this past 10-15 years. I’m quite sure the return has been a tad over the 1.7% annualized real return you quoted for the stock market.
[/quote]

Commodities aren’t heavily owned by the Rich (or any one particular group, for that matter, except for farmers and commodity producers), although clearly they have some exposure. But, 90% of the wealth is in cash (where there is no real after-tax return – it’s zero by design), stocks (covered that above), bonds (about 1.5% real after-tax return over the last 15 years), and real estate. We covered residential, so that leaves CRE. The fact is that CRE values are up from 1995, but the annual appreciation is quite low after the recent 40%+ decline. So, the return has been from CASH FLOW… which brings me to my larger point: While the primary assets of the Rich have increased fairly modestly in value over the last 15 years in real terms… it’s the CASH FLOW that increased enormously over that time. Whether as an executive getting paid a lot of money, a financial services professional getting paid a lot of money, or a CRE investor getting cashflow from properties… it’s the CASH generation that’s really made the Rich richer over the last 15 years. Again, I’m not saying that assets haven’t played a role, but it’s been modest in the whole scheme of things – the CASH is what’s played the major role. And that cash flow has grown at a rate much greater than that of Joe Sixpack and what has fueled much of the growing inequality.

Now, in 2006 – prior to the stock and property bubbles bursting – your argument would have been much stronger. But post-correction, it’s the cash that’s played the major culprit. Although if we get another bubble (or bubbles) then you’ll be able to make the charge against asset inflation again. But my suspicion is that stocks and real estate are in for low returns for quite some time.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

So, there was “no meaningful Bubble Action between 1995 and 1998”? What about the stock/internet bubble?[/quote]

Ok, going back to 1995, the S&P 500 is up 6.8% annualized including dividends (about 2.5%). So, that’s about 4% real return, and 3% real after taxing the dividends. Don’t get me wrong, 3% real after-tax is much better than nothing. But, again, it’s nothing to write home about in absolute or historical terms where the stock market is concerned (and barely worth the risk involved).

[quote=CA renter]
You mention stocks, as if that’s all that the wealthy own. How about bonds, gold, real estate (foreign and domestic — HUGE run-ups in foreign RE this past 10-15 years), foreign currencies, commodities, foreign stocks, etc.? THAT is where much of the wealth belonging to “The Rich” has been going this past 10-15 years. I’m quite sure the return has been a tad over the 1.7% annualized real return you quoted for the stock market.
[/quote]

Commodities aren’t heavily owned by the Rich (or any one particular group, for that matter, except for farmers and commodity producers), although clearly they have some exposure. But, 90% of the wealth is in cash (where there is no real after-tax return – it’s zero by design), stocks (covered that above), bonds (about 1.5% real after-tax return over the last 15 years), and real estate. We covered residential, so that leaves CRE. The fact is that CRE values are up from 1995, but the annual appreciation is quite low after the recent 40%+ decline. So, the return has been from CASH FLOW… which brings me to my larger point: While the primary assets of the Rich have increased fairly modestly in value over the last 15 years in real terms… it’s the CASH FLOW that increased enormously over that time. Whether as an executive getting paid a lot of money, a financial services professional getting paid a lot of money, or a CRE investor getting cashflow from properties… it’s the CASH generation that’s really made the Rich richer over the last 15 years. Again, I’m not saying that assets haven’t played a role, but it’s been modest in the whole scheme of things – the CASH is what’s played the major role. And that cash flow has grown at a rate much greater than that of Joe Sixpack and what has fueled much of the growing inequality.

Now, in 2006 – prior to the stock and property bubbles bursting – your argument would have been much stronger. But post-correction, it’s the cash that’s played the major culprit. Although if we get another bubble (or bubbles) then you’ll be able to make the charge against asset inflation again. But my suspicion is that stocks and real estate are in for low returns for quite some time.

[Author]

Posts