Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › Why can I not get a loan?
- This topic has 735 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
davelj.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 22, 2009 at 7:05 AM #333528January 22, 2009 at 7:09 AM #332990
davelj
Participant[quote=CA renter]davelj wrote:
Yeah, a defining characteristic of real smart folks like yourself is that they’re petrified of competition in their labor market to the extent that they’d prefer to unionize rather than pit their own capabilities against those of others in the free market.
—————————You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]
Every study done on the subject suggests that US workers in most unionized manufacturing jobs – just to use a specific sector of the unionized workforce – are measurably more productive than their counterparts in emerging countries. In a competitive context they are more productive and should be paid more. The problem is that they are paid TOO MUCH more – that is, the pay gap isn’t justified by the incremental productivity. If wages were the only thing that mattered there wouldn’t be any manufacturing in the US at all. And yet despite its shrinking portion of total employment, we still have a boatload of manufacturing done here in the US. No, the problem is that too many folks are getting paid $35/hour – just to throw out a number – when $25/hour is the number that keeps their company in business… and their job safe. Those don’t seem like “third-world” wages to me.
But where I, personally, am concerned I’m more than happy to “lead the way,” as you put it. I’m in private equity, so to some extent I already compete with everyone in the world in the work I do. If someone wants to try to outsource my work, I say have at it. It’s literally impossible, of course, because it relies too heavily on relationships, face-to-face interaction, and on-site due diligence. But if someone can figure out a way to do it for less they should absolutely do it. I’m happy to compete with anyone on the planet at whatever wage the market will bear.
January 22, 2009 at 7:09 AM #333324Participant[quote=CA renter]davelj wrote:
Yeah, a defining characteristic of real smart folks like yourself is that they’re petrified of competition in their labor market to the extent that they’d prefer to unionize rather than pit their own capabilities against those of others in the free market.
—————————You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]
Every study done on the subject suggests that US workers in most unionized manufacturing jobs – just to use a specific sector of the unionized workforce – are measurably more productive than their counterparts in emerging countries. In a competitive context they are more productive and should be paid more. The problem is that they are paid TOO MUCH more – that is, the pay gap isn’t justified by the incremental productivity. If wages were the only thing that mattered there wouldn’t be any manufacturing in the US at all. And yet despite its shrinking portion of total employment, we still have a boatload of manufacturing done here in the US. No, the problem is that too many folks are getting paid $35/hour – just to throw out a number – when $25/hour is the number that keeps their company in business… and their job safe. Those don’t seem like “third-world” wages to me.
But where I, personally, am concerned I’m more than happy to “lead the way,” as you put it. I’m in private equity, so to some extent I already compete with everyone in the world in the work I do. If someone wants to try to outsource my work, I say have at it. It’s literally impossible, of course, because it relies too heavily on relationships, face-to-face interaction, and on-site due diligence. But if someone can figure out a way to do it for less they should absolutely do it. I’m happy to compete with anyone on the planet at whatever wage the market will bear.
January 22, 2009 at 7:09 AM #333407Participant[quote=CA renter]davelj wrote:
Yeah, a defining characteristic of real smart folks like yourself is that they’re petrified of competition in their labor market to the extent that they’d prefer to unionize rather than pit their own capabilities against those of others in the free market.
—————————You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]
Every study done on the subject suggests that US workers in most unionized manufacturing jobs – just to use a specific sector of the unionized workforce – are measurably more productive than their counterparts in emerging countries. In a competitive context they are more productive and should be paid more. The problem is that they are paid TOO MUCH more – that is, the pay gap isn’t justified by the incremental productivity. If wages were the only thing that mattered there wouldn’t be any manufacturing in the US at all. And yet despite its shrinking portion of total employment, we still have a boatload of manufacturing done here in the US. No, the problem is that too many folks are getting paid $35/hour – just to throw out a number – when $25/hour is the number that keeps their company in business… and their job safe. Those don’t seem like “third-world” wages to me.
But where I, personally, am concerned I’m more than happy to “lead the way,” as you put it. I’m in private equity, so to some extent I already compete with everyone in the world in the work I do. If someone wants to try to outsource my work, I say have at it. It’s literally impossible, of course, because it relies too heavily on relationships, face-to-face interaction, and on-site due diligence. But if someone can figure out a way to do it for less they should absolutely do it. I’m happy to compete with anyone on the planet at whatever wage the market will bear.
January 22, 2009 at 7:09 AM #333434Participant[quote=CA renter]davelj wrote:
Yeah, a defining characteristic of real smart folks like yourself is that they’re petrified of competition in their labor market to the extent that they’d prefer to unionize rather than pit their own capabilities against those of others in the free market.
—————————You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]
Every study done on the subject suggests that US workers in most unionized manufacturing jobs – just to use a specific sector of the unionized workforce – are measurably more productive than their counterparts in emerging countries. In a competitive context they are more productive and should be paid more. The problem is that they are paid TOO MUCH more – that is, the pay gap isn’t justified by the incremental productivity. If wages were the only thing that mattered there wouldn’t be any manufacturing in the US at all. And yet despite its shrinking portion of total employment, we still have a boatload of manufacturing done here in the US. No, the problem is that too many folks are getting paid $35/hour – just to throw out a number – when $25/hour is the number that keeps their company in business… and their job safe. Those don’t seem like “third-world” wages to me.
But where I, personally, am concerned I’m more than happy to “lead the way,” as you put it. I’m in private equity, so to some extent I already compete with everyone in the world in the work I do. If someone wants to try to outsource my work, I say have at it. It’s literally impossible, of course, because it relies too heavily on relationships, face-to-face interaction, and on-site due diligence. But if someone can figure out a way to do it for less they should absolutely do it. I’m happy to compete with anyone on the planet at whatever wage the market will bear.
January 22, 2009 at 7:09 AM #333518Participant[quote=CA renter]davelj wrote:
Yeah, a defining characteristic of real smart folks like yourself is that they’re petrified of competition in their labor market to the extent that they’d prefer to unionize rather than pit their own capabilities against those of others in the free market.
—————————You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]
Every study done on the subject suggests that US workers in most unionized manufacturing jobs – just to use a specific sector of the unionized workforce – are measurably more productive than their counterparts in emerging countries. In a competitive context they are more productive and should be paid more. The problem is that they are paid TOO MUCH more – that is, the pay gap isn’t justified by the incremental productivity. If wages were the only thing that mattered there wouldn’t be any manufacturing in the US at all. And yet despite its shrinking portion of total employment, we still have a boatload of manufacturing done here in the US. No, the problem is that too many folks are getting paid $35/hour – just to throw out a number – when $25/hour is the number that keeps their company in business… and their job safe. Those don’t seem like “third-world” wages to me.
But where I, personally, am concerned I’m more than happy to “lead the way,” as you put it. I’m in private equity, so to some extent I already compete with everyone in the world in the work I do. If someone wants to try to outsource my work, I say have at it. It’s literally impossible, of course, because it relies too heavily on relationships, face-to-face interaction, and on-site due diligence. But if someone can figure out a way to do it for less they should absolutely do it. I’m happy to compete with anyone on the planet at whatever wage the market will bear.
January 22, 2009 at 7:25 AM #333010Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
http://piggington.com/some_math_on_how_we039re_going_to_get_out_of_this_mess
Here you are advocating that the government buy mortgage-related stuff in order to avoid a depression.
By the way, are you still confident that the “vast majority of TARP money” will be “money good” now that Bank of America and every other large bank is saying that they need another bailout?
[/quote]Um, Breeze, that “mortgage-related stuff” is most decidedly NOT MBSs/CDOs, etc. Let’s at least keep the terms straight. What I advocated in that post was that the government – us taxpayers, that is – eat principal reductions for lots of folks who are underwater. In buying MBS, etc. from institutions the government (a) doesn’t really know what it’s getting in terms of losses, and (b) is really helping out the institutions involved, as opposed to individuals. In offering plain principal reductions, the loss content is more straightforward and you’re helping homeowners in a more direct manner. You may be opposed to both, which is fine, but they are two different things. But you have a record of being confused on similar matters.
Yes, I still think the vast majority of the TARP money will be money good (specifically, that is, the money being invested in bank preferred stock). You may recall, however, that I acknowledged that there would be some failures – which you neglected to mention in your post. Exactly which large banks, aside from BofA, are saying they need another bailout? You’re saying “every other large bank,” so I assume you have many specific names aside from BofA. As an aside, I thought the Merrill deal was absurd for BofA. Never should have been done… now they’re reaping what they sowed (along with the US taxpayer!!).
January 22, 2009 at 7:25 AM #333344Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
http://piggington.com/some_math_on_how_we039re_going_to_get_out_of_this_mess
Here you are advocating that the government buy mortgage-related stuff in order to avoid a depression.
By the way, are you still confident that the “vast majority of TARP money” will be “money good” now that Bank of America and every other large bank is saying that they need another bailout?
[/quote]Um, Breeze, that “mortgage-related stuff” is most decidedly NOT MBSs/CDOs, etc. Let’s at least keep the terms straight. What I advocated in that post was that the government – us taxpayers, that is – eat principal reductions for lots of folks who are underwater. In buying MBS, etc. from institutions the government (a) doesn’t really know what it’s getting in terms of losses, and (b) is really helping out the institutions involved, as opposed to individuals. In offering plain principal reductions, the loss content is more straightforward and you’re helping homeowners in a more direct manner. You may be opposed to both, which is fine, but they are two different things. But you have a record of being confused on similar matters.
Yes, I still think the vast majority of the TARP money will be money good (specifically, that is, the money being invested in bank preferred stock). You may recall, however, that I acknowledged that there would be some failures – which you neglected to mention in your post. Exactly which large banks, aside from BofA, are saying they need another bailout? You’re saying “every other large bank,” so I assume you have many specific names aside from BofA. As an aside, I thought the Merrill deal was absurd for BofA. Never should have been done… now they’re reaping what they sowed (along with the US taxpayer!!).
January 22, 2009 at 7:25 AM #333427Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
http://piggington.com/some_math_on_how_we039re_going_to_get_out_of_this_mess
Here you are advocating that the government buy mortgage-related stuff in order to avoid a depression.
By the way, are you still confident that the “vast majority of TARP money” will be “money good” now that Bank of America and every other large bank is saying that they need another bailout?
[/quote]Um, Breeze, that “mortgage-related stuff” is most decidedly NOT MBSs/CDOs, etc. Let’s at least keep the terms straight. What I advocated in that post was that the government – us taxpayers, that is – eat principal reductions for lots of folks who are underwater. In buying MBS, etc. from institutions the government (a) doesn’t really know what it’s getting in terms of losses, and (b) is really helping out the institutions involved, as opposed to individuals. In offering plain principal reductions, the loss content is more straightforward and you’re helping homeowners in a more direct manner. You may be opposed to both, which is fine, but they are two different things. But you have a record of being confused on similar matters.
Yes, I still think the vast majority of the TARP money will be money good (specifically, that is, the money being invested in bank preferred stock). You may recall, however, that I acknowledged that there would be some failures – which you neglected to mention in your post. Exactly which large banks, aside from BofA, are saying they need another bailout? You’re saying “every other large bank,” so I assume you have many specific names aside from BofA. As an aside, I thought the Merrill deal was absurd for BofA. Never should have been done… now they’re reaping what they sowed (along with the US taxpayer!!).
January 22, 2009 at 7:25 AM #333454Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
http://piggington.com/some_math_on_how_we039re_going_to_get_out_of_this_mess
Here you are advocating that the government buy mortgage-related stuff in order to avoid a depression.
By the way, are you still confident that the “vast majority of TARP money” will be “money good” now that Bank of America and every other large bank is saying that they need another bailout?
[/quote]Um, Breeze, that “mortgage-related stuff” is most decidedly NOT MBSs/CDOs, etc. Let’s at least keep the terms straight. What I advocated in that post was that the government – us taxpayers, that is – eat principal reductions for lots of folks who are underwater. In buying MBS, etc. from institutions the government (a) doesn’t really know what it’s getting in terms of losses, and (b) is really helping out the institutions involved, as opposed to individuals. In offering plain principal reductions, the loss content is more straightforward and you’re helping homeowners in a more direct manner. You may be opposed to both, which is fine, but they are two different things. But you have a record of being confused on similar matters.
Yes, I still think the vast majority of the TARP money will be money good (specifically, that is, the money being invested in bank preferred stock). You may recall, however, that I acknowledged that there would be some failures – which you neglected to mention in your post. Exactly which large banks, aside from BofA, are saying they need another bailout? You’re saying “every other large bank,” so I assume you have many specific names aside from BofA. As an aside, I thought the Merrill deal was absurd for BofA. Never should have been done… now they’re reaping what they sowed (along with the US taxpayer!!).
January 22, 2009 at 7:25 AM #333538Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
http://piggington.com/some_math_on_how_we039re_going_to_get_out_of_this_mess
Here you are advocating that the government buy mortgage-related stuff in order to avoid a depression.
By the way, are you still confident that the “vast majority of TARP money” will be “money good” now that Bank of America and every other large bank is saying that they need another bailout?
[/quote]Um, Breeze, that “mortgage-related stuff” is most decidedly NOT MBSs/CDOs, etc. Let’s at least keep the terms straight. What I advocated in that post was that the government – us taxpayers, that is – eat principal reductions for lots of folks who are underwater. In buying MBS, etc. from institutions the government (a) doesn’t really know what it’s getting in terms of losses, and (b) is really helping out the institutions involved, as opposed to individuals. In offering plain principal reductions, the loss content is more straightforward and you’re helping homeowners in a more direct manner. You may be opposed to both, which is fine, but they are two different things. But you have a record of being confused on similar matters.
Yes, I still think the vast majority of the TARP money will be money good (specifically, that is, the money being invested in bank preferred stock). You may recall, however, that I acknowledged that there would be some failures – which you neglected to mention in your post. Exactly which large banks, aside from BofA, are saying they need another bailout? You’re saying “every other large bank,” so I assume you have many specific names aside from BofA. As an aside, I thought the Merrill deal was absurd for BofA. Never should have been done… now they’re reaping what they sowed (along with the US taxpayer!!).
January 22, 2009 at 7:49 AM #333030TheBreeze
Participant[quote=davelj]
Um, Breeze, that “mortgage-related stuff” is most decidedly NOT MBSs/CDOs, etc. Let’s at least keep the terms straight. What I advocated in that post was that the government – us taxpayers, that is – eat principal reductions for lots of folks who are underwater. In buying MBS, etc. from institutions the government (a) doesn’t really know what it’s getting in terms of losses, and (b) is really helping out the institutions involved, as opposed to individuals. In offering plain principal reductions, the loss content is more straightforward and you’re helping homeowners in a more direct manner. You may be opposed to both, which is fine, but they are two different things. But you have a record of being confused on similar matters.[/quote]
Eating principal reductions means that the taxpayers would by paying down the loan to some lower amount, right? So it’s a bailout for the loanholder (banks, etc), right? What else could “eat principal reductions” mean?
January 22, 2009 at 7:49 AM #333364Participant[quote=davelj]
Um, Breeze, that “mortgage-related stuff” is most decidedly NOT MBSs/CDOs, etc. Let’s at least keep the terms straight. What I advocated in that post was that the government – us taxpayers, that is – eat principal reductions for lots of folks who are underwater. In buying MBS, etc. from institutions the government (a) doesn’t really know what it’s getting in terms of losses, and (b) is really helping out the institutions involved, as opposed to individuals. In offering plain principal reductions, the loss content is more straightforward and you’re helping homeowners in a more direct manner. You may be opposed to both, which is fine, but they are two different things. But you have a record of being confused on similar matters.[/quote]
Eating principal reductions means that the taxpayers would by paying down the loan to some lower amount, right? So it’s a bailout for the loanholder (banks, etc), right? What else could “eat principal reductions” mean?
January 22, 2009 at 7:49 AM #333447Participant[quote=davelj]
Um, Breeze, that “mortgage-related stuff” is most decidedly NOT MBSs/CDOs, etc. Let’s at least keep the terms straight. What I advocated in that post was that the government – us taxpayers, that is – eat principal reductions for lots of folks who are underwater. In buying MBS, etc. from institutions the government (a) doesn’t really know what it’s getting in terms of losses, and (b) is really helping out the institutions involved, as opposed to individuals. In offering plain principal reductions, the loss content is more straightforward and you’re helping homeowners in a more direct manner. You may be opposed to both, which is fine, but they are two different things. But you have a record of being confused on similar matters.[/quote]
Eating principal reductions means that the taxpayers would by paying down the loan to some lower amount, right? So it’s a bailout for the loanholder (banks, etc), right? What else could “eat principal reductions” mean?
January 22, 2009 at 7:49 AM #333474Participant[quote=davelj]
Um, Breeze, that “mortgage-related stuff” is most decidedly NOT MBSs/CDOs, etc. Let’s at least keep the terms straight. What I advocated in that post was that the government – us taxpayers, that is – eat principal reductions for lots of folks who are underwater. In buying MBS, etc. from institutions the government (a) doesn’t really know what it’s getting in terms of losses, and (b) is really helping out the institutions involved, as opposed to individuals. In offering plain principal reductions, the loss content is more straightforward and you’re helping homeowners in a more direct manner. You may be opposed to both, which is fine, but they are two different things. But you have a record of being confused on similar matters.[/quote]
Eating principal reductions means that the taxpayers would by paying down the loan to some lower amount, right? So it’s a bailout for the loanholder (banks, etc), right? What else could “eat principal reductions” mean?
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.