[an]

I change my own oil filter when I change my own oil, since I’m already under the car, it isn’t a big deal. But I only change my own oil over other oil change. I bring my cars to the dealer the other times, but I bring them my oil and filter.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]AN and livin, you guys are correct in that there will be an adjustment.

But consider that the ratio of housing cost to income in San Diego has been increasing as compared to the rest of the country. In that way, it will never return to “the norm” in our lifetimes.

Certain glamour/rising/desirable cities do cost more over time.[/quote]What’s normal changes. I don’t expect us to ever be back to SD of the 70s anymore. When compare to many other places around the world, I feel like SD is still quite cheap relative to income.

[an]

[quote=livinincali][quote=utcsox]
If the rent is increasing at the rate twice as fast as the average wage growth and rent is a significant part of household’s budget, how in the world this has not already cut into disposable income of average household?How in the world the situation is not dire?[/quote]

It will resolve itself one way or another. Either rents will stop rising at a faster rate or wages will catch up. Two exponential curves run away from each other pretty fast so it won’t stay this way for long.[/quote]Agree. Up until now, there have been a lot of slack in the labor force, which allow companies to keep wages down. However, through birth and migration, the demand keep on increasing why supply isn’t keeping up, which is what’s cause the rent to go up. Simple supply and demand. Sooner or later, either people will be fed up and leave, which would cause a decrease in demand, which would then drive down price or at least keep price stable. Or, companies will grow and increase income. We’ll see soon enough.

[an]

I personally alternate taking it to the dealer and doing it myself. When I take it to the dealer, I bring my own oil and filter and they do the labor for ~$22 and they wash/vacuum and inspect my car as well. I do have ramps, so it’s easy to drive up and do the job, but it does require me to go under the car. But since I only do it myself every other oil change, I would only have to get under the car once every 12-18 months.

[an]

Even if you’re not old, if you don’t mind paying ~$80, I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it more with German cars, since their oil filters tend to be top mount. For most if not all Japanese and American cars, the oil filter is at the bottom of the car, so you’d still have to get underneath to change the filter anyways.

[an]

I think the only down side is it’s an expensive tool vs an oil pan, but not having to craw under you car might be worth the price.

[an]

I always have a view that time is the great equalizer. It doesn’t matter how smart, lucky, rich, etc. you are, you still only have 24 hours in a day. Whether you live to 100 or 50, no one knows, until it’s your time to go. Life’s too short to not enjoy it while you still can. I think I’ve done a decent job in limiting my time in the office. I rarely spend more than 8 hours there. Like UCGal, I too plan to be retired by 50. Although my family history is the opposite, my grandmas died in their late 80s/early 90s and one of my grandpa is still alive at 96. So, at least genetic is on my side. But you never know, so I’m not going to take any chances and be stuck behind this cube much longer than I have to be.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Though we live in an exceptionally nice area in SD, it’s very bland and everything is dead after 8:00 p.m. Great for raising kids in a clean, safe environment, I suppose, but miserable for singles/no kids.[/quote]Singles with no kids would be living in area closer to downtown,uptown, PB, etc. and not in the burb where you are.

[an]

I agree, QCOM at its current state is too big to acquire. The only larger player who would even consider buying QCOM is INTC, but they’re not big enough still. I also agree that QCOM under current CEO doesn’t seem to have the mindset to grow through acquisition. Also, their portfolio is pretty well rounded anyways, so there’s really no reason to acquire anyone to plug any whole. So, the only way they can grow is organically. But it seems like they’re in a cutting mode instead of growing mode. If QCOM does split, I can totally see INTC gobbling up their modem/chip division. It would make perfect sense, but that might cause antitrust.

I agree that possibly, 5 years from now, ILMN will be the talk of the town instead of QCOM. Unless they do something big.

[an]

[quote=utcsox]4. Nah, I won’t call you a Republican. I mean Republicans can reason much better and comprehend economics issues much better than you. :-D)[/quote]
Said the guy who use straw man to debate. If you say so.

It’s still hilarious, because I’m probably left of you on many issues. Yep, I’m a Right winger alright.

[an]

[quote=utcsox]How does the charts you bought up show that exactly? Medicaid, government healthcare, and housing subsidies are also available to people who work and making less than certain income. There is no doubt that there is still slack in our labor market as the unemployment rate is still higher than what you expect at full employment; however, it is not causing most of the decline in overall labor participation rate.[/quote]
Again, you’re the one who said those benefits is the cause of most of the decline of overall labor participation rate. I never said that. So, stop it with the straw man. I just told why I posted those charts. At unemployment <6%, everything should be rosy. But it's not, which is why I posted those chart to show that everything is not rosy. It's quite simple really, but you seem to like to resort to name calling (again hilarious because you're calling a non-republican a Right winger :-D) and straw man.

[an]

Lol, $950k is affordable. Sucks for anyone who didn’t win the IPO lottery.

[an]

[quote=Jazzman][quote=AN]Evidence all all around you. But lets first define what corruption mean… Corruption is the abuse of bestowed power or position to acquired a personal benefit. Now, I will state that greed is one of human nature. All of the countries that are communist have a very strong power structure with a small group of people having all the power. So, it would be obvious that those people who are in power would want to abuse their power to acquire personal benefit. In a democratic system, when the person or group of people are corrupted and the people know about it, they will be voted out of power. In countries like China, Vietnam, Laos, etc., if the people speak up about such corruption, they will disappear. The people are aware of the corruption but they don’t want to say anything, because they rather live. This is why I said communism tend to breed corruption and allow it to be rampant. Plain simple fact is, greed is part of human nature. Communism is great in theory, but I believe communism doesn’t take into consideration that greed is part of human nature and when you allow a small group of people to be in charge and no way for the people to kick them out, you will have corruption.

Keep in mind that I did not say only communist country have corruption. Since greed is part of human nature, I believe corruption will exist everywhere that there are a small group of people with all the power. As I stated, there’s no pure communist country. So, when I say communism, I mean the countries that call themselves communist, not the actual communism theory.

BTW, you’re the one who ask me where I got my information and whether it’s from western media. I told you one of the source where I got my information from, and now you’re saying it doesn’t cut it. So tell me, where do you get your information from? Chinese/Vietnamese/etc media?[/quote]

You said your source on information is “first hand experience”. You did not clarify that statement. You now say “evidence is all around you.” That also requires qualification. You would need to say that there are x counts of corruption in communist regimes compared to y counts of corruption in non-communist regimes, and cite your sources. Where x is greater than y, a case can be argued for greater corruption. Otherwise it is hearsay. Anyway, I now see you are backpedaling somewhat and concede corruption is part of human nature, and exists where power is held by small groups. Oligarchies, dictatorships, totalitarianism or what ever you want to call centralized power isn’t confined to communism. So what are you saying? Communism gives rise to more corruption than anywhere else? Or, corruption exists where small groups of power-grasping individuals fall prey to greed, and communism just happens to be included in that group?[/quote]
I’ve been saying this since the beginning of this thread. I can’t help you with your reading ability. Regardless, I’m done with debating straw man arguments. Have a nice day.

[an]

[quote=Jazzman][quote=AN]It doesn’t matter how much you pay politicians. As I stated, greed is human nature, which mean you will never have enough.

BTW, corruption is not acceptable here. So when it’s discovered, the perpetrator get punished. Just look at the cop who trade sexual favors for not giving traffic violations. He gets put in jail here. Over there, people wouldn’t bat an eye.[/quote]
But that argues China (or wherever) is more corrupt than the US. It doesn’t argue communism gives rise to more corruption than other political systems.[/quote]
Show me one communist country that make it to the top 10 least corrupt country.

[an]

[quote=utcsox]Well, we do know that a large cohort of Americans (baby boomers) are aging. Americans are living longer which is a good thing. The overall labor participation rate will continue decline in the near future due to demographic changes. In 2006, BLS published a paper that project overall participation rate will continue to decrease until 2050 when it reached 60.4%. Of course, the Right wing type in this board will not mention this and use this obscure metric to insinuate that the decline is due to over generous benefits and subsidies. Here is the link of the paper:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/11/art3full.pdf%5B/quote%5DAccording to the BLS, labor participation between 2005-2020 for :
65+ goes up from 15.1% to 21.5%
55-64 goes up from 62.9% to 67%
25-54 stays about flat at 82.8% to 83.7%
16-24 will be going down from 60.8% to 56.5%.

Here’s the BLS Civilian noninstitutional population between 2005-2020:
Total working population: 226k -> 257k
65+ – 35k -> 52k (~15% -> 20% of total)
55-64 – 30k -> 42k (13% -> 16% of total)
25-54 – 124 -> 126k (55% -> 49% of total)
16-24 – 36k -> 36k (16% -> 14% of total)

Base on these numbers, I don’t see how you can draw conclusion of baby boomer retiring as the cause for 5-6% drop in labor participation over the last 10 years or so.

Baby boomers are born between 1946 and 1964. Which mean they’re between 51-69. 66 being full retirement age today, most boomers are still working. Please enlighten me as to how boomer retiring is the cause of ~4% labor participation over the last 10 years? Or more specifically, over the last 6 years? The first boomer retired 3 years ago in 2012. Back then, we already started to see labor participation rate declining from about 66 to 64 and it continue to drop till 2014, where it plateau till now at about 62.5%. If boomer is the cause of the drop, then why are we seeing a plateau over the last year and a half? Shouldn’t we see more decline since even more boomer are retiring? Although according to BLS, the labor force participation for 65+ actually is going up not down. Which mean they’re not dropping of the work force like you’re insinuating.

BTW, who here insinuate that decline is due to over generous benefits and subsidies? I brought up benefits and subsidies to show that there are people who are not working who I would hope would like to work, but cannot find a job. Which cause them to need government assistant. You’re associating correlation with causation. I never said it was a generous benefits and subsidies was the cause of lower labor participation. I was just pointing out some correlating data. Stop trying to create straw man arguments. FYI, I’m not even a registered Republican, so it’s hilarious that I’m now being labeled as Right wing.

[Author]

Posts