[burghMan]

[quote=flu]You mad for missing out, bro?

if you’re mad now, you might get even madder in 2020.[/quote]

from the guy that has been getting trolled by Brian for over a decade of his life, and still will be here years from now doing the same

lol, you are Brian’s bitch

so fucking lame

[burghMan]

Is ‘melt up’ the new euphemism for bubble?

Why Wall Street sees the stock market on the verge of a ‘melt-up’

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-wall-street-sees-the-stock-market-on-the-verge-of-a-melt-up-2019-12-16?mod=home-page

[burghMan]

[quote=flu]Our financial future is already slightly better off.[/quote]

That depends on who you mean when you say “our” future.

Most of us on this site are upper-middle class and work in secure industries like tech. We have bigger cushions, enjoy the benefits of economic upswings, and are less affected by downturns. Not everyone in America has that luxury. In fact most do not. (Most Americans don’t even know what RSU and ESPP mean.)

I don’t anticipate a “great” recession in 2020 but I think the economy will slow down in the next few years. If for no other reason because a downturn is due in the cycle.

I think it will be interesting to see how the “good” economy affects voters’ choices. Although the traditional numbers like unemployment and the stock market look good I think there are structural changes in the economy that affect how these numbers translate into better well-being for mainstream Americans. Jobs are now lower quality, costs of housing and healthcare is growing faster than wages, debt is accumulating, more homes have both spouses working because they have to. The financial reports are telling America that we are better off but I suspect many outside of our comfy world of tech don’t really feel it (probably more true in Red and swing states also)

Of course Trump is indifferent to how individual Americans are actually doing. He sees the economy as a scoreboard in a game that he has to win. But I don’t think this scoreboard always translates to real economic security for the average American. And, aside from the tax cuts which were funded by debt, what has Trump actually changed in the economy?

The election will come down to whether the economy can stay “good” and how many people believe Trump deserves credit for it being good. The Dow is up 300 today, but it was down just as much a few days ago when Trump announced that he isn’t going to have one of his signature campaign promises, the China trade deal, fulfilled until after the next election.

Are Americans gullible enough to give Trump another four years to accomplish what he promised us he would easily do in his first 100 days? Are they ignorant enough to believe that he actually has a plan for the economy that is in their best interest? Do they believe he is capable of executing this plan while working with an administration that is in tatters, partisan gridlock that he constantly incites, and foreign leaders that openly ridicule him?

It’s crazy to watch, but our country may be duped again by the most obvious of charlatans.

[burghMan]

AOC, again?

I think I know who your crush is 😉

[burghMan]

From spdrun:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/private-sector-job-growth-slows-down-in-november—adp-2019-12-04

The numbers: Private-sector employment slowed sharply in November, payroll processor ADP said Wednesday. Job growth rose 67,000 in the month., the smallest increase since May. The gain was well below forecasts from economists surveyed by Econoday who expected a gain of 156,000.

From flu:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jobs-report-november-2019-labor-department-225145709.html

The private sector on the whole added 254,000 positions during the month, well above the 178,000 consensus and 163,000 added in October. This result contrasted sharply with the weaker than expected results of ADP/Moody’s report on private sector employment published earlier this week, though many economists have pointed out that the survey serves as an imperfect indicator of the Department of Labor’s jobs report.

Weird that the numbers have such a huge discrepancy. I don’t think the US government typically fakes data, but if any administration was going to to it, which one would it be?

[burghMan]

Thanks for the responses, including the private messages.

I got an email response from the county:

Earlier this year we transitioned to a new property tax system which changed the way taxes appear online. It is important to note that only the way that the data is being displayed has changed.

Previously unsecured bills were not displayed on our website but information could be obtained by calling or visiting one of our offices. Unsecured taxes are not attached to the property, they are simply displayed on the Assessment number where they originated. Property tax bills are separated into Secured Property Tax and Unsecured Property Tax. The Unsecured Property taxes are owed by the person named on the bill and Title Companies do not require unsecured bills to be paid for Title to be clear. Secured Property Taxes are tied to the property and will need to be paid through Escrow when there is an ownership change.

If you are not the owner listed on the unsecured bill, you are not responsible for the bill, however it will show up online as long as there is an amount due. Please let us know if you have any questions.

I don’t know whose name is on the bill but I would assume it is the builder that owned the land during construction.

I checked a few of my neighbor’s records and it appears every house in the neighborhood has the same bill. There are about a thousand homes in the development so it could add up to quite a big sum. I don’t understand why it’s unpaid and why the county isn’t going after the money, but at least I know it is not my problem.

[burghMan]

[quote=ucodegen]… which in my opinion …[/quote]

Thanks for that, but I’ll stick to facts and data.

[burghMan]

[quote=spdrun]burghMan — what if you had a provision for cameras on a trailer to send their image to screen(s) in the truck, either wirelessly or through Ethernet on the trailer harness? Done right, this could be better than mirrors.[/quote]

There are existing wireless camera systems for trailers. The big RVs often have rear cameras standard. But there different brands and no standard wireless protocol for the video. Plus it’s nice to just use mirrors as you normally do, look to the left when switching lanes to the left, check the mirror, check the blind spot etc. But I could see Tesla selling their own add-on cameras as an option. Trailer owners would have to mount them themselves, and deal with batteries, etc. but it is certainly a workable solution.

[burghMan]

I don’t think cameras can replace tow mirrors because you need something that has an angle that can see behind the length of the trailer. Cameras would still to have to stick out the side of the vehicle. I don’t believe that tow mirrors are required by law, but anybody that does any significant amount of towing will want them. It would be a dealbreaker for me if it did not have them. Mirrors are an example of something where style and function don’t always align. We are used to seeing big mirrors sticking out the side of standard, boxy trucks but they might not look good at all on the Tesla. Other functional accessories like running boards may also be a challenge.

The bed size is comparable to short bed F-150, slightly larger if I recall the details. Overall it seems to be able to do the same jobs that the big three “1/2 ton” models can do, and likely better.

[burghMan]

[quote=Hobie]With the electric drive eliminating the rear axle, I was hoping it would have some kind of hydraulic lowering bed feature. Handy to some. It will look strange as a real work truck with a ladder rack.

Notice it is missing the side mirrors? Adding them on will definitely change its look.

But, it screams to be vinyl wrapped. Its perfect as a rolling billboard. Every tattoo, bail bond, etc. shop will be getting one of these.

They will never sell to a Dodge Ram diesel guy, but I think it will have good sales.[/quote]

Interesting point about the side mirrors, especially since a tow vehicle needs mirrors that stick out farther than normal.

America has a massive truck culture, people that buy trucks because that’s what men drive. Even women buy them as a symbol of masculinity. Most of these buyers don’t even use their trucks as trucks and the specs don’t really matter, as long as it looks tough. These buyers need a big chrome grill and a loud engine. The Tesla won’t be penetrating that market for a long time.

Another huge segment of the market is fleet vehicles that are purchased in bulk by corporations and government. With some modifications, Tesla could have some success selling into those markets if they can show that the total cost of ownership is lower over the long term.

I’m not ordering one, but I am keeping an eye on it. I tow a camping trailer and I’m interested in understanding how range is affected with a load. The lack of chargers in remote locations could also be an issue (will there be charging stations in Bishop or the canyonlands of Southern Utah?) I do like the high clearance. The offroad specs look better than any mainstream truck. It has potential, but for people that actually use a truck as a truck, there are many unanswered questions about the Tesla.

[burghMan]

[quote=livinincali]
The Congressional Budget Office says the ACA subsidies is costing $737 billion in 2019 and it will rise to 1.3 trillion by 2029. If you’re saying roughly 1 trillion per year for the next 10 years it’s pretty accurate.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55085%5B/quote%5D

Did you even read your own link? It’s about many federal healthcare programs, not just ACA. And it clearly says that ACA is only a small fraction of the $737 billion total.

In each year during the period, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program account for between 40 percent and 45 percent of the federal subsidies, as do subsidies in the form of tax benefits for work-related insurance. Medicare accounts for about 10 percent, and subsidies for coverage obtained through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act or through the Basic Health Program account for less than 10 percent.

The federal government spends a lot of money on healthcare, but ACA only accounts for a small part of that expense. Ucodegen’s original point about ACA specifically creating a hidden $1 trillion dollar per year time bomb is simply false.

Here’s a better article describing the specific costs of ACA:

https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-obamacare-3306050

The worst case estimate from the CBO is $1.76 Trillion over an eleven year period…an order of magnitude less than ucodegen’s numbers and much closer to spdrun’s numbers.

[burghMan]

[quote=ucodegen]Do a little better(more accurate) math. ACA pays a sliding scale for more people than you think, not just 100% for a small group of people – and subsidies are much larger than $300/mo in most cases. I averaged the aid to a ‘per person’ approx rate(one person with full aid at $1000/month and one person without aid = 2 people with aid at $500/month, one person with full aid at $1000/month and two people without aid at $1000 a month = 3 people with aid of $333/month). NOTE: I did NOT use full cost. Did you check what the threshold on aid is? Threshold on aid ‘was’ $54,000 in California about 2 years ago. Additional dependents can increase the threshold. The amount of relief was inverse proportional to income (not a fixed amount). Aid can rise up to nearly 100% of coverage cost. I am underestimating the actual numbers.

The ACA was done with two types of government ‘aid’.. one direct to insurance companies to keep the rates low(Cost Sharing) (Have you ever had to get individual or family COBRA insurance? = more realistic cost, no company contributing/covering cost) The other based upon family income and number of dependents. The plan was to artificially keep the payments low through the money going to the insurance company as well as aid for ‘lower’ income, so that people get used to the ‘ACA’. If the full rates (which it is currently getting close to) were applied in 2010, there would have been a revolt, outcry.. etc. It was built to be similar to putting a frog in a pan with water and slowly bringing up the heat to cook it without it recognizing what is happening. This is also why the insurance rates were increasing surprising fast. In about 4 years I went from low $300/mo to just under $1000/mo.

NOTE: of more than 10.6 million people who had added coverage through the exchanges early 2019 – 87% qualified for premium subsidies, and 52% of current exchange enrollees are receiving subsidies in 2019. Subsidies are for incomes up to 250% of poverty level (SD = $24,036 – threshold = $60,090 – 2 parents, 2 children). In San Diego County, 13.8% of population is below the poverty level.

Question: What percentage of population is below 2.5 times the poverty level?
Answer: Much more than you think. Median income El Cajon=$46K, Escondido=$49K, La Mesa=$55K… Median => 50% of population above median, 50% of population below median – definition of statistical median).

Sorry – not fake news…!!!

Refs:
https://www.thestreet.com/politics/national-debt-year-by-year-14876008

The ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies

http://www.sandiegobusiness.org/sites/default/files/Regional%20Poverty%20in%20the%20San%20Diego%20Region.pdf

@spdrun – you way under-guestimated the cost of the subsidies. Where are the refs for your numbers?[/quote]

There is nothing in that mishmash of statistics or anything in those links that supports your initial claim that ACA is a $1 trillion annual unfunded liability. The first link was about the overall national debt and had nothing specific to ACA. None of the links addresses the total cost of ACA or any debt created by it.

The overall national debt is a more interesting topic in these times. Why are deficits growing even with a strong economy? Because we have a president that is running the country like he ran all of his failed businesses.

[burghMan]

[quote=temeculaguy]As are you and thank you for the kind words. I have come back more lately because the kids are looking to buy and I do see some similarities today to 2005. It’s the “freshly minted teacher” test. Not sure who wrote it but I’ve always remembered it. When two freshly minted teachers get married and try to buy a starter home, if they cannot, then the market is due for a correction.

For those of you who are new, Econprof is an OG of the highest order. I was heavily influenced by the posters back then, Econ was one of those influences.[/quote]

I think the “freshly minted teacher” test is rooted more in nostalgia than factual realities. There are plenty of counter examples. In the Bay Area the income of two young teachers has been inadequate to buy a starter home for decades. Of course the definition of starter home also changed. Maybe they can buy a condo, but not single family property with a yard. The trend in San Diego is similar.

Several years ago someone posted a news article here featuring a young woman from the Bay Area who was frustrated that she could not afford to buy a house “like the one she grew up in.” It was a good example of the “housing crisis” in California. Of course her problem is now there are many more people that want that house, many have relatively better incomes than their parents, and there are not proportionally more houses. Supply and demand.

There will be ups and downs but, in areas with population and economic growth, people are going to have to learn to expect less with each generation.

[burghMan]

[quote=spdrun]The real stat is 8 million people get subsidies at an average cost of $6300 per annum. So closer to $50 billion per year total, some of which prevents future ER costs by making preventative care available.

Meanwhile, we’ve spent $400 billion or more every year on our endless homicide sprees in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. We should spend more on our own country, less on endless wars that are lost causes anyway.[/quote]

Exactly. The cost of ACA covered by tax dollars is a tiny fraction of the federal budget and much of that is offset because it lowers the total cost of healthcare.

[burghMan]

[quote=ucodegen]
Simple answer – yes.
More complicated answer – to a large part yes, presidents can also hand their successor a ‘time bomb’ – an example that many don’t believe is actually the ACA (aka Obama Care). Note that it was passed many years before it came into force, and it came into force towards the mid-end point of Obama’s second term. The time bomb part is the ‘sponsoring’ or ‘aid’ for those whose incomes are lower than a certain threshold (which is approx the lower 30% to 40% income threshold by population count). There was never any direct ‘line-item’ in the budget. It is more of a continuing ‘entitlement’. There are approx 300 Million people in the US (including children). If there is an average financial assistance of $300/month per person below that income threshold, that ends up being $3,600 per person per year or $1.08 trillion a year on what is basically unfunded mandates. I know that I was charged nearly $1,000/month for health care – no prior, no existing problems, on a bronze plan as an individual. That also means the $300/month average assist per person is probably not far off. Insurance costs jump as you get older.
[/quote]

That math makes no sense. ACA pays 100% of insurance for only a small portion of the population. It doesn’t subsidize everybody’s insurance. Yet you counted the full cost of every person in the country when calculating the cost of assistance. If you are paying $1000/month, you can’t count yourself in the cost to the government. Fake news, easily dismissed with a basic check of the arithmetic.

[Author]

Posts