Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, I try not to make the fallacy of composition and conflate what is good policy for human kind with what’s good for me.
Globalization and trade, automation and so on bring about the greatest amount of goods and services. It’s up to us how we allocate all that wealth.
For example, automation does not have to mean that millions will go jobless and hungry. Shame on us if we let that happen, especially if productivity is greater than ever. It could be that we have more leisure and time to develop intellectually when robots produce many more things much faster and inexpensively for us.
To me, people are deplorable when they don’t embrace change and the future. They are deplorable when then hang on to anachronistic thinking. And you know what? The future always reveal the deplorables for who they are. For example people who were anti civil-rights in the 60s. They had to live in shame when history passed them by. If they don’t know what shame is, then they’re contemptible.[/quote]
I think that you’re conflating the rhetoric around Trump (propaganda pushed by those who favor neo-liberal policies) with the reason that many people voted for him. As someone who did a massive amount of outreach during the last election season, I can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of people who voted for Trump (or who voted against HRC) are not “racist, xenophobic, bigots,” nor are they “uneducated deplorables.” They are people who have born the brunt of the costs of the last few decades of neo-liberal economic policies, while benefitting the least from those policies. The costs and benefits of globalization have not been allocated fairly, and you are seeing the result of this lopsided, unilateral shift in power and wealth. Our problems did not start on January 20, 2017. Trump is a symptom of the disease, he is not the disease itself.
What you perceive as racism and xenophobia are symptoms of the massive shift in wealth and power from the working/middle classes to the global elite. You should not have expected anything different, as the trajectory was obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention.
I agree that automation, in itself, is not necessarily a problem, but if we don’t address how the costs and benefits of automation (and globalization) are allocated before we engage in these massive shifts, then we should not expect those who are most burdened by these changes to go along with the program.
So far, there has been very little discussion about how to share the wealth and the costs. Actually, there has been no public discussion about how to handle this. We need to debate the merits of different economic and political systems first.
Perhaps every U.S. citizen should get an even number of shares in each “publicly owned” (genuinely publicly owned) technology company or automated manufacturing company, or perhaps we need to adjust the way we tax productivity so that a greater share of the profits are distributed evenly among all citizens. We need to debate the merits of a Universal Basic Income, among other ideas. Whatever we decide, it needs to be debated and decided on before we take actions that so negatively affect such a wide swath of the population (and every citizen needs to have an equal say).
Until we address the root causes of the massive discontent in the developed nations, we can expect more protectionism, isolationism, and civil unrest. This isn’t “deplorable” behavior; it’s a survival instinct. People rightly understand that there are many people, like yourself, who would not bat an eye if they disappeared from the planet. You shouldn’t expect them to behave any differently because you would do the same thing if you were in their shoes.
ParticipantOn that note, I’d like to get your input regarding this article, Brian. You tout the supposed benefits of automation and globalization, but I think that you feel safe in doing so because you don’t have much to lose. You’re of an age where you are already fairly well established and don’t have to start from scratch in this economy. You don’t have a spouse or children to worry about, so long-term issues don’t affect you nearly as much as those who are young and those who have children to worry about. We all make decisions and come to certain conclusions based on where we stand as individuals.
I’m sure you can see that your opinions might differ from the opinions of others just based on what you personally have to gain or lose from the (neo-liberal, globalist, corporatist) trajectory that we’ve been on over the past ~40 years. The fact that people don’t agree with you isn’t a sign of their lack of education or “deplorable” character. More often than not, people have perfectly rational and logical (even ethical) reasons for having different perspectives.
“Free Trade Is Awesome, But It Has a Dark Side”
By Patrick Watson
October 24, 2017
If you think economics is boring, bring up “free trade” and see what happens. I guarantee sparks will fly.
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/connecting-the-dots/free-trade-is-awesome-but-it-has-a-dark-side#
ParticipantWhat’s sad is that people think this is a novel idea. Anyone who bothers to take even a cursory look at the real world and how people interact with it would quickly see that psychology drives the economy. Greed, hoarding instincts, and the desire/need to control one’s environment to ensure their survival and the long-term well-being of their offspring are what drive the social/economic/political system.
ParticipantIMHO, the stock market has been rising under Trump because capital is getting exactly what they wanted with Trump — lower taxes for capital and higher taxes for labor, in general.
Outside of the free-trade vs. fair-trade skirmish (globalization and the free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor), Trump is a capitalist’s dream president.
ParticipantI know that this is an unpopular sentiment right now, but having a “friend” recommend that a person with ~$135K annual income buy an “investment” condo for $825K sounds an awful lot like a bubble to me.
Just my 2 cents, but I would not be jumping into any new “investments” at this point in time. If you want to focus on genuinely safe stocks, etc., that’s pretty reasonable, but I think that we are in an even bigger credit bubble today than we were in 2008, thanks to central banks around the world.
A bubble doesn’t require NINJA loans. All you need is loose credit (which is what happens when rates are held at artificial lows/ZIRP for an extended amount of time), and speculation. There is plenty of both right now, and I don’t see how this will end in a benign way.
ParticipantVery cool story. Thanks for sharing, Brian.
It’s true that we take so many “luxuries” for granted these days. It wasn’t that long ago that many people still had outhouses and horse-drawn wagons — my own father lived like this in his youth, and one of his brothers didn’t have an indoor bathroom until the 1950s/1960s, and that was on septic (still is, AFAIK).
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]when we bought our house 7 years ago, it was about 2.5x our income. now,we earn more per year than our remaining loan balance.
maybe we shoulve gone bigger and crazier.[/quote]
I’m so glad you bought your house when you did. Remember how nervous you were? 🙂
Participant[quote=spdrun]No point in doing one’s part to help the police state, though. Push back, disconnect, drop out.
What benefit does something like the Echo have in the house of someone who isn’t disabled? Don’t invite this cr@p inside your home.[/quote]
Well said, spdrun. I’ve always been amazed at how easily some people give up their personal information and privacy rights. I still don’t have a smartphone, and hope to avoid having one for the rest of my life.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=moneymaker]Maybe those are maximum amounts, I’ve always heard 5 times income. If it was 5 times take home then I would agree, but I for one don’t feel comfortable spending 5 times gross income on a house. Not sure how many people first starting out realistically have the 20% down.[/quote]
When I was young the multiplier was three. The house that I grew up in was worth less than my dad made in a year. It just wasn’t such a big deal – and nobody knew the square footage of each others homes.[/quote]
Same here. My parents were in real estate for decades, and the norm was always 3 times gross income. Anything more than that starts to become risky, IMHO. Not only that, but people back then tended to have more stable jobs with DB pensions. You can afford far less if your job is insecure and you don’t have a DB pension.
Too many people have thrown caution to the wind over the past ~2 decades. The world of never-ending asset price/credit bubbles has taken its toll. I don’t think this is going to end well.
Participant[quote=svelte][img_assist|nid=26430|title=gun deaths per state|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=350][/quote]
Not sure where this map is from or what year they used (edited: I see where it’s from, but not the source data or year), but the CDC map (below) tells a different story. Granted, the CDC map is for total homicides (not just limited to “gun deaths”), but I think that total homicide rates matter more to those who are honestly concerned about safety than the “gun death” rate which excludes homicides of other types, and includes suicides, which comprise around two-thirds of the “gun death” rate.
So, here is a map with homicide rates:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm
You’ll notice that the states with the lowest homicide rates also have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the U.S., with some of them having effectively no gun laws. (You’ll also notice that some of the states with very high homicide rates have less restrictive gun laws, as well.)
The information regarding gun laws by state can be found here (this is an anti-gun site, so no pro-gun bias here):
http://smartgunlaws.org/search-gun-law-by-state/
You can also see here that homicide and violent crime rates actually increased for a number of years after a number of countries passed their most restrictive gun laws. After around 5 years of a rising trend, the trend declined, but the same declining trend in homicide/violent crime rates was seen in the U.S. as gun ownership and proliferation increased dramatically (and gun bans were not instituted).
https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
FWIW, I think that fully-automatic weapons should be banned across the board. They are designed for indiscriminate killing, and I don’t trust the government with this power any more than I trust some Joe Schmoe with this power. Nobody should have fully automatic weapons.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=spdrun]If you’re single, buy where you can rent it easily to an ATM on the hoof (aka a tenant). I live near a couple of hospitals, a university, and a med school. Med and Ph. D students make great, quiet tenants.[/quote]
Yep, i agree. Buy something old but well located, close to everything. Remodel and enjoy. You can always rent it out easily.[/quote]
Best of all, they can deduct all of their costs if they own rentals. Repair and maintenance expenses can be brutal; being able to write-off these costs makes it feel less painful.
I’ve often wondered why more people don’t do this — own rentals, and rent where they live. Financially, it could be the best bet.
Participant[quote=sdsurfer]Here’s one that looks like it sold:
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Encinitas/178-Range-St-92024/home/4059853%5B/quote%5D
Nope, no bubble here!
[People are crazy!]
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]In general home ownership is less useful for single guys without kids. One huge perk of being a single guy without kids is if a job opportunity pops up in Seattle or San Francisco or Tokyo you can pick up and go. Buying a place can limit that.
The big perk would be if you are renting for $3,000 a month and can find a place to buy where your mortgage and taxes are less than that, you can potentially free up cash every month. And there are tax benefits for the mortgage deduction, and that single guy making six figures isn’t getting the same deductions those of us with kids get.
I have no clue where housing prices are going to go. All of Rich’s data suggests there is little supply to drive down prices. But the fundamentals seem rather poor if you look at incomes vs. prices. I guess if you go in expecting no appreciation and only look at tax benefits and a mortgage less than current rent it might be a fairly safe bet?[/quote]
Though none of us truly knows where prices will go in the near future, it sounds like your friends are doing well as renters, at least for now. But if they can find something that is at least as nice as what they’re renting for the same or lower cost, they might be okay with buying if they don’t plan on needing to sell — or get back all of their money if they do need to sell after the market has dropped. They should be mentally/emotionally/financially willing to do a short sale in the future, IMHO.
Personally, I’m 98% convinced that we are in another bubble, but I would be tearing my hair out now if we were still renting. Watching the housing market has been painful, and I feel badly for those who do not yet own, but who have reached a stage in life where home ownership would otherwise be appropriate.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=all][quote=FlyerInHi]Interesting thing about Russians and real estate, they like to have dachas or summer houses that look like shacks in Mississippi.[/quote]
All of them, or just those that you asked?[/quote]Just saying that Dacha ownership is part of the culture. Even people of modest means have dachas their build themselves, often wood cabins without insulation, with outhouses. Pretty rough conditions.[/quote]
Wasn’t (isn’t) this also true of many Americans, especially those who live in the larger cities on the NE coast? Seems that many families over the years would have very rustic summer cabins that they would visit during the warmer months.
-
AuthorPosts