Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
ParticipantAgree with sdsurfer, ricechex. You need another realtor. Maybe contact sdsurfer for help? 🙂
ParticipantSorry to hear about that, Ricechex. Sounds like you did the right thing by having the home inspected (people who waive this right are nuts).
Wondering why you didn’t use the inspection report to negotiate, though. Also, if they see the inspection report and/or were notified of the problems — which they would likely do if you were using it to negotiate with them on repairs/cash-in-lieu/price reduction (my preference because you don’t have to pay property taxes on it as you likely would with cash-in-lieu or seller’s repairs) — they would legally have to disclose this information to any other potential buyers. You can use this to your advantage.
Sorry this one didn’t work out, and hope you find another house soon.
Participant[quote=joec]Generally, I tend to think it’s not as gloom as doom as some of the other posters here, but the idea that the Bank of Japan is just going to throw money at stocks to stimulate the economy sounds a bit strange/scary…
If earnings collapse or slow and governments are buying in “just because”, it seems like this is a last gasp of the market.
There’s no reason to buy, just that the government needs to buy to make the price go up higher…seems like pushing on a string/trying too hard.[/quote]
But this is exactly what we’ve been doing over here for years, whether directly or indirectly. How much of our “growth” in recent years is simply due to the Fed’s machinations? I would argue that most of it is, in one way or another. And, yes, it is scary.
Participant[quote=spdrun]CA-Renter: the best idea would be for BOTH people in a couple to be able to stay in the workforce while having the same total working hours as a family in the 1960s. Say 60-70 hours, assuming a full-time employed husband at 40 hr and a part-time wife at 20-30 per week.
So split the difference and structure legislation to encourage more jobs to have 30-35 hr per week schedules and flexible time. Plus adequate time off to spend with family in summer or whatever.
We’d of course need health insurance and most benefits to be divorced from employment (to reduce fixed hiring costs) for this to work.[/quote]
Yes, though the working hours were lower than that in the 1960s. You and I are largely in agreement on all of this. I advocate for choice, and for every family to be able to make the decisions that best work for them. What I hate is the belief that what is right for one family should be the only acceptable option for everyone else, no matter what the costs/benefits or other considerations are for those families.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]right now, my wife is working A LOT, and frankly, i can’t believe how we are back to a healthy level of savings, in spite of throwing more money into our house recently for a refinance and some other large expenses.
i always wondered who in the hell could afford one of those catered bike tour vacations in the catalogues I would get that desperately made me want to hit the road. tuscany. southeast asia. long roads through south america…all supported and deluxe…. Actually, that would probably be us, right now. we could actually afford that. woah. weird….
of course, it would cause me too much physical pain to write the check. but we could afford it! hell, i might just break down and go…
i think i prefer to spend the money on really expensive wood floors, a few fine oriental rugs,some other strangely expensive furnishings, and college tuition, but even then we might have a few bucks left over…more than enough for a cheap vacation somewhere local…[/quote]
Let’s be honest: your wife is a doctor. Yes, the opportunity cost for her to remain out of the workforce to be a SAHP (for life?) would be quite high. Still possible that it would be worth it, though, especially if you were HS’ing all of the kids F/T, and/or if you had a family member who needed chronic care. It just depends on her outside opportunities, and the specific needs of your individual family. And it depends on your non-monetary priorities, beliefs, and desires, as well.
But a family with a spouse who perhaps just has a high school diploma or is in a low-paying field that has little potential for upward mobility? It could very well be that this family would be better off with a SAHP, even 20, 30 or 40 years later; yes, even financially.
And that’s the point I’m really trying to make. Every family’s situation will be different, so we should push to have as many options available to us as possible. Forcing everyone into the paid workforce dramatically reduces the number of options available, not only for a particular family, but for everybody (see Elizabeth Warren’s lecture that I’ve posted here; read her book if you get the chance).
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]making more over a one year period or over a 20 year period?
I know a SAHM, who, frankly, is pretty bad at it. she’s been out of the workforce for about 20 years and has become kind of unemployable, based on her mindset, expectations, and general lack of skills.
is the family richer now 20 years out? no. they’re a hell of a lot poorer. there might have been a few good years there for the kids, but IMO they wouldve been better off in day care.
she can get longterm alimony i suppose if they split, but the guy can work under the table, and probably will, and work a lot less, if its all going to her.
seems like the savings were primarily over the first few years, adn the return got smaller and smaller and then went negative.
the other problem of course is when the SAHM truly is not good at it. bad housekeeper, lame with money, not so great with kids, les and less necessary as they get older, spends a lot of money, etc…seems like not a partner. encourages divorce…in its own way…[/quote]
Yes, I agree that there are some bad SAHPs out there, but there are also some bad wage-earners out there, too. Should we all divorce each other just because they don’t live up to our standards, or should we try to work with our spouses in a constructive way to maximize each person’s potential in a relationship. IMO, a lot of bad SAHPs are only doing it because they feel that they are supposed to be doing it; not because they have any particular love or passion for the job. They might contribute more to the family by working outside of the home, or doing something completely out of the ordinary. And there’s no guarantee that this spouse will suddenly become useful by entering the paid workforce, either. If someone is sloppy, uncaring, takes shortcuts, is bad with money/resources, and doesn’t take their work seriously; chance are they will be horrible employees as well. Why do you think they will be better in the paid workforce? There’s a good chance that this type of person will feel even more entitled to spend more if he/she is in the paid workforce and can’t find time to cook, clean, take care of the kids, etc. after work…and will pay/hire others to do these tasks, instead.
I would also argue that a *good* SAHP can be very valuable even when the kids are grown…but the parents start requiring more care. There are often four different parents who will likely need some type of regular care as they get sick and age. Having someone around to care for them (even full-time, if necessary), take them to doctor’s appointments, etc. can take a huge burden off the rest of the family.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=spdrun] Plus adequate time off to spend with family in summer or whatever.
[/quote]That’s what you want, but that doesn’t work unless everyone is on board.
If only a minority wants to live with less and enjoy family, culture, nature, etc.., that minority eventually falls behind as the rest works harder and has more money to spend. Costs go higher and that relaxed minority can no longer keep up.
Trust me, people in general don’t want culture and leisure, They want houses, cars, trinkets… they want to “upgrade” their cars every 5 years; they want a new house every 10 to 15 years; they want electronics, etc… All so they feel like they’re getting ahead. Make them work hard and give them 1 week per year at Disney and they’re happy.[/quote]
That’s because we’ve been conditioned to think like this. If people ever woke up from their stupor, they would be shocked to learn about all of the energy and resources that go into creating the consumption culture.
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
And in places where they’ve raised the minimum wage, often to some of the highest levels in the country…the calamity predicted by all of the right-wing economists didn’t happen.I read the article and it seems fairly inconclusive to me. Only 1,600 people received wages and it’s a small community. Just because a hotel tries to expand to make up for the increased expense doesn’t necessarily mean it will work out. It could work but it’s too early to know. I think different parts of the country can withstand higher minimums and other parts might not. Seattle’s a fairly wealth place it might be able to withstand $15/hr, or maybe not I’m not really sure but I’d like to see the results. And not the results 6 months into it, more like 3 or 4 years.
It’s easy to say let’s help those poor workers with higher wages but ignore the possible unintended consequences. I want to understand those consequences. There’s definitely numerous factors in play fore any economy. Tax rates, natural resources, number of established businesses, weather/living conditions, wage rates, quality of talent etc. Opening a venture capital software company might not makes a lot of financial sense in the bay area due to tax laws, but it might make sense for other reasons. It hard to account for all that other stuff when looking at one input factor like minimum wage.
The only thing that really matters with minimum wage policy is can you shrink profit margin of the business paying minimum wage, without causing business closure and a loss of jobs.[/quote]
Agree that we need more time in order to see exactly what will happen, but most of the opponents of minimum wage claim that failure will come early on, since businesses don’t have time to adjust, and the additional purchasing power provided by minimum wage (if they’re even willing to admit that it exists…most min-wage opponents completely ignore it) will take awhile to circulate through the system, and businesses won’t be able to hold on while they wait for the increased revenues.
The point of this article is that none of it happened.
For the record, I think that minimum wage laws should be local, for the most part, but that the Federal govt can set a floor that wouldn’t harm the poorest communities in the country. Yes, different areas would be able to support different minimum wages due to all of the reasons you’ve stated above (resources, population density/wealth/income, proximity to high-wage job centers, local industry sectors, etc., etc.).
Personally, I favor allowing businesses to choose between either a minimum wage, OR a ratio of highest employee/owner compensation to lowest employee compensation — maybe 3X? — so that very small businesses who perhaps have one employee can choose the second option. In most small companies that I’ve worked for, the owners made only slightly more than the lowest-paid worker. In some cases, the owner made even less. I can see the need to protect these smaller companies from having to pay all of their employees a rather high (minimum) wage when they *honestly* cannot afford it.
For corporations, I think that profits should always be split in a more equitable way among ALL stakeholders, and that would include employees. Since most employers seem to be completely unwilling to do this on their own, minimum wage (or similar) laws are needed to compel them to do so.
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=The-Shoveler]The most interesting thing about the vote yesterday to me was that in almost every state with a higher minimum wage measure it “passed”.
Even in red states.
I think that sends a pretty clear message.
Top down did not work, time to give bottom up a try.And Silver dropping again, I got stopped out yesterday so I am out ![/quote]
I thought last night sent a pretty muddled message. Essentially the American voter wants legal marijuana, a higher minimum wage and doesn’t favor restricted abortion rights… and also voted Republican?[/quote]
Yes, a very interesting election day, indeed. I’m not sure that many people really understand who or what they are voting for.
Participant[quote=livinincali]
The problem is it’s extremely difficult to regulate how profits are distributed. We cite how burger king pays their employees much more in Denmark but there’s also far fewer Burger Kings in Denmark. Only the most profitable locations can be opened because anything at the margin isn’t worth opening. So there’s were the rub lies. Countries that have have greater worker protections tend to have slower business creation.
There is a disincentive to start and open a company in a country with very strong worker protections. It should be obvious from looking at Europe. Italy and France with very strong worker protections have shrinking economies while those that have worker protections but not nearly as strong are still growing. A global software company isn’t going to open an office in France. They might do it in Ireland, UK, or Germany but they won’t do it in France. There’s a balance between regulation and business. So far I’ve yet to see a western government implement policy that favors strong worker protections and spurred an economic boom. Those two things seem to compete against each other. Maybe where we are here with the economy is the best that can be achieved. More regulation probably isn’t going to stimulate growth less regulation might stimulate some growth but comes with the negative consequences of more exploitation of labor.[/quote]
As spdrun and MM already noted, “growth for the sake of growth” is not a good thing. It results in more environmental damage, a greater consumption culture (which I think is a huge negative), and puts everyone on the corporate hamster wheel where everyone keeps running faster and longer without actually getting anywhere.
As for countries that have seen economic improvements after implementing greater worker protections…can you point to examples where worker protections and compensation were reduced, and the economy thrived as a result? More importantly, has this shift toward a more capital-friendly economy benefited a greater number of people in a more positive way than a more labor-friendly economy?
You’ll have to look up the information on the links I’ve provided above to see how different countries compare. From what I can see, the countries with the greatest labor protections, highest relative wages, and higher (almost always progressive) taxes tend to have the strongest economies and best quality of life for the greatest possible number of people.
And while there might not be as many Burger Kings in Denmark, their unemployment rate is lower than ours, so somebody is employing these people. AND they have healthcare, pensions, five weeks paid vacation(!), and a happier population of workers. I’d much rather have that than have a fast-food restaurant on every corner, to be sure.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/unemployment-rate
Just some info to ponder regarding labor vs. capital:
In the U.S., right-to-work laws (which tend to have some of the lowest wages in the nation):
http://news.illinois.edu/news/14/0828right_to_work_RobertBruno.html
————
And I’m sure you’ve heard about the “trickle-down” economic reforms in Kansas…
[Whoops! Yet ANOTHER example to show what an utter failure trickle-down really is; as if we really need another example.]
And in places where they’ve raised the minimum wage, often to some of the highest levels in the country…the calamity predicted by all of the right-wing economists didn’t happen.
From the Dept of Labor:
http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
——————
As for countries seeing economic growth after instituting labor-friendly reforms, we can look at France after the revolution:
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~jorob/FrenchRevolution21.pdf
And if you look at most countries where labor-led revolutions have happened, you’ll usually see a significant improvement in the economy and in the well-being of the general population IF the revolution happens in a unified and effective manner with strong leadership afterward, and IF other (usually capitalist) governments don’t try to thwart the efforts of the revolutionaries (which is what often happens, unfortunately).
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]CAR, I’ve been swamped but I haven’t forgotten about Joe and Jane Sixpack who have 3 kids under the age of 6 years old. I’ve wanted to run Turbo Tax on their “theoretical situation” to demonstrate the value of the “secondary wage-earner’s” take-home pay (after expenses). I’ll get to this task hopefully tomorrow.
In any case, mortgage lenders will loan more money to couples who have a higher income, regardless of who earns it. Conventional lenders don’t use “child-care expense” in calculating their front-end or back-end ratios for mortgage qualification. Having a second income enables dual-income parents to qualify for a mortgage on a better home and/or in a better area than similarly-situated single-income families.
Also, you are skirting the issue of the (very heavy) “opportunity cost” of a parent staying home for 5+ years when they had the qualifications to participate in the FT workforce. And you also need to take into account the negative effect to the family’s credit any deferments on a student loan that a new mom takes and then decides they’re not going back to work (and possibly lets it/them go into default).
This happens all the time and the new moms “do it to themselves.”[/quote]
No, I am not skirting the issue of the *very heavy* opportunity cost of staying out of the paid workforce. Not at all. It’s why I am totally opposed to recent changes in divorce law that don’t take this into account. It’s why I’m not a “feminist” in the same tradition as you.
Mortgages aren’t the issue, and I would argue that having a lower mortgage is better than having a large one, especially if people feel entitled to get a larger mortgage because they “make more,” even when they don’t really make more (due to all of the things I’ve listed earlier). The assumption that a family is making more with a second person in the paid workforce is, all too often, an illusion — and one that has been artfully crafted by those who benefit most from the corporate culture that we live in.
ParticipantFeel free to explain if you think I’m not getting something.
If you think that the SAH spouse’s contribution is always (or in most cases) maximized in the paid workforce, you’re not living in the real world. There are many variables that would make it detrimental to both the family and society, in general.
As recommended to BG, you should read Elizabeth Warren’s book:
We’ve done a lot of damage, in many different ways, by pushing this lifestyle on everyone without taking into account any of the consequences.
Here’s a lecture by Ms. Warren where she discusses some of the issues:
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=spdrun]
If the minimum standards are the same for everyone, people can still get ahead within the standards. We’ve had worker health and safety standards for years. Our country hasn’t collapsed because of them. The world won’t end if people are guaranteed a humane amount of time off to spend with their families, despite what the conservatards will say about it.[/quote]The problem is there’s always going to be exceptions. Are you limited in the a amount of hours you can work if your self employed. What about Doctors, Police, Lawyers and all kinds of professions where there’s some sort of looming deadline to get things done. There will always be exceptions and when there’s exceptions there’s loopholes. France has attempted to erect those standards and results leave something to be desired.
In addition if on net you lose productive hours, there’s fewer goods and services for people to consume. Therefore your standard of living in terms of goods and services is limited. Can you afford to take a vacation if there’s fewer hours being worked in the hospitality industry. It does come down to supply and demand.[/quote]
Regarding the stores closing early, etc., there’s an easy solution: staggered work hours. You can easily run an operation 12-24 hours/day by just shifting staff around. If people work fewer hours, you just hire more people. As Spdrun noted, in countries where pensions, healthcare, etc. are managed by the govt, businesses can be free to concentrate on business. There would be less of a disincentive to hiring because the employer wouldn’t have to bear the burden of those non-wage benefits.
Here’s a great article comparing the wages and benefits of Burger King workers in the US and Denmark. What so many brainwashed people in the US don’t seem to understand is that corporate profits come from workers and consumers. THAT is the “redistribution of wealth” that people should be angry about. We need to make sure that the profits are shared more equally among all stakeholders, with a special emphasis on those who create the profits in the first place — workers.
Companies in this country did wonderfully when CEO/worker compensation was more in line, when the wealth/income gaps were much smaller, when taxes were higher, and when companies felt that they had a moral and ethical responsibility to their workers and society, in general. This same pattern can be seen in economies across the globe, and throughout history.
You can compare the numbers for the “socialist” Nordic and Germanic countries vs. the US. I have yet to see any evidence that our type of economic policies are any better; as a matter of fact, they tend to be worse.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter] but then interest rates would go down again if money flows to bonds.[/quote]
Yes, that’s why I don’t expect high interest rates on the horizon. Cheap money in Europe, China, Japan would cause a carry trade to the US where there’s security.
So they people who said that Fed easing would cause skyrocketing interest rates were wrong. They’ve been wrong since 2008.
Fed and stimulus policies were actually very appropriate in the aftermath of the financial crisis. If anything, the Federal government was too timid. If we had fought the 2008 financial crisis like we fought WWII we would now have a modern network of new airports and high speed rail.
A friend of mine went of China for the first time… He came back very impressed with the infrastructure. Didn’t realize that China was that advanced. The trip changed his mind about our need for better infrastructure.
CAr, one reason there is speculation in assets and commodities is because there is a dearth of productive assets to invest in (factories, infrastructure, etc…)[/quote]
Disagree that the Fed’s actions were appropriate, but agree that the govt was too timid (and corrupt, IMO).
Also agree that there is a dearth of productive assets in which to invest, AND that there is too much money at the top just sloshing around the world looking for places to speculate…while the world’s working people are being squeezed from both ends (lower and lower wages — real and nominal, in many cases — in an environment of rising prices).
This is a direct result of “trickle-down” economic policies and our upside-down tax policies that favor gambling over productivity. These are the leading causes of our growing wealth and income disparities; and I don’t think it will end well. You can’t have the top 1% living off the backs of the 99% for very long.
-
AuthorPosts
