[livinincali]

I’m not sure how I feel about a UBI. It’s just redistribution at it’s core. If you tax me $13K and give me back $6500 or just tax me $6500 it’s the same. Maybe psychologically one is easier to sell than the other but the net result is the same. No strings attached welfare is probably a good thing if people acted rationally but if people acted rationally there would be no need for food stamps.

In you list of priorities food should probably be number 1 followed by shelter and utilities and yet we are told that kids are going hungry. On almost any minimum wage budget you should be able to find money for food and shelter. You might not have anything to pay the cell phone bill, the cable bill, the day out to the movies, but you should be able to eat. Yet we apparently have families and people that can’t figure that out, so we need food stamps. Is it just an easier sell to the public, or are people really that stupid. I don’t know, but if people really are that stupid then you certainly can’t adopt a UBI.

[livinincali]

[quote=scaredyclassic]trumps comments about the judge in the trump university. lawsuit reveal him to be unwise. I think he’d probably win if he could just STFU.[/quote]

I’d agree. If he just stuck to attacking Hillary on policy and transgressions he’d probably do alright, but he just can’t seem to help himself. A simple we don’t comment on pending legal matters would be good. Attacking the judge as being biased (even if you think it’s true) doesn’t really win you a lot of points among the neutrals.

[livinincali]

I hope we never get to a cashless society, but I bet the government and financiers would love it. That way they can make sure they get their skim no matter what. They also get to track pretty much everywhere you go and everything you do. I’m sure that data is pretty valuable also.

[livinincali]

I actually thought about this as a decent business plan for some young enterprising individual. You could probably make about $30/hr washing solar panels if you had some decent marketing.

[livinincali]

This is some interesting information about Uber’s app.
[quote]
One of the things you may not realize is that Uber can tell when your phone battery is about to die. In an episode of NPR’s The Hidden Brain, Uber’s head of economic research Keith Chen says when you hit accept to download, you give Uber the permission to know this in order to tell when to switch to low-power mode.

While that’s interesting, what’s even more revealing is how much people are willing to pay surge pricing depending on their phone’s battery level. Chen says users will pay up to 9.9 times in surge if their battery is critical just so they’re not stranded wherever they are (of course, assuming that your driver doesn’t cancel on you after your phone’s dead.)
[/quote]

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/05/20/uber-riders-will-pay-9-9-times-surge-pricing-phone-battery-low/#gref

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]As I said, the fox news-watching crowd is not my concern on this issue because they’re brainwashed beyond repair. Your post is evidence of that brainwashing. [/quote]

It’s not brainwashing at all. It’s just a difference of ideology. You’re just so far to the left in your ideology that you can’t understand the right’s ideology. Therefore people that don’t believe as you are brainwashed, uniformed, racists, sexists, whatever term you want to use. Anything that doesn’t fit into your progressive plan for the future shall be attacked and vilified. I totally get it, it’s politics.

There’s a looming economic disaster coming for our country. The math just ways there’s a day where medical spending/social spending/war spending will need to be reduced. The question we should be asking ourselves isn’t whom might advance LGBT rights, but who is going to get our national budget in order and how are they going to do it. I don’t think we have 8 more years of kicking the can down the road left.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]Great way to avoid the question. Attack it.[/quote]

It’s not a question. It’s a hypothetical that attempts attempts to influence you into thinking you’re sexist. It infers that if Hillary was a man her various transgressions would be ignored, or at least tolerated. Maybe in the past that would be the case but she represents the corrupt politics Americans are growing to hate. It’s that hatred of the corruption that is her problem, not because she’s a woman. I think PC crowd would love to have a woman president but not at the expense of another self interested corrupt politician. At this point probably more than half of the country want neither as a choice.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
Our culture says that women shouldn’t be loud, pointy, assertive, in charge, etc. We like to think we’ve evolved beyond that, but I think that’s giving us more credit than we’ve earned. Is it possible that so many people hate Hillary because, deep down, there’s some dissonance between what we want from a woman and what we see from Hillary?

Now, temeculaguy, you’ve always seemed like a pretty enlightened, reasonable guy. I’m really curious why you hate Hillary so much. And I want you to be honest with yourself and picture her as a man and see if you hate her so much. If she held the same policy positions she does now, and had basically the same personality she does now, but was a man, would you hate her so much? Would you vow to vote for anybody but her, even if that anybody was an immature, narcissistic, ignorant lunatic who poses a real and serious threat to the safety and prosperity of this country?

Do you really think that he would be a better president than her, or are you letting some vague, primordial hatred for her get in the way of a reasonable and responsible vote?[/quote]

Well played progressive liberal guilt card. Better vote for Hillary so we aren’t labeled a sexist. Anything but Trump so we aren’t labeled a racist.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]
Personally, though, I think the US labor law system needs a dramatic overhaul. A lot of the costs (health insurance, etc) should be socialized. i.e. insurance for all, funded by a % income tax.
[/quote]

At current total income and current medical spending it would have to be approximately 20% gross income tax. I don’t know that the population could stomach that big of an increase. I suppose you could try to play the social security game where the employer picks up the other half. The real issue is the cost side. Obamacare for the most part attempts to throw more money at the problem rather than actually reducing costs.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]Self-driving cars, baby! This being said, if realtors are contractors, there’s no reason why their drivers should not be classed as contractors.[/quote]

Uber or one of their competitors will be a shop of self driving cars in the not so distant future. They are just exploiting people now until they can make that a reality in the future. Uber as a side job for a little bit extra money driving drunk people around on Friday/Saturday night might be relatively decent. Doing it as a full time job isn’t going to cut it. Of course Taxi drivers weren’t really making much of a living either. It was the owners of the taxi medallions that made all the money. Driving people around for money is the next job that disappears in mass.

[livinincali]

[quote=mixxalot]True but Indians still behave racist, tribal and cliquish toward white americans. They keep to themselves and rarely date or marry outside their race.[/quote]

You can only be racist if your white. You can only be sexist if you are a white man.

[livinincali]

[quote=moneymaker]Sounds to me like a recipe for disaster, I believe the student debt would be dischargeable once co-mingled with the mortgage debt and when house prices fall, and they will, then boom they would all file for bankruptcy and start fresh again later on.[/quote]

The way I read the article was essentially you give us a down payment that is the size of the student loan and we give you a zero down home loan. I would guess the student loan gets paid in full (why would the loan company pay 6-7% when it’s receiving something less than that). The idea being since you brought money to the table you less likely to walk away from the zero equity property even if it declines in value. To me it just seems to shift up the purchase date in some young professionals life. I.e. They can get into a house 4 years after graduation because they manage to save enough to pay off their student loans, rather than waiting 8 years to pay off the student loans and save a down payment. If you of the opinion that interest rates will rise, home prices will appreciate, and rent will continue to go up then getting in earlier is beneficial.

I don’t see the interest rate for this loan product in the post but my best guess is that it’s something around 5%. Better than the student loan interest rate but worse than a conforming loan product. It’s a search for yield that’s targeted at a better credit risk.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]Not really. At least in big cities, new docs are commonly getting $100K sign on bonuses. Internal med and Peds starting at $175K plus. It can be a lot of debt, and takes a long time, but if those kind of salaries suck, I’d like to know what professions are getting good starting salaries.[/quote]

My point isn’t that the current salaries are bad. They’re reasonable compared to debt. The issue would be most general physician salaries are much lower in the rest of the world. Depending on the country it could be 30 to 50% lower. If our goal is to reform the medical system to something more like the rest of the world (many of you advocate for this), then there’s a significant risk that your salary will be lower than the current salaries.

If we’re trying to control medical costs it’s hard to imagine workers in the medical fields will be better off. Maybe if the government wipes out the debt and indirectly lowers salaries you might be about the same as before. It’s hard to say what the impact would be of a single payer control cost system if we ever get there.

[livinincali]

[quote=matt]Thanks for the feedback. I neglected to mention my wife is from Mexico so we can own free and clear any property including close to the coast. [/quote]

This is one big advantage you have. You aren’t faced with as big of a risk concerning “corrupt” government. As for hurricanes, a concrete structure should hold up to a hurricane fairly well but you could certainly end up with some damage. I don’t have any idea about property insurance in Mexico or if you can even get it. Most insurance companies don’t insure against the inevitable.

As for liquidity it probably isn’t that liquid. The housing market in San Diego over $2 or 3 million dollars isn’t very liquid either. There aren’t many Mexican nationals that can afford coastal property in Mexico so you’d have to hope that the Mexican government establishes stronger property law protections for foreign nationals. That way people might feel safer about investing a significant sun of money in Mexican property. It’s probably not the best bet in the world but who knows.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]This discussion has been a bit tech/engineering focused. There is certainly a severe and growing shortage in medicine.[/quote]

That’s because there’s a lot of political risk with becoming a doctor. Obviously the medical system is not sustainable the way it is so it really depends on how the government solves the problem. Do you want to take on $200K+ of medical school cost if you are unsure of your future earnings potential or working conditions.

[Author]

Posts