Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
UCGal
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
In the seventies the boomers were just starting to enter the Job and housing market driving demand and worker supply through the roof which was one of the main causes of inflation , and back in those days 7 out of 10 people were union workers so they got cost of living raises every year to 6 months (we were getting 15-18% inflation and raises back then).
[/quote]Do you have anything to back up the 7 in 10 workers were union figure. I searched and only found data back to 1983… about 20%, 1 in 5, workers were union then.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/10/art3full.pdfAnd this table shows 26.4% of non-agricultural workers were union in 1975. Even if you put 100% of agricultural workers into the “union” category (which is unrealistic) you don’t get 70%.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/friedman.unions.usI’d say that 1 in 4 workers being union in the 70’s is probably a more accurate figure. Pushing it maybe 1 in 3… but not 7 out of 10.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
In the seventies the boomers were just starting to enter the Job and housing market driving demand and worker supply through the roof which was one of the main causes of inflation , and back in those days 7 out of 10 people were union workers so they got cost of living raises every year to 6 months (we were getting 15-18% inflation and raises back then).
[/quote]Do you have anything to back up the 7 in 10 workers were union figure. I searched and only found data back to 1983… about 20%, 1 in 5, workers were union then.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/10/art3full.pdfAnd this table shows 26.4% of non-agricultural workers were union in 1975. Even if you put 100% of agricultural workers into the “union” category (which is unrealistic) you don’t get 70%.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/friedman.unions.usI’d say that 1 in 4 workers being union in the 70’s is probably a more accurate figure. Pushing it maybe 1 in 3… but not 7 out of 10.
Participant[quote=EconProf]And, predictably, as earners and taxpayers, they tended to be more politically conservative.[/quote]
LOL – well that part didn’t apply to me. (I worked/earned/supported myself and still was a flaming liberal.)
Participant[quote=EconProf]And, predictably, as earners and taxpayers, they tended to be more politically conservative.[/quote]
LOL – well that part didn’t apply to me. (I worked/earned/supported myself and still was a flaming liberal.)
Participant[quote=EconProf]And, predictably, as earners and taxpayers, they tended to be more politically conservative.[/quote]
LOL – well that part didn’t apply to me. (I worked/earned/supported myself and still was a flaming liberal.)
Participant[quote=EconProf]And, predictably, as earners and taxpayers, they tended to be more politically conservative.[/quote]
LOL – well that part didn’t apply to me. (I worked/earned/supported myself and still was a flaming liberal.)
Participant[quote=EconProf]And, predictably, as earners and taxpayers, they tended to be more politically conservative.[/quote]
LOL – well that part didn’t apply to me. (I worked/earned/supported myself and still was a flaming liberal.)
Participant[quote=walterwhite]i dont know; those money market funds are kinda risky in a meltdown. maybe just put it in fdic bank not likely to fail.[/quote]
There are money market funds and money market bank accounts. My understanding (which could be wrong) – if the money market account is through an FDIC insured bank – it’s a savings account with FDIC insured up to $250k. If it’s through a brokerage account it’s “insured” under SIPC… which will cover the asset – but not the value of the asset… a MMF is typically $1/share. So if you have $100 in it, you have 100 shares. SIPC would guarantee you that if your brokerage account went tits up you’d get your 100 shares. It does NOT guarantee the price per share… so if the underlying fund goes broke, you’d be broke.
There was a big deal in 2008 about 2 MMFs “breaking the buck” – meaning their shares dropped to less than $1. For a while the treasury backed the value of the money market funds – but that expired a while back.
Breaking the buck is very rare. But it *can* happen.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]i dont know; those money market funds are kinda risky in a meltdown. maybe just put it in fdic bank not likely to fail.[/quote]
There are money market funds and money market bank accounts. My understanding (which could be wrong) – if the money market account is through an FDIC insured bank – it’s a savings account with FDIC insured up to $250k. If it’s through a brokerage account it’s “insured” under SIPC… which will cover the asset – but not the value of the asset… a MMF is typically $1/share. So if you have $100 in it, you have 100 shares. SIPC would guarantee you that if your brokerage account went tits up you’d get your 100 shares. It does NOT guarantee the price per share… so if the underlying fund goes broke, you’d be broke.
There was a big deal in 2008 about 2 MMFs “breaking the buck” – meaning their shares dropped to less than $1. For a while the treasury backed the value of the money market funds – but that expired a while back.
Breaking the buck is very rare. But it *can* happen.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]i dont know; those money market funds are kinda risky in a meltdown. maybe just put it in fdic bank not likely to fail.[/quote]
There are money market funds and money market bank accounts. My understanding (which could be wrong) – if the money market account is through an FDIC insured bank – it’s a savings account with FDIC insured up to $250k. If it’s through a brokerage account it’s “insured” under SIPC… which will cover the asset – but not the value of the asset… a MMF is typically $1/share. So if you have $100 in it, you have 100 shares. SIPC would guarantee you that if your brokerage account went tits up you’d get your 100 shares. It does NOT guarantee the price per share… so if the underlying fund goes broke, you’d be broke.
There was a big deal in 2008 about 2 MMFs “breaking the buck” – meaning their shares dropped to less than $1. For a while the treasury backed the value of the money market funds – but that expired a while back.
Breaking the buck is very rare. But it *can* happen.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]i dont know; those money market funds are kinda risky in a meltdown. maybe just put it in fdic bank not likely to fail.[/quote]
There are money market funds and money market bank accounts. My understanding (which could be wrong) – if the money market account is through an FDIC insured bank – it’s a savings account with FDIC insured up to $250k. If it’s through a brokerage account it’s “insured” under SIPC… which will cover the asset – but not the value of the asset… a MMF is typically $1/share. So if you have $100 in it, you have 100 shares. SIPC would guarantee you that if your brokerage account went tits up you’d get your 100 shares. It does NOT guarantee the price per share… so if the underlying fund goes broke, you’d be broke.
There was a big deal in 2008 about 2 MMFs “breaking the buck” – meaning their shares dropped to less than $1. For a while the treasury backed the value of the money market funds – but that expired a while back.
Breaking the buck is very rare. But it *can* happen.
Participant[quote=walterwhite]i dont know; those money market funds are kinda risky in a meltdown. maybe just put it in fdic bank not likely to fail.[/quote]
There are money market funds and money market bank accounts. My understanding (which could be wrong) – if the money market account is through an FDIC insured bank – it’s a savings account with FDIC insured up to $250k. If it’s through a brokerage account it’s “insured” under SIPC… which will cover the asset – but not the value of the asset… a MMF is typically $1/share. So if you have $100 in it, you have 100 shares. SIPC would guarantee you that if your brokerage account went tits up you’d get your 100 shares. It does NOT guarantee the price per share… so if the underlying fund goes broke, you’d be broke.
There was a big deal in 2008 about 2 MMFs “breaking the buck” – meaning their shares dropped to less than $1. For a while the treasury backed the value of the money market funds – but that expired a while back.
Breaking the buck is very rare. But it *can* happen.
Participant[quote=Arraya]It’s not an option under our economy. Over consumption and little to no savings is a policy for a reason.
Less consumerism and saving would collapse employment and require massive government intervention to spur demand and keep it from falling into a deflationary spiral.
One family saves, good for the family. All families save, the economy collapses.[/quote]
Is it good for the economy long term if we continue to spend more than we make. If we continue to consume with no plan for paying for our consumables?
mass consumption based on debt is kicking the can down the road… it may work in the short term -but at some point the debt becomes unweildy. It will be painful either way.
Participant[quote=Arraya]It’s not an option under our economy. Over consumption and little to no savings is a policy for a reason.
Less consumerism and saving would collapse employment and require massive government intervention to spur demand and keep it from falling into a deflationary spiral.
One family saves, good for the family. All families save, the economy collapses.[/quote]
Is it good for the economy long term if we continue to spend more than we make. If we continue to consume with no plan for paying for our consumables?
mass consumption based on debt is kicking the can down the road… it may work in the short term -but at some point the debt becomes unweildy. It will be painful either way.
-
AuthorPosts
