[UCGal]

[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.

[UCGal]

[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.

[UCGal]

[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.

[UCGal]

[quote=SD Realtor]
The problem is if they worked in the private sector they would be working for organizations that generated revenue and the compensation would be on par with the revenues of the organization.

Looking at the city of San Diegos obligations clearly the numbers do not add up. Nor do they for the state.[/quote]

I work for a large, private sector, company – the CEO’s compensation is NOT tied to the revenues (losses). The bonus structure for the corporate execs is obscene. Yes, the worker bees have taken a hit to pay and bonuses (and headcount) but the corporate officers continue to bring in the big bucks despite several years of negative earnings. Perhaps, in an ideal world the exec’s compensation would be directly tied to earnings… but the real world does not work that way.

And just to nitpick – Gore and Dumanis are county employees, not city employees. Not saying that the county has lots of extra money – but the county’s budget isn’t hurting as much as the city’s budget.

[UCGal]

[quote=SD Realtor]
The problem is if they worked in the private sector they would be working for organizations that generated revenue and the compensation would be on par with the revenues of the organization.

Looking at the city of San Diegos obligations clearly the numbers do not add up. Nor do they for the state.[/quote]

I work for a large, private sector, company – the CEO’s compensation is NOT tied to the revenues (losses). The bonus structure for the corporate execs is obscene. Yes, the worker bees have taken a hit to pay and bonuses (and headcount) but the corporate officers continue to bring in the big bucks despite several years of negative earnings. Perhaps, in an ideal world the exec’s compensation would be directly tied to earnings… but the real world does not work that way.

And just to nitpick – Gore and Dumanis are county employees, not city employees. Not saying that the county has lots of extra money – but the county’s budget isn’t hurting as much as the city’s budget.

[UCGal]

[quote=SD Realtor]
The problem is if they worked in the private sector they would be working for organizations that generated revenue and the compensation would be on par with the revenues of the organization.

Looking at the city of San Diegos obligations clearly the numbers do not add up. Nor do they for the state.[/quote]

I work for a large, private sector, company – the CEO’s compensation is NOT tied to the revenues (losses). The bonus structure for the corporate execs is obscene. Yes, the worker bees have taken a hit to pay and bonuses (and headcount) but the corporate officers continue to bring in the big bucks despite several years of negative earnings. Perhaps, in an ideal world the exec’s compensation would be directly tied to earnings… but the real world does not work that way.

And just to nitpick – Gore and Dumanis are county employees, not city employees. Not saying that the county has lots of extra money – but the county’s budget isn’t hurting as much as the city’s budget.

[UCGal]

[quote=SD Realtor]
The problem is if they worked in the private sector they would be working for organizations that generated revenue and the compensation would be on par with the revenues of the organization.

Looking at the city of San Diegos obligations clearly the numbers do not add up. Nor do they for the state.[/quote]

I work for a large, private sector, company – the CEO’s compensation is NOT tied to the revenues (losses). The bonus structure for the corporate execs is obscene. Yes, the worker bees have taken a hit to pay and bonuses (and headcount) but the corporate officers continue to bring in the big bucks despite several years of negative earnings. Perhaps, in an ideal world the exec’s compensation would be directly tied to earnings… but the real world does not work that way.

And just to nitpick – Gore and Dumanis are county employees, not city employees. Not saying that the county has lots of extra money – but the county’s budget isn’t hurting as much as the city’s budget.

[UCGal]

[quote=SD Realtor]
The problem is if they worked in the private sector they would be working for organizations that generated revenue and the compensation would be on par with the revenues of the organization.

Looking at the city of San Diegos obligations clearly the numbers do not add up. Nor do they for the state.[/quote]

I work for a large, private sector, company – the CEO’s compensation is NOT tied to the revenues (losses). The bonus structure for the corporate execs is obscene. Yes, the worker bees have taken a hit to pay and bonuses (and headcount) but the corporate officers continue to bring in the big bucks despite several years of negative earnings. Perhaps, in an ideal world the exec’s compensation would be directly tied to earnings… but the real world does not work that way.

And just to nitpick – Gore and Dumanis are county employees, not city employees. Not saying that the county has lots of extra money – but the county’s budget isn’t hurting as much as the city’s budget.

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]no i meant be a real unsubsidized hobo.[/quote]
Scaredy – it sounds like you had a similar experience to mine… I had no clue what to major in out of high school… so I got a job and moved out. A few years of office work convinced me that college WAS a good option and I was motivated when I went back to school.

I don’t think I’d be an engineer if I’d gone straight to college from high school… I’d be a college drop out.

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]no i meant be a real unsubsidized hobo.[/quote]
Scaredy – it sounds like you had a similar experience to mine… I had no clue what to major in out of high school… so I got a job and moved out. A few years of office work convinced me that college WAS a good option and I was motivated when I went back to school.

I don’t think I’d be an engineer if I’d gone straight to college from high school… I’d be a college drop out.

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]no i meant be a real unsubsidized hobo.[/quote]
Scaredy – it sounds like you had a similar experience to mine… I had no clue what to major in out of high school… so I got a job and moved out. A few years of office work convinced me that college WAS a good option and I was motivated when I went back to school.

I don’t think I’d be an engineer if I’d gone straight to college from high school… I’d be a college drop out.

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]no i meant be a real unsubsidized hobo.[/quote]
Scaredy – it sounds like you had a similar experience to mine… I had no clue what to major in out of high school… so I got a job and moved out. A few years of office work convinced me that college WAS a good option and I was motivated when I went back to school.

I don’t think I’d be an engineer if I’d gone straight to college from high school… I’d be a college drop out.

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]no i meant be a real unsubsidized hobo.[/quote]
Scaredy – it sounds like you had a similar experience to mine… I had no clue what to major in out of high school… so I got a job and moved out. A few years of office work convinced me that college WAS a good option and I was motivated when I went back to school.

I don’t think I’d be an engineer if I’d gone straight to college from high school… I’d be a college drop out.

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1][quote=carlsbadworker]People need to understand: foreclosure is not the problem; foreclosure is the solution.
A housing bust is only devastating because it reflects the huge mis-allocation of capital during the housing boom.[/quote]

I agree.

But the problem is what do you do with the millions of people thrown out onto the streets?
[/quote]
Drama much? Thrown on the streets? What makes you think they’ll be homeless?

These people had places to live before they purchased homes they could not make payments on… they can go back to renting, living with parents, house-shares, etc. My mom’s parents never purchased a house and lived a very comfortable, middle class existence. They were never “thrown out on the streets” just because they didn’t own a home. Home ownership is not a requirement for a roof over your head.

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1][quote=carlsbadworker]People need to understand: foreclosure is not the problem; foreclosure is the solution.
A housing bust is only devastating because it reflects the huge mis-allocation of capital during the housing boom.[/quote]

I agree.

But the problem is what do you do with the millions of people thrown out onto the streets?
[/quote]
Drama much? Thrown on the streets? What makes you think they’ll be homeless?

These people had places to live before they purchased homes they could not make payments on… they can go back to renting, living with parents, house-shares, etc. My mom’s parents never purchased a house and lived a very comfortable, middle class existence. They were never “thrown out on the streets” just because they didn’t own a home. Home ownership is not a requirement for a roof over your head.

[Author]

Posts