[ucodegen]

[quote=burghMan][quote=ucodegen]… which in my opinion …[/quote]

Thanks for that, but I’ll stick to facts and data.[/quote]
Cute statement that does not counter what I brought up/posted.

[ucodegen]

[quote=burghMan]
There is nothing in that mishmash of statistics or anything in those links that supports your initial claim that ACA is a $1 trillion annual unfunded liability. The first link was about the overall national debt and had nothing specific to ACA. None of the links addresses the total cost of ACA or any debt created by it.[/quote]
Did you look at the per year change in the national debt relative to that link and the timing of it(what year it occurred in)?

[quote=burghMan]The overall national debt is a more interesting topic in these times. Why are deficits growing even with a strong economy? Because we have a president that is running the country like he ran all of his failed businesses.[/quote] – Red herring, off topic. Take a look at what the addition is per year and who was in charge at the time. I do agree that the 2017 tax reduction was not a good idea, but that is off current topic, thereby red herring.

You choose to address only the first link but not the others.. and hope that it causes people to ignore the others. You also ignore the section:

NOTE: of more than 10.6 million people who had added coverage through the exchanges early 2019 – 87% qualified for premium subsidies, and 52% of current exchange enrollees are receiving subsidies in 2019. Subsidies are for incomes up to 250% of poverty level (SD = $24,036 – threshold = $60,090 – 2 parents, 2 children). In San Diego County, 13.8% of population is below the poverty level.

Question: What percentage of population is below 2.5 times the poverty level?
Answer: Much more than you think. Median income El Cajon=$46K, Escondido=$49K, La Mesa=$55K… Median => 50% of population above median, 50% of population below median – definition of statistical median).

How much of the total US population is below 2.5% of the poverty level in their area? Want to try a WAG on that?

Obamacare could have reduced costs, however it had nothing in the bill to reduce the cost of health care. It was hoping to do it through better health management but ignored what happens when you put a big pocket payer between the person receiving care and the entity giving the care. What was controlled was the profit margins that health care insurers make, but not the price on the health care itself, which is why generic medicine prices have skyrocketed.

By the way, on the reference to your article, take a look at the line under “The following five new ACA taxes would bring in an additional $567 billion in revenue” titled “Raising medical deduction limit to 10 percent – $104 billion”. How is that a tax? How does that increase revenue from taxes? It doesn’t. It actually reduces tax revenue because it allows people to write off a greater percentage of their health care costs, reducing their taxes – and thereby the money the fed gets from taxes.

The line item “Reduce Medicare payments – $197 billion” is not a savings because the medicare costs (that the payments were covering) was transferred to the ACA.

Finally, in all of the links that your article has, where are the links that actually support the contentions of the author of your article? The author has the quote “The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that the ACA would reduce the debt by $143 billion”, but the link goes to a general discussion of what the CBO does. In other locations where the authors statements kind of match the supporting info, the link may go to the supporting CBO info.

I also note that your article says nothing about subsidies and cost sharing arrangements under the ACA. This is the big elephant in the room that I am talking about. A rough estimate using existing population demographics shows that what we are being told is not accurate, but is seems to get close to the budget deficit increase. This is why the ref to the budge deficit.

So here is one from the CBO.. take a look at ‘Major Health Care Programs’ under Outlay Projections – about half way down.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55331

If you look at the next graph down titled “Increases in Federal Revenues”, you’ll see that currently, the tax on High Premium Health Insurance Plans is negligible, though it will grow after 2026. This make the authors claim of current benefits from the tax questionable.

I looked through many of the other CBO estimates and found that they were, at times, really weak and potentially really off. Here is the results on repealing the ACA mandate:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53300
There is a claim that nongroup market insurance premiums would increase about 10% in most years.. so far a decrease is currently projected for this year. It is interesting to note that this is a 10% increase over 10 years when we have been currently seeing an increase of 20% or more per year under the mandate.

The actual costs of the ACA are a very sensitive subject to those who put it in place. The full effects are hard to determine as can be seen by the CBOs $930Billion, no $1.76Trillion, no $1.1Trillion estimates.

Your quote:

The worst case estimate from the CBO is $1.76 Trillion over an eleven year period…an order of magnitude less than ucodegen’s numbers and much closer to spdrun’s numbers.

May be accurate by 2026, however the CBO slides it through at $1.76 trillion by projecting the numbers to 2026. As of currently, it doesn’t look like it will make it, and is currently running over by nearly $1trillion annually. Again referencing the revenue portion from the CBO, which in my opinion are a bit optimistic.

[ucodegen]

[quote=burghMan][quote=ucodegen]
Simple answer – yes.
More complicated answer – to a large part yes, presidents can also hand their successor a ‘time bomb’ – an example that many don’t believe is actually the ACA (aka Obama Care). Note that it was passed many years before it came into force, and it came into force towards the mid-end point of Obama’s second term. The time bomb part is the ‘sponsoring’ or ‘aid’ for those whose incomes are lower than a certain threshold (which is approx the lower 30% to 40% income threshold by population count). There was never any direct ‘line-item’ in the budget. It is more of a continuing ‘entitlement’. There are approx 300 Million people in the US (including children). If there is an average financial assistance of $300/month per person below that income threshold, that ends up being $3,600 per person per year or $1.08 trillion a year on what is basically unfunded mandates. I know that I was charged nearly $1,000/month for health care – no prior, no existing problems, on a bronze plan as an individual. That also means the $300/month average assist per person is probably not far off. Insurance costs jump as you get older.
[/quote]

That math makes no sense. ACA pays 100% of insurance for only a small portion of the population. It doesn’t subsidize everybody’s insurance. Yet you counted the full cost of every person in the country when calculating the cost of assistance. If you are paying $1000/month, you can’t count yourself in the cost to the government. Fake news, easily dismissed with a basic check of the arithmetic.[/quote]

Do a little better(more accurate) math. ACA pays a sliding scale for more people than you think, not just 100% for a small group of people – and subsidies are much larger than $300/mo in most cases. I averaged the aid to a ‘per person’ approx rate(one person with full aid at $1000/month and one person without aid = 2 people with aid at $500/month, one person with full aid at $1000/month and two people without aid at $1000 a month = 3 people with aid of $333/month). NOTE: I did NOT use full cost. Did you check what the threshold on aid is? Threshold on aid ‘was’ $54,000 in California about 2 years ago. Additional dependents can increase the threshold. The amount of relief was inverse proportional to income (not a fixed amount). Aid can rise up to nearly 100% of coverage cost. I am underestimating the actual numbers.

The ACA was done with two types of government ‘aid’.. one direct to insurance companies to keep the rates low(Cost Sharing) (Have you ever had to get individual or family COBRA insurance? = more realistic cost, no company contributing/covering cost) The other based upon family income and number of dependents. The plan was to artificially keep the payments low through the money going to the insurance company as well as aid for ‘lower’ income, so that people get used to the ‘ACA’. If the full rates (which it is currently getting close to) were applied in 2010, there would have been a revolt, outcry.. etc. It was built to be similar to putting a frog in a pan with water and slowly bringing up the heat to cook it without it recognizing what is happening. This is also why the insurance rates were increasing surprising fast. In about 4 years I went from low $300/mo to just under $1000/mo.

NOTE: of more than 10.6 million people who had added coverage through the exchanges early 2019 – 87% qualified for premium subsidies, and 52% of current exchange enrollees are receiving subsidies in 2019. Subsidies are for incomes up to 250% of poverty level (SD = $24,036 – threshold = $60,090 – 2 parents, 2 children). In San Diego County, 13.8% of population is below the poverty level.

Question: What percentage of population is below 2.5 times the poverty level?
Answer: Much more than you think. Median income El Cajon=$46K, Escondido=$49K, La Mesa=$55K… Median => 50% of population above median, 50% of population below median – definition of statistical median).

Sorry – not fake news…!!!

Refs:
https://www.thestreet.com/politics/national-debt-year-by-year-14876008

The ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies

http://www.sandiegobusiness.org/sites/default/files/Regional%20Poverty%20in%20the%20San%20Diego%20Region.pdf

@spdrun – you way under-guestimated the cost of the subsidies. Where are the refs for your numbers?

[ucodegen]

[quote=burghMan][quote=ucodegen]It takes several years for the policies of a Governor or Legislative body to have an effect. [/quote]

Does the lag in policy and effect also apply to presidents?[/quote]
Simple answer – yes.
More complicated answer – to a large part yes, presidents can also hand their successor a ‘time bomb’ – an example that many don’t believe is actually the ACA (aka Obama Care). Note that it was passed many years before it came into force, and it came into force towards the mid-end point of Obama’s second term. The time bomb part is the ‘sponsoring’ or ‘aid’ for those whose incomes are lower than a certain threshold (which is approx the lower 30% to 40% income threshold by population count). There was never any direct ‘line-item’ in the budget. It is more of a continuing ‘entitlement’. There are approx 300 Million people in the US (including children). If there is an average financial assistance of $300/month per person below that income threshold, that ends up being $3,600 per person per year or $1.08 trillion a year on what is basically unfunded mandates. I know that I was charged nearly $1,000/month for health care – no prior, no existing problems, on a bronze plan as an individual. That also means the $300/month average assist per person is probably not far off. Insurance costs jump as you get older.

Another one is the overheated markets handed over from Clinton to Bush. The ironic part of this is that it is starting to look like Trump is going to hand an over extended market over to his successor. We have yet to see whether the addressing of China’s abuse of the market really pays positive dividends. (I’m not really upset at China – they have responsibility for their people and country, more bothered by ‘our’ or the US’s behavior – and not thinking about all the hidden costs associated with outsourcing and tech transfers)

[ucodegen]

[quote=temeculaguy]
Purple is good! nuff said[/quote]

Me too. I don’t worry about getting stuff passed, so I actually like a dead-locked Congress/President. It prevents stupid legislation from being passed. Legislation that is really needed tends to get through(though not always) and some stupid stuff still gets through. Each party tends to have some stupid ideas.. ie. AOC Socialistic tendencies vs Republicans getting religion and trying to throw out Roe vs Wade, ignoring separation of Church and State….

On needed legislation not making it through, I have seen indications of both parties agreeing in principle on the legislation but the parties want to have it pass on ‘their’ watch vs the opposing party’s watch, just so they can lay claim to being the party passing it (appearance seems more important than reality?)

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Spdrun, one big issue with big cities is that they attract bad immigrants from bad rural areas and third tier cities. Big cities should not bear the burden of being overrun by drug addicts and homeless who come from other parts of the country. We want people with degrees, jobs and money, not people who fall into drugs and homelessness.[/quote]
Most of the big-city drug addicts are locally grown. You need free time, nothing to do, easy local support by begging to build an addict + parents not teaching their children responsibility(parents enabling). Supply of illicit drugs is also much greater in big city areas. Rural drug abuse is more along the lines of depression, poor local job prospects and — absentee parents.

The high cost of big city housing is also a contributing factor to homelessness. Rural houses are much cheaper.

Interesting stats on 2nd page https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/teds-short-report043-urban-rural-admissions-2012.pdf

Look at age of onset of use, Employment (big city has larger number of ‘not-in-labor-force’), more big city types have ‘no primary income’. There is also a large race disparity on use between rural and urban – which tends to indicate that drug users are not migrating to the city else the race mix would be the same between rural and urban. Rural drug abuse also shows larger periods of non-use for at least a month.
[/quote]

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Wow, a Democrat won the governor’s race in Kentucky against the Republican incumbent. Add that to the Democrats eviscerating Republicans in Virginia. Virginia is becoming another California. all that good jobs are in states held by Democrats. That is pretty good indication of the effectiveness of economic policies. Money talks.[/quote]
Riiiiggghhhtt… Try some history. It takes several years for the policies of a Governor or Legislative body to have an effect. The San Diego pension crisis has been building for years. How about Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago? What tends to happen is that there is an economic build-up AND THEN everybody feels so flush with cash thinking that any half brained spending idea is a good idea.. so the voters go for it, after all the state’s coffers are full – AND THEN….

Here are some interesting refs

How Decades Of Democratic Rule Ruined Some Of Our Finest Cities

Detroit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit#Non-Partisan_Elections
Look at the period from 1962 to current.

Flint, Michigan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Flint,_Michigan#1974_Charter
Look at the period from 1975 to current.

Chicago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Chicago#List_of_mayors
Look at 1931 to current.

Remember, California had Republican governors as well as Democrat governors.

[ucodegen]

[quote=burghMan]Thanks for the response. It’s great to see some posts that use data. I understand that interest rates have a big influence, but the interesting question is: how do you work them into the valuation model for stocks?[/quote] Treasuries are the alternative to stocks. The risks are different. I listed some of the risks above. A premium needs to be factored in for the risks. There isn’t a complete one fits all.
[quote=burghMan]
Good points about other factors leading up to the 1929 crash. Markets are more transparent today, but I believe there are some hidden risks out there. Consumer debt is higher than it ever has been: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-consumer-debt-is-now-breaching-levels-last-reached-during-the-2008-financial-crisis-2019-06-19%5B/quote%5D
Reading through the entire article, the title is a bit misleading – though it is about the fact that they are starting to see some of the bad behavior coming back. Its not 2006-8 .. yet.
[quote=burghMan]Anecdotally I’m seeing more friends and neighbors living beyond their means. It’s not as much about real estate, but cars, swimming pools, vacations, etc. [/quote]I think that is the case for many Piggingtons(seeing others/those they know living beyond their means). The state of financial education in this country is abysmal to non-existent. I had some financial education in Intermediate School.(grades 7,8) and some of the Algebra classes added to it. Most people I know have not had any grade-high school financial education.

[ucodegen]

[quote=henrysd]
CAPE is only one measurement of stock market valuation just like SAT test scores used in college admission. It has serious flaw – it fails to consider the interest rate. Early 80 CAPE can’t compared with current time CAPE due to 10% difference in interest rate. Vanguard uses a modified version of CAPE called fair-value CAPE and adjust for current interest rate. In Vanguard research, current U.S. stock market is still considered overvalued, but only slightly due to low interest rate. This is in sharp comparison with many other pure CAPE modelers:
https://vanguardblog.com/2019/03/13/what-fed-projections-may-mean-for-longer-term-stock-returns/

Contrarian view is negative stock marker sentiment is bullish for stocks. For the last half year the sentiment was mostly bearish with all the recession talk. Wall street would love to propel the market higher when so much retail investor money has sidelined.[/quote]

When considering valuation, not only do you need to consider the current interest rate, you also need to consider what ‘likely’ future interest rates may be and rates of inflation. Treasuries are not inflation protected unless you are picking up TIPS(Treasury Inflation Protected Securities). TIPS will tend to yield lower than standard treasuries. Most people consider treasuries to be safer than stocks, but that is not necessarily true unless you are holding to maturity.

Interest rate risk At the current (11/6/2019) yield of 2.3%, they are an extreme form of leverage. The SEC has a good short publication on the interest rate risk on treasuries. Basically the price difference(possibly discounted) will be based upon both where the current yield curve is as well as the difference on the Coupon Rate vs Market Interest Rate of the Treasury. A 30 year held for 10 years then sold is basically a 20 year Treasury when sold. If the rates are the same in 10 years as now, you would be selling a 2.3% yielding ’20’ year treasury in a market where current 20 years are yielding 2.13%. You would be able to sell at a premium. However if the interest rate increases before selling and the 20 year treasuries are yielding 3%, you will have to sell for less than the face value.

Inflation Only TIPS are inflation protected. On a non inflation protected ‘standard’ treasury, if it is yielding 2% while inflation is 1.5%, your actual gain is 0.5% because the tangible value of the treasury will have dropped by 1.5% while you were paid 2%. This is where boring dividend stocks have a potential advantage. The price of the stock, its revenue, its earnings and its dividends will tend to also increase by the rate of inflation while the treasury has remained the same.

To get a rough look of Stocks vs Treasuries, you can invert the PE ratio (provided the stock actually has earnings) and it gives you a rough idea of internal ‘yield’. A PE ratio of 30 would be a return of around 3.33% – held internal to the company if there are no dividends. PE represents P/E for the stock, E/P is effectively a yield. Of course stocks also have a risk in a increasing interest rate environment because of the rough equivalence yield to Treasury Rate.

NOTE: Using Black Tuesday 1929 as a guide for the ‘watch out’ PE is not a good idea. There was a lot more that went into causing Black Tuesday’s crash and the depression than just PEs. The financial accounting standards in 1929 were — well you could call it the Wild West… the NINJA equivalent to the mortgage crisis.

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I was recently advising a Central American asylee to become a truck driver, a plumber or electrician. Maybe truck driver is a bad idea unless he has the inclination to retrain later to become a virtual truck driver.

He should become a union plumber or electrician, or maybe a cop or fireman.[/quote]
Fireman(muni, not forest service) – good benefits, good wage, less than 1 fire a day to go to, very rarely get shot at. There are brief periods of crazy work (ie Witch Creek Fire) but all in all – not very busy.

The minus, you need to be (must be) physically fit (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

Plumbers and Electricians used to be good options, but with reduction in manufacturing within the U.S. and using cheap labor in housing construction — not so good anymore.

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]One thing weird about the US economy that Fox News no longer mentions is our labor participation rate. It’s lower than other developed nations, even though we have a younger population. I think we have a huge drug problem and a lot of mentally whack people who can’t hold jobs. 1 out of 5 on psychological drugs not counting recreational pot and illegal prescriptions.

It’s confounding economists.[/quote]
Actually, it is not confounding.. though it is interesting to look at. 1/2009 it was 65.7%, 7/2019 it was 63%. The interesting part is the ‘neck’ or bend in it. It is like a backwards hocky-stick(to borrow a phrase). It hit 63.7 on 1/2012 and has kind of bounced around that number till today. I think companies were ‘shedding’ their older workers to avoid the costs of health insurance on older people. If you look at the growth in insurance costs for older workers(50 yrs old and up), you will see that in under a period of 4 years, it has doubled… which would be a rate of about 19% per year { e^(ln(2)/4) }.

Anecdotally, I know of a co-worker who was laid off at approximately the same time as I was in 2008. He has a Computer Science degree and more than 10 years experience, is a very hard worker, and has gone from one short term job to another (2 years and under on average). He is currently making the same as he did 10 years ago.

I was forced into retirement (causes outside of my control), also being over 50 and getting crap offers even though I have an E.E.C.E. degree and well over 10 years of experience. Fortunately I planned ahead and am using my time to ‘improve my yields’ on investments – which I have found to give me better returns than the wage I was earning. Ironically, I show up as a ‘not participating in the labor force’.

On a side note to this, there is a large number of unemployed homeless.. my personal opinion is that while the stock market has ‘rebounded’ due to cheap money – the labor economy has not. The new touted ‘jobber/gig/contract work’ market is full BS, and is just a way for companies to shed liabilities and costs while draining the brains of the contract workers. One can only outsource so much, and eventually the companies you outsource to will actually become a company’s competitors.

NOTE: Because labor participation rate hit 63.7 around 2012, you really can’t blame Trump for that.
Linky: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
By the way, on the graph move the starting year to 2005.. or even earlier.

On closing question though: Does the U.S. remember how to manufacture efficiently? or is there too much red tape to be able to do that?

[ucodegen]

What do you expect when Democrats currently make a practice of calling Republicans “Deplorables” or “Despicable”? That is a hostile and discriminatory statement. How can you blame them for not sticking around?

Many liberals preach being open and accepting or at least tolerant of other people’s views – yet they regularly seem to consider the people on the other side of the isle as ‘deplorables’ or ‘despicable’. If someone voiced that people of a different color or race were deplorables – the liberals would be up at arms. If someone voiced that people of a different religious belief were deplorables, liberals would schedule mass demonstrations. If someone claimed that that LGBTQ (more accurately LGBTTTQQIAA ) are despicable, liberals would start mass riots. How is a different general point of view any different than a different take/belief on sexuality, or religion? Isn’t the liberal stance on so called ‘deplorable’ Republicans kind of hypocritical?

To take another look at it, the positives that the community offers:

No graffiti, no trash laying around.

No loud music invading other people’s space.

Low to no crime.

High quality schools.

Safe to the point where it is comfortable to leave somethings unlocked – like it was in many places during the 1960s or earlier.

5 bedroom, 4 bath house, approx 3,000+ sq ft house, 1/3+ acre lot for less than $400,000.

Able for a family to function as a single wage earner/single income – more traditional. This allows for young children to have access to a parent almost any time of the day – no latch-key kids, and less financial stress.

1/3+ acre lots – a lot of room for kids to safely play and develop instead of glued to a TV screen or video game. 3,000sq foot house also allows some play for kids inside.

Sounds kind of nice from the above list. One aspect I worry about is Mc Kinney, TX becoming an ‘echo chamber’ for a specific type of view, though ironically, San Francisco/Silicon Valley has already become an echo chamber for their own types of views – isolating themselves from ideas outside of their own. It is almost overtly hostile to conservatives (Undercover Conservatives). This is part of a series called Divided We Code. First segment Sexual Harassment; Power, Money, Harassment even demonstrates how this liberal bastion is even contradicting their own beliefs on equality.

So at this point, to head off the proverbial name-calling, a little bit about myself;

Tend to vote Republican, but not always. My S.O. is a Democrat. (Yes, we are living in so-called ‘sin’ – what’s it to you? Yes, we also have differing points of view – but why would that be a problem? Have you read Yevgeny Zamyatin’s ‘We’? George Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’?(ref also to ‘thought police’), what about the movie Equilibrium? )

I’m white, she’s not (What? Why would that be wierd? Are you a racist?).

My degree is EECE with a lot of Physics and Math with a minor in Business Management. In highschool, I pulled perfect AP test scores in Math and Physics. She is a Communications major. (so why do you consider me a deplorable ignorant?)

I’m agnostic-Protestant, she’s Catholic. (yes, a Republican can exist that is not a Holy Roller)

Our parents in both cases, have military service in their backgrounds (fathers). Both mothers have been teachers.

— so as you can see – not so cut and dry, black and white. An interesting side note is that she wanted us to move to Texas….

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]

Humm…. isn’t there carbon monoxide that causes brain damage?

Carbon monoxide is produced in insignificant quantities. Gas stoves in good repair produce a blue flame — this is a sign of complete combustion that’s unlikely to produce a lot of carbon monoxide.

I’ve also had a CO detector in my kitchen for years — it’s never shown harmful quantities of CO while cooking.[/quote]
We have the same here, and the CO monitor, which is at stove level, has never gone off.

Personally, I like the Induction stoves, but you do need to be aware of some things:

Despite what the video says, all induction stove tops do not heat as fast as many gas burners – notice that he really did not do a timed side by side comparison. Since he mentioned Viking units; Viking has burners rated from 18,500 BTU all the way up and beyond 30,000 BTU. Converting that to electrical power comes up with 18,500 BTU -> 5421.79 Watts, or about 22 Amps at 240 Volts. Most breakers on stoves are around 40 amps, some more. Note also, I only considered the 18,500 BTU burner. You can run all burners simultaneously on a gas stove without ‘blowing breakers’.(something that was useful when preparing food for our family Christmas dinner).

The temperature of the stove surface goes immediately to 3,542 degrees Fahrenheit when ignited.

The induction is more efficient in transferring heat energy to the pot, but his numbers 60% on gas stove are a bit misleading. It also depends upon the design of the pot. Hikers use ‘adapters’ to help with better heat transfer at high altitude when cooking.

The induction cooktop is definitely cleaner to look at and easier to clean. No comparison possible here.

Induction cooktops have to be glass. It is high strength tempered glass, but it still has many problems of glass – including breaking and scratching. This is partially why it is not used in restaurants – where pots/pans etc may come down a little hard in the surface and there is a high potential for wear. In short order, the glass may not look so nice.

I noticed that the video presenter was wearing a ring when his hand was over the supposedly cooking unit. If he was, that ring could have instantly gotten hot. Induction cooktops heat up what ever metal is above them(if they contain iron/steel). They word by radiating Electromagnetic waves that create eddy currents in the metal above them, causing the eddy currents to heat up the metal — whether that is a pot, pan, ring or watch. The frequency of the electromagnetic waves are turned to induce current in iron based product(including steel). Aluminum pots do not work well or at all on induction cooktops. There may be some issue with stainless steel not working either. Some stainless steels are not magnetic, nor are they conductive. It is not a good idea to have electronic devices near or above them when they are running. NOTE: Some inductive stoves may have a sensor that will cause the ‘burner’ to automatically turn off to prevent smaller pieces of iron/steel etc from getting heated – through sensing how much electromagnetic coupling there is between the burner and ‘pot’.

Heating pots/food on an induction stove is different than a gas. Gas works with temperature differentials – as the pot gets hotter, the stove transfers energy less efficiently to the pot. Induction works by transferring ‘energy’ into the pot. On an induction stove, if a pot heats up at 10 degrees /sec at room temp, it will also heat up at 10 degrees / sec right before melting. It is easier to overshoot your temperature on an induction. Maintaining a temperature on a pot requires a lower setting than on a gas.

Induction is safer for kids – until they discover how fast they heat up metal things. Putting your bare hand on a running stove will not give you burns.

Inductions stoves have a moderate amount of electronics in them – therefore possible things to go wrong. Gas stoves are very simple – effectively dumb as rocks.

PS: You may want to avoid Miele induction stoves – they have a bug. If you turn a stove to max then immediately down to a lower level, the Miele stove still stays on the high setting for about 10 seconds.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Myriad]
That’s in sq meters. have to divide by 10.7639
So $11.05/sq ft and $128.67
[/quote]
Sorry, my mistake. But also consider that I was not taking Hong Kong as highest income city in China, but Beijing. Hong Kong is an outlier. It has a median income that has more than 2x a chance of supporting the prices – for whatever good that can be considering that Hong Kong is priced a bit extreme (recent correction – not a 2x chance, they are both in a bad condition).
Similar ratios for Beijing:
Beijing $580,598(4.02mil RMB)$16,117.66/yr(111,390yuan) 36.1

I have seen other numbers for price to income ration that look worse (44:1).
https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/in/Beijing

other link:

Beijing Host to China’s Highest Median Home Prices

NOTE: on ” Myriad’s” post – it looks like it might be local currency.
See: https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Hong+Kong&country2=Australia&city1=Hong+Kong&city2=Sydney

Beijing, New York comparison:
https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/compare_cities.jsp?country1=China&city1=Beijing&country2=United+States&city2=New+York%2C+NY

Though this shows the price to income ratio as being worse.

Note to Rich: Is it possible to add the codes for tables to the allowed HTML tags? ie; ‘table’, ‘/table’, ‘tr’, ‘/tr’, ‘td’ – just make sure to have the filter program spit out closing ‘/tr’ and ‘/table’ if a poster has not closed it at the end of the post – as it should be doing with ‘/b’, ‘/i’ etc.

[ucodegen]

[quote=ocrenter]
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/chinas-property-bubble-is-bigger-than-subprime-2016-10

Business Insider had the ratio at 3.7:1 at end of 2016.

http://m.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/1239502
[/quote]

Direct link on Business Insider article:
https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-property-bubble-is-bigger-than-subprime-2016-10

The link you had posted seemed to get lost in the ‘ether’-net/Web.

Interesting quote from article:

Analysts at HSBC have been crunching the figures, and they believe that during the first eight months of 2016, property prices in urban areas rose by 18.13% year-on-year. Back at the end of February 2010, the national average price per square metre of property within China was RMB5,508 for urban areas and RMB473 for rural areas. Today these figures have risen to RMB9,570 for urban areas and RMB822 for rural areas.

RMB 822/sq ft = $119/sq ft.
RMB 9570/sq ft = $1,385/sq ft.

This on median chinese wages of approx $14k/yr, per capita GDP below $10k/person/year.
Beijing average annual salary about $16,117.66/yr(111,390yuan), Henan province is about $6,569.15/yr(45,403yuan) – ref statistica.com
NOTE: St Louis fed give different numbers, but still not very good to support their housing costs. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2018/january/income-living-standards-china

[Author]

Posts