Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 21 Dec 2013 in What We Already Knew About San Francisco, ThreeBays said:

    thomaswong.1986 says

    bgamall4 says

    Well, if I had to accept a city with rich and poor divided, at least many of the wealthy in SF actually make stuff. Most in NYC just lend out toxicity. I think Google should not provide a bus for those folks crowding in on SF, but at least Google has a product instead of a lending scam.

    Google doesnt make anything.. they provide marketing information and sell adds.

    Ask yourself how much RE and Mortgage ads do these portels sprew out ...

    They are the NEW madison avenue of this centurey... as if thats good!

    They sell everything about you...

    Besides that, Google isnt in SF.. SV isnt part of SF, never was... what was the last time SF prime

    ever created anything ? Levis and Shipping but that was long ago... Its all Tourists and Conventions

    today... not much to speak of...

    The resident Google hater is here.

    What do you work for a Google competitor or something?

  • On 21 Dec 2013 in What We Already Knew About San Francisco, ThreeBays said:

    People think household income of just $75K+ is rich in San Francisco? It's barely enough to survive on for any new family.

  • On 16 Dec 2013 in Trends are disturbing for housing affordability in SFBA, ThreeBays said:

    dublin hillz says

    Between 2010 and 2040, population is projected to grow by 2,148,000 while housing units are projected to increase by only 660,000. So, in essence we will have net extra 1,488,000 competitors for housing compared to 2010. Just peachy!

    Umm... no. You will have 700,000 more households competing for 660,000 more housing units.

    Oh noes! I bet prices will go up a million percent.

    I just hope we get another lane built on the freeways, and self driving cars by then. I don't mind living twice as far if the car will drive itself while I take a nap :).

  • On 16 Dec 2013 in Protestors Jumped In Front Of A Google Bus And Stopped It From Moving, ThreeBays said:

    bgamall4 says

    Apparently they don't love it, unless they are in a hurry to sell and get the hell out. Rew says

    They want to make it convenient and productive for their employees to get to and from work (wi-fi bus rides for all).

    They probably can't afford to go to work without the bus.

    The reason for the buses is so that people can work on their laptop for part of the work day instead of being stuck driving their car while breathing in smog for 2 to 3 hours a day commuting from SF to MV. And probably helps to reduce congestion around their campus.

  • On 16 Dec 2013 in Protestors Jumped In Front Of A Google Bus And Stopped It From Moving, ThreeBays said:

    Those people on the buses are mostly working on software and hardware, so they are tech-workers. That is primarily what Google employs.

    Would you call the sw/hw engineers working at banks "bankers", because the business is primarily banking?

    And what was the point of all your pointless arguing thomaswong? Is calling Google a non-tech company going to cause a realignment of the stars?

  • On 16 Dec 2013 in Protestors Jumped In Front Of A Google Bus And Stopped It From Moving, ThreeBays said:

    thomaswong.1986 says

    ThreeBays says

    they make software like Android OS

    make or bought ?

    Acquired, and developed under Google since 2005. Or does that not make it Google?

    How about Chrome OS?

    You just said that Apple is a tech company because they sell computer hardware and OSs. Well so does Google (albeit on a much smaller scale).

    https://www.google.com/intl/en-US/chrome/devices/chromebook-pixel/

  • On 16 Dec 2013 in Protestors Jumped In Front Of A Google Bus And Stopped It From Moving, ThreeBays said:

    /Gets popcorn

    Pretty silly to say Google is not a tech company when they make software like Android OS and Google Play, hardware like Glass, Chromebook Pixel, Chromecast, infrastructure like Google fiber internet and TV, enterprise services like Google Apps for Business, hosting like Google App Engine, self driving cars, etc. and they own Motorola Mobility.

  • On 20 Nov 2013 in October Existing Home Sales Tumble, ThreeBays said:

    iwog says

    Take a real good look at the graph I posted. New construction has been dead since 2009 and population has been growing at about a constant rate.

    Therefore since 2009 we have 2.6 million new housing units and the United States population has grown by almost 10 million individuals. We need additional housing for 7.5 million people that doesn't currently exist and you're surprised prices are going higher?

    Well for a start it's not 1 person to 1 housing unit is it?

    And how many more individuals are staying home longer, or doubling up due to the bad economy, or how many are moving into retirement homes, or how many are homeless?

    Vacancy rates are high if I recall.

    Kashif's link _is_ useful information IMO.

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/10/workforce-population-jobs-by-age-group_2546.html

    Yes, adult population increased by ~14 million, but there is no increase in the 20~54 population, and a decrease in 25~54 population (the ones who buy homes).

  • On 20 Nov 2013 in October Existing Home Sales Tumble, ThreeBays said:

    More houses are clearing water again. Inventory will rise.

    Existing home sales are around ~2000 levels, and I expect inventories will do the same. Unless we have another buying frenzy like 03' to 06' I think the market will stabilize.

  • On 20 Nov 2013 in Congratulations to Illinois: Most Government Bodies, Most Convicted Governors, ThreeBays said:

    Meanwhile the marginal tax rate in IL is not that high.

  • On 9 Nov 2013 in The poor are more obese? I thought poor people are starving in the streets!, ThreeBays said:

    casandra says

    i know many many people who are on food stamps or EBT here in CA. they are far from poor. they have the income or people making over 80k a year before taxes, so don't call people on food stamps poor cause they are far from it, AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORK. it is not socially correct to call them poor. especially when they are not.

    they are on fixed incomes, and being on a fixed income is not a good thing cause your income won't go down as much as the working classes does.

    Huh? Doubt a single word you said is true.

    A family with $80k/year income doesn't qualify for food stamps, not unless they have a dozen kids. And wait, you're saying they don't have to work for that $80k income?

    And what exactly do you consider socially correct "poor"? Not having 2 cents to rub together?

    You have a pretty low expectation from our advanced society. To me any income that means you live month to month and can't afford decent health insurance, can't save a cent towards a retirement, or towards your children's education is considered "socially poor".

  • On 5 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    Reality says

    Exactly like I said in the quote above, the hospitals can do that because they are geographical monopolies in most places, thanks to government regulation and licensing requirement before anyone can open a hospital nowadays.

    Maybe I'm wrong but hospitals sound like the kind of place that should need licensing. That in itself doesn't make a monopoly any more than restaurants needing a license to sell food.

    Unregulated mergers have created monopolies that have given hospitals power to charge whatever they want. Insurers can't stand up to them.

    Again, you see too much regulation; I see not enough.

    For private insurers, if the BIG hospital threatens to go out of their network they have to succumb to their demands. If we have single payer ONLY and one network ONLY, what will the big hospitals threaten? Giving up their license?

    If you like your doctor, you can keep him because there is only one network.

    Ooohhh... providers would _actually_ have to compete for customer's business based on quality of care. What a crazy idea.

  • On 5 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    Reality says

    That's the crux of cost-transferring. Hospitals can get away with it because most hospitals are geographical monopolies thanks to local zoning and licensing requirement.

    Cost transfer is an excuse. It's price gouging. It needs to be stopped by regulation.

    Of course when the hospital says it costs $10,000 for a birth and Medicare pays "only" $3,000 then the hospital will cry foul and transfer $20,000 to the private buyer. The crux is that it really costs only $1,000 to provide the service.

  • On 5 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    ThreeBays says

    Reality says

    Medicine is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US, along with education and banking. As you can see how well the people are treated in those three industries, compared to other industries where free market competition is more dominant.

    I'd argue that they aren't regulated enough. These pseudo-regulated markets always leave plenty of rope for the market to hang themselves.

    The health market is not like the auto market, where price discovery can happen as consumers can decide what trim to buy or how often they want to buy a car by keeping an old car longer or finding another way to commute. And in the auto industry you have some transparency helping you to negotiate better prices with dealers.

    In health, you don't always have a choice or an alternative so it becomes a sellers market. There is no transparency. Hospitals aren't going to publish their price lists without new regulation that forces them to do so, and they aren't going to cut excessive prices unless they're forced to do so.

    As long as there is a limitless growing "pie" of funds for healthcare, there is no buyer's power, and innovation and competition aren't used to reduce prices.

    If the government fixes the "pie" of funds to a sum indexed to inflation, then you solve our deficit problem and you light a fire under the health industry to compete for your dollars.

    Do you think Medicare pays $35 for Tylenol? Medicare pays a lot less for services than private insurance, which is a lot less than what hospitals would like to charge.

  • On 5 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    Reality says

    Medicine is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US, along with education and banking. As you can see how well the people are treated in those three industries, compared to other industries where free market competition is more dominant.

    I'd argue that they aren't regulated enough. These pseudo-regulated markets always leave plenty of rope for the market to hang themselves.

  • On 5 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    Reality says

    In a competitive free market place, Innovation is what drives down prices. The rapid rise of healthcare cost in the US is not due to innovation but due to government sanctioned and subsidized monopolies. How much innovation is in a $35 Tylenol pill in an emergency room? It doesn't even have a 3-cent RFID sticker on it, like most items priced over $10 do at Walmart.

    What does the government have to do with the $35 Tylenol pill?

    The US has a free market place if ever there was one. Free as in "your money or your life" free.

  • On 4 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    debyne says

    But why throw the baby out with the bath water? I agree that our outcomes-to-cost ratio needs a major overhaul, but don't "try" to solve one problem by creating a bigger one, which is losing innovation. You can poo-poo innovation all you want, but so much of why we're able to live longer now vs 200 years ago is as a result of innovation. And you want to hamper that? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. "Look, we have cheap healthcare, but it involves blood-letting and drilling holes in our heads."

    You're exaggerating. We're not talking about killing all innovation and I'm not poo-poo-ing it. You're talking as if innovation MUST be prioritized at any expense, as if it's the most important metric.

    If you had to say, slow innovation by 10% in order to make it's cost sustainable then we should. Actually, it's not we should... we will have to. The US simply can't afford the rate of healthcare cost increases.

    Look we have expensive healthcare that keeps us living a little big longer (although not really... the US has lower life expectancy than a dozen countries that have national health care). But, nobody can afford it, and things we thought could only get better are actually getting worse.

    Super sonic flight in the 80's and 90's? Sorry, in 2013 we don't have that... we just pack more and more economy seats on slower jets.

    There is no free lunch. There are a finite amount of resources on Earth. The more we sink into never ending healthcare "innovation", the more we have to take away from other "healthy" things, like not being broke and depressed, eating good food, or vacationing or retirement.

    There's more than a small chance that poor healthcare in the US is partly driven by the extra stress.

  • On 4 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    debyne says

    Anything "single payer" means they don't have to be efficient because they'll just get more gov't budget to pay for their inefficiencies, fraud, etc. On what planet do you think the gov't is efficient and able to contain cost?

    The claim that governments can't run healthcare funds as well as private insurance is easily debunked by looking at all the countries that operate national health insurance and have better and less costly healthcare expense than the US.

    Oh, let's look at healthcare.gov as a good example. How much did that website cost and how much time did they have to implement it? How well did that turn out?

    Big IT projects are notorious for running over schedule and budget both in government and in private enterprise.

    healthcare.gov was developed by private contractors after all.

    The argument about the website failure is a distraction from whether the policy is good or not.

    Oh, and let's not forget that single payer causes innovation to decline...look at the number of new drugs produced by the US compared to single payer nations.

    The relationship between the size of the pharma industry and the insurance system is highly debatable.

    And you may say medical innovation in the US is the best, but at the same time medical outcomes and patient satisfaction in the US aren't the best.

    When 40% of americans have inadequate access to health care, the top line innovation is hardly the biggest issue in US healthcare.

    It's like people are starving, yet we boast about having the most gilded castles.

  • On 3 Nov 2013 in Home of Housing Scams and Hoarding Now Converts Boxes to Houses, ThreeBays said:

    Nah, the intent of self certified loans wasn't to trust liars. They came with a requirement for a reasonable down payment, so that the borrower had plenty of skin in the game and demonstrated they had the where with all to save.

    What turned self certified into abused liar loans is the removal for the need of any down payment, also combined with neg-am mortgages.

    Even with complete lack of regulation, banks and borrowers should consider risk. The belief that prices can only go up changed that. Plus the decoupling of loan brokers and risk bearers, and masking of risk in toxic financial instruments. There is plenty of blame to go around.

  • On 3 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    Looking at wages + salaries vs GDP, there is some drop (15%) from 1950, but it's certainly not 5x lower.

    So is it just that executives have had the benefit of most of that productivity growth?

  • On 3 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    msilenus says

    If you think I'm dividing by the denominator twice, ie: that I made the graph per capita per capita, then you do and did think the original graph was per capita. (Or "per population" as you put in the bolded portion above.)

    Sorry msilenus, but you're dividing apples by oranges.

    Say one week I worked 40 hours, and made $10k. Then I produced 10k/40=$250/hour worked.

    Say one week you + I worked 40 hours each, and made $10k each. Then we produced (2*20k)/(2*40)=$250/hour worked.

    The fact that there were 2 of us doesn't change productivity per hour. If you divide by population (2) then it looks like we made only $125/hour which is false, and makes our productivity look 2 times smaller.

    So don't divide by population, it's just wrong.

    msilenus says

    I'm pretty sure I can't be showing that labor participation has been falling

    Yes that's right. I took out that comment because I realized it wasn't correct.

  • On 3 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    msilenus says

    When you posted that graph, you were either honestly mistaken in thinking it was population-adjusted, or being a complete fool. Your graph goes up 5x since 1950. Population-adjusted, productivity was closer to 2x. Ergo, something like 75% of the increase in the graph you posted above was due to raw population increase.

    Incorrect conclusion.

    Iwog's graph shows Real Output / Total Hours Worked. Therefore it correctly shows that productivity per hour worked has increased 5x. It is not related to population increase at all.

  • On 2 Nov 2013 in LAX Exercise Turned False Flag EXPOSED!, ThreeBays said:

    Well I guess to a conspiracy theorist everything looks like a conspiracy.

  • On 2 Nov 2013 in Do you know how the economy works?, ThreeBays said:

    debyne says

    ThreeBays says

    debyne says

    I actually kinda like ACA and hope it's successful just as long as we stay away from a single payer structure, which is what would destroy competition and the innovation to improve.

    The "provider" can contribute to innovation, not the "payer".

    Not true at all. There's opportunities to innovate on the provider side as well as the payer side...we need improvement in both.

    And... I'm waiting for you to give some example of innovation on the payer side (that is not single payer).

    Cutting out the middle payer completely would be 100% improvement.

  • On 2 Nov 2013 in Income Inequality Questions, ThreeBays said:

    indigenous says

    The GDP is around 12 trillion a year of which you might somehow divine 10% profit from the 12 trillion which would be 1.2 trillion if you took all of that you would get 1.2/17= .07% nope that would not work not to mention 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

    Your math stinks. 1.2/17 = 7% not .07%

    To solve the debt we need a strong and balanced economy. We don't need the mega rich to own all our land and value.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 296 milliseconds to create.