shows how tiny the 1990 and 2000 recessions were compared to the biggie, in job terms.
Employment peaked in Feb 2001 and was depressed until late 2003 (aka the "jobless recovery")
For the Great Recession, employment peaked in Jan 2008 and recovery started late 2009, or Feb 2010 if you don't count census hiring.
(but we haven't yet returned to the full-time employment levels of 2008 yet, alas)
We've got Gen Y absolutely flooding into the job market now (median age of our big-bearded and tattooed progeny is 23 this year), so wages are going to be tight I expect.
Tight wages should keep a lid on overall inflation, as will rising housing costs as Gen Y overwhelms the available housing stock more and more.
Medical tourism does place a little downward pressure on prices, but not much because of how our health insurance system works.
Not to mention it's utterly farcical to fly to Asia or down to Mexico to get treatment.
how executives can keep from global pressure
GOOG is not money-bound. They've got 700 million shares outstanding so if you own 1000 shares this $70M is costing you $100/yr.
GOOG C-suite's time is money. There's no reason to fuck around with committees and random outsourcing to Timbuktu or whatever. Find the guy you want to work with and pay them what they want to work with you. That's GOOG's approach, and it's working for them.
Congress and a good third of the public were for the wars.
and another third plus were more than willing to join the bandwagon if the invasion panned out.
It's not a right to live in SF.
Privilege vs. right is exactly the issue, actually.
Government hands out the privilege -- i.e. legal privatization -- of land tenure.
Some people are more privileged than others, that's all.
Tax the shit out of the old-money mansions taking up half the city and they could have free Hong Kong-style condos for everyone else.
government can't even govern, how are they gonna run a business?
I gave you two examples, the good one and the bad one.
Though having government run everything just puts more power in the hands of the government operators.
Monopoly is the bad thing, and refiners here have that, hence our high pump prices.
These clowns spammed Reddit to get free advertising.
Well, spam is a bit strong I guess.
why is there such low inventory, if prices are going up
People ain't going to live in a cave or under a bridge if they can help it, and full-time RVing hasn't quite taken off yet.
compares population to housing starts, 1960 = 100
The baby boom is age 51 - 69 this year, and Gen Y (bigger than them) is age 15 - 33, just about halfway edged into their new housing demand years.
We've got a massive market failure on our hands here.
And while I reflexively defend Obama usually, he hasn't said shit about this, and that's his fucking job.
Governor Brown, too!
Plus ability to pay also factors into the pricing.
The real market squeeze is at the refinery level, not the retail level (gasoline is a tough business since everyone has to post their prices outside their business, plus smartphones are making price competition even more transparent than that!)
The state of california should open its own refinery to fuck with the majors, just like Norway runs StatOil and Mexico runs PEMEX.
Wait, bad example!
the dunmmocrats are gonna take are gunz
MOLON LABE MUTHAS!!
housing affordable through cheap credit and looser mortgage application requirements
increasing demand is not the avenue to lower prices, which is my understanding of what "affordability" means
we squared this circle in health care by just slapping a new 5% surtax on rich people and giving that money to the middle class as tax credits against their insurance costs, calculated by a formula to limit the cost of insurance to 10% (or whatever) of MAGI
unlike health care, housing has very little embedded labor cost, prices are basically set at ability to pay, houses 100 years old or neighborhoods platted last year.
largest discretionary item, the military budget, is not serious
social spending / DOD spending
Kinda tough putting a new development in unless you want to pave a hillside, most places in CA at least.
was the last land in Sunnyvale. Oops, half of it got built out with 50 new million-dollar stuccoed shoeboxes
most people don't want to live in a nation of potheads, LOL
I'm all for legalization, but that's where the backlash is coming from ("if I can't get stoned every day why should you???")
Good on for AK, WA, and CO for seeing if legalization works. Close vote, though:
Alaska Ballot Measure 2
Result Votes Percentage
Approved Yes 149,021 53.23%
No 130,924 46.77%
shows that if things were "Fair" (a head tax not an income tax), the 1% ($400k+) would see their taxes cut in half, the 1-5% ($175,000+) would see a 25% tax cut, people making $125 - 175k would see no change, people making ~$100k would see a 33% tax rise, people making around $50,000 would see their taxes double, and people making less than $36,000 would have to pony up another $100B, or $1400/yr per household.
Actually, this doesn't sound like that bad an idea, if it is indeed true that lower taxes just mutate into higher housing costs, which I think is the case, more or less.
Before voting third party we'd have to have a system that didn't mean that vote just let the GOP candidate win instead.
After FL & NH in 2000 this is painfully obvious, yes?
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to the white house, and only a few find it. -- Matthew 7:14
liberal politicians who he criticizes for placating discontented middle and lower class voters with affordable housing which led to numerous painful distortions
It's probably all true. No politician is going to win election promising to lower home valuations.
The idea is ludicrous on its face.
While people say the 70s were a recession, we still created > 20 million jobs during the time period.
On a lower base:
1970s: ~30% expansion of the workforce, 70M to 90M
1980s: ~20%, 90M to 110M
1990s: ~20%, 110M to 130M
2000s to now: 6%, 130M to 140M
and without increasing overall debt-to-income, unlike the Reagan and Bush II expansions:
2016 nitwit voters will elect a Royal Democrat or Republican
The problem is entirely there are too many conservatives now and they have crawled back into significant positions of power (House, Senate, most of the judiciary -- between 1980 - 2008 the GOP got to make appointments 20 out of the 28 years), not that we have two parties.
The GOP is far right, pandering to conservatives, which make up 30-40% of the population.
The Dems are centrist/center-right, picking off moderates, various minorities (hispanics, blacks, athiests, drug abusers, criminals, gays, feminists, immigrants, the indigent, etc) and are also 30-40% of the population.
Progressives that align exactly with my views are perhaps 5% of the population, wider progressives maybe 20%. I'm not going to have my own party, I've got to pick one to coalition with, and I'm sure as hell having no truck with the GOP as it is currently constituted.
The muddled middle is what is deciding elections, and yes, they are indeed nitwits. Which is to be expected with universal suffrage -- half the population has a below average intelligence!
You shouldn't live in a desert, ASSHOLES!
Actually the Sierras are one helluva rain-catcher. So much so that Nevada and Utah don't get any rain!
Fresno sits between two major rivers but only gets 9-10" of rain on average. It took our forebears 30 years to figure out they could just dig some ditches and produce a veritable garden of Eden once the alluvial wash soil that goes down a mile or two to bedrock was irrigated.
The main problem was we had too much water once irrigation got going, and water laws are pretty lax.
We've got rice growers flooding their paddies to keep their suppliers in business, even though the water they use is worth more than the rice they produce with it.
when more people are on the wagon ,and less people are pulling it , economy is is going to stop
destroys all conservative 'oh noes no money' arguments
son's insurance went from $85 pre-ACA, to $155, then on to $250
Not the same coverage I suspect.
People without income are worse-off than before ACA because they get no subsidies
Incorrect if they qualify for the medicaid expansion, which for some reason the conservatives on the SCOTUS left for the states to opt in.
what we should do for Gen Y is free xboxes and COD games, plus a monthly stipend to cover Taco Bell and pot.
$500/mo to 40 million people would only be 1/3 the current DOD expense.