You can be totally mentally and physically fit and still end up poor if your economy is busted.
Economy doesn't look busted to me. Looks like average wage went up 7%. Robert Reich's graph should go into the next edition of "How to Lie with Statistics" if there is a next edition.
First flaw in graph is no labels in the Y-axis.
Second flaw is no information about non-US wages. Non-US wages went up with globalization. So we are missing a bunch of wage growth. I'll bet extremely poor parts or China had percentage gains that blow away the productivity gains. This should be obvious when you are dealing with a small base.
Third flaw is why is he only going back to 1947? Quick search on Google shows many papers about productivity in the 19th century. But including that data might complicate the story he's trying to sell.
I didn't realize Apple was launching an 128GB iPhone, but that's great news. I would eventually like to have all of my music, podcasts, educational seminars on my phone with me without running into my carrier's bandwidth caps. One more step in doubling flash memory might not be that innovative, but it goes one more step to solving problems I'm having with storage.
I personally find the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to be the worst tax. Yes, I realize that it's mostly paid by wealthier tax payers, but the reason I dislike it so much is the way it can work out in practice for the less affluent. If one receives stock options that have large gains at the time they are exercised, there can be a large tax liability. Then if the stock crashes before the stock is sold, there may be little to no value in the stock to pay the tax on it.
During the Dot-Com boom, some people had stock options that had become worth millions at the time the stock was exercised. Then the stock plummeted and often, the company filed for bankruptcy making the stock worthless. But because there was a big paper gain on the stock at the time of exercise, there was a huge AMT tax liability.
Some people not only lost the entire value of the stock that they had purchased, but they also had millions of dollars of tax liability for a worthless stock that they still had to pay. The AMT drove people to bankruptcy.
With capital gain taxes, there at least is a gain that can be used to pay the taxes. (I realize inflation might make this gain not an true economic gain.) Unfortunately, the AMT applies to stock options that have theoretical gain, that may never have been realized.
People often times work for stat-ups that have below market base pay but generous stock options to make taking the risk worthwhile. The AMT too often is devastating.
I don't own a house or condom but might want one at the right price. If Wall Street crowds me out, maybe it's for the best. Maybe all that debt would be a bad thing. Maybe it's good to rent.
I hear you Patrick on these issues. Concerning the new adapter, rather than being mad about Apple changing to this new "Lightning" interface now, I'm mad at Apple for not inventing the Lightning interface back in 2003. I think this new connector has many advantages. And also, the people who bought first generation iPods got screwed in 2002 and 2003 when Apple switched from a FireWire-based connector to a USB-based connector. I still have my iPod FireWire sync cable in a drawer somewhere.
But if we can be angry at Apple for having a proprietary cable that keeps us locked in, we can also be angry at the rest of the cell phone industry for settling on miniUSB, since it has many weaknesses. For example if you want an Android phone with HDMI out, you need a separate port for that since miniUSB can't handle that. Apple, on the other hand, is releasing an HDMI adapter for Lightning.
And the CE industry took so long to develop PDMI, which is open, that it became obsolete before it got adopted by any company shipping phones in high volumes.
Thanks. I still want to read the Trulia report later to see what kind of optimistic assumptions they must have been using.
I'm no Romney fan, but maybe, if we keep inflating the debt away the debt, $200,000 - $250,000 household income *will* be middle income soon enough. Can we accept that possibility and all get along?
I ordered my copy today. I can't wait to read it.
Kindle has added a lending library for Prime subscribers.
I imagine at the dawn of humanity, the income gap was non-existent. But would life be better then? In my opinion, no. I'd rather be in the bottom quintile of income distribution now than the top quintile 2,500 years ago no matter what the gap is now or was then. Much more important than the income and wealth gaps is the absolute quality of life. I imagine that I'd prefer to be the bottom quintile of income in wealth 10,000 years from now than the highest quintile today. The gap is often the focus of the media. I think more attention should be paid to absolute lifestyle and not the gap.
Sounds like Operation Twist wasn't enough. Bernake has followed that up with his masterstroke, Operation Screw.
That's it? The gap is way smaller than I suspected.
I rent in San Francisco. I have a difficult time finding a place that is comparable to my apartment. To make a good comparison, it should be a similar space in the same neighborhood. I can't find a match.
I work 6 days a week and sometimes 7. It's fun. Not sure I see a problem there.
Hopefully whomever is the next president can help encourage Congress to pass a competing currency bill. It would be nice to be able to buy nominations with a strong currency. Inflation makes these things very expensive.
What, you want a pansy like Romney for president?
I consider is very wimpy not to have the guts to use proper due process. Skimping on due process like Obama and Bush before him is not to be admired. It's thuggish. If Romney behaved similarly, he would be similarly bad.
That's what makes him cool...
I don't think it's cool. So we disagree on that point.
I logically proved that the threat of Romney and the Neocons could put the world in danger. If that is an accepted assumption, then the libertarians have only one choice, Obama.
I think Obama puts the World in danger too. He even assassinates American citizens without a trial or even a charge, not to mention citizens of other countries.
How do you know?
I haven't read any news reports that answer that question. I understand that theater chain in question has a rule against fire arms, so even if concealed carry (not sure about Colorado gun laws) were legal, guns are forbidden by the chain. The people who follow the rules and policies set by the business will be defenseless against someone who disregards those same policies. So full legalization of any type of guns won't help unless the businesses change their own policies.
So I think the idea, for some, is that the level of tool that they want covered by law comes all the way from nuclear bombs, F16s(can a private citizen own a fighter jet?), down to hand guns, or guns designed to quickly kill dozens of people. What is the purpose of such a tool, if not mass murder?
Yes, they are intended for mass killing and/or murder. The government is made of the same human beings as those not in the government. Anything banned from the private citizen should also be banned from the government and vice versa. So if a general citizen can't have an F-16, neither should the government. The situation we have now is a situation of haves and have-nots.
What an interesting chart. I wish I knew what the footnotes meant.
This URL isn't working for me, FunTime.
If I were to live in the city, the only way I would do it would be to get a rent controlled apartment in sunset district, that's about it
I used to have a rent-controlled apartment in the Sunset district. I traded that for a rent-controlled apartment in North Beach. It's noisy. I now pay for parking. Drunks are breaking bottles in the street on Friday and Saturday nights. But, somehow, I'm much happier. I think of noise as texture and rather enjoy city sounds.
Easy, just have primaries or maybe even pre-primaries where you collect signatures to get on the ballot (no paid signature collectors either!).
I feel uneasy about this. I see the two major parties rigging campaign finance like they do debates. States would raise the number of signatures to get on the ballot so high that only Democrats and Republicans would get funding. And there would be no way to donate to third parties, creating a duopoly.
To me, that's a worse outcome than what we have now.