patrick.net

hrhjuliet says

Career mobility is not always about the luxury of changing to a new job. This generation is rarely offered a pension or any incentive to stay in a job. Most of my friend's career mobility is based on downsizing within the company and not their choice.

Pension is a scam cooked up by the unions and the employer pretending to pay the workers. Most of them are pyramid schemes that presupposes that a major corporation would keep taking more and more market share. Well, there's a mathematical limit to market share . . . not to mention the monopolistic/oligopolistic profits can not be maintained over most people's life time for most people (running out of victims).

hrhjuliet says

Except for the student loans, these wouldn't even make a noticeable dent. I went to school on scholarship and choose not to have a cell phone or cable. I know a lot of other people from my generation in the same situation.

Good for you. However, most 20-something living at parents' homes have been the generation that lined up at new iPhone releases, and pay $130+ cable bills every month. Between a $120 phone bill and a $130 cable bill, that's $250 per month, enough cash flow to otherwise sustain payment on a $50k capitalization, or more than 1/4 the cost a median home in this country right now!

hrhjuliet says

Because people realize that it's insane to buy a home ten times your income. If living with family keeps a young couple working two good jobs out of the homeless shelter I have no cause to judge them, or label them dependent.

Consider less expensive areas to buy, and consider renting. Adult living at parents' home is dependent on the parents, regardless labeling or no labeling. Married adults still living at their parents' home? Unless we are talking about something like family farms where the young adults' contribution is indispensable to the parents' living, something went wrong in how the parents raised the young adults.

hrhjuliet says

4. of course, if one is a dependent of the state, collecting Supplemental Income etc. from government aid, then owning a house is out of the question.

People living with their parents are far from welfare leeches. They are often professionals, teachers or other skilled workers.

I was talking about a different crowd, who are actually dependent on the government aid programs, then they are out of the buying pool as well. It's quite astonishing how many people in their 20's and 30's, prime working age, are now on government subsidies.

hrhjuliet says

5.Car ownership rate among the young is also way down.

So what? I have a lot of friends who bike to work? That's a bad thing? I know a lot of couples who have one car between them, seems terribly inconvenient to me, but they are trying to save, so more power to them. We save by not buying much and not having cable or a cell phone, they save by not having a car; when the cost of living is tight, and the housing market is inflated and rents are insane, then it's save or be left out in the cold, literally.

There are plenty cheaper places to rent. Being dependent on walking and biking makes one captive to local high price retailers as well as making many employment opportunities unavailable. The housing market overall across the country is not inflated after the massive corrections that we had. Nor is rent. If you choose to live in a local bubble market, that's your choice. You have that choice because your parents bought their house decades earlier. That makes you dependent on your parents. Fairly simple concepts.

Homeownership? I think they meant to say loanownership.

You don't own a house (oops I mean "home"...sorry NAR) until it's paid for.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

America needs ObamaHouse if the Boomers are going to all be able to cash out to Caligulan lifestyles they know they deserve...

This really resonates for me: insurance companies deserve money because they're good people, and so do boomers. And subsidizing the health care of elderly Bob Dylan worshippers - who need help thanks to the extreme pharmaceutical abuse they inflicted on themselves during the '60s (Far out, man!) - does not go far enough. The young should also subsidize their real estate investments.

The boomers are so much better than everyone else, because they all were at Woodstock that weekend, and they all took lots of drugs. The rest of us just wouldn't understand what the Summer of Love really meant.

The only problem is finding enough criminally-insane priapic psychopaths to drill out the rectums of Millenials and Xers who refuse to pay what is owed to the boomers. Prison rape works fine now, but how does it scale to deal with a much larger number of felons? And can we scale up wedding-dress production?

The boomers worked hard, crawling around on all fours at Stones concerts, ingesting whatever came in pill, pipe, or syringe, and diligently worshipping whatever band told them drugs were coolest. Can't we step up and pay these boomers what they deserve? They worked so hard. They patriotically dodged the draft in Vietnam, and then called opponents of Bush's wars "Friends of Saddam". Can't we show our appreciation for them?

Reality says

here are plenty cheaper places to rent. Being dependent on walking and biking makes one captive to local high price retailers as well as making many employment opportunities unavailable. The housing market overall across the country is not inflated after the massive corrections that we had. Nor is rent. If you choose to live in a local bubble market, that's your choice. You have that choice because your parents bought their house decades earlier. That makes you dependent on your parents. Fairly simple concepts.

. You are very out of touch with the current situation, and with the reality young families are facing. I am not living with my parents, that is an assumption you made by the conversation. I have many reasons for living in this area, all of which make it hard to move without causing harm to my immediate family and my extended family. Your picture of reality you have painted for yourself may be comforting, but it is far from the truth. Housing prices have been historically about the same; there have been small ups and downs, but all within about twice the median income. It has been that way for generations. People can throw out all of the emotional arguments they want about how this generation deserves to live hand to mouth with two professional jobs, let them suffer, and all their blah, blah, blah, but it doesn't dispute history or the numbers. The numbers for the last decade have seen the average home falling somewhere around ten times the average income. The boomer generation, if they were honest with themselves, like my father, would admit that they would have felt it an injustice to have to pay for a home ten times their income, and at the very least found it risky, or even stupid. They would admit that in most cases they would have felt it was a horrible situation to have both parents work. This generation has just as many selfish citizens with a sense of entitlement as the last, and just as many hard working savers as the last generation, the difference is this generation is being asked to pay ten times the amount for a home, with a more unstable job market, less jobs left in the States in general, less benefits, and to survive a family has few choices beyond having both parents work. As my dad would say, "no one is minding the store" and it is not a wonder why kids have so many issues today. The truth is that the current generation can not have the quality of life their patents had unless they are in the top 10%. Fairly simple concept.

hrhjuliet says

You are very out of touch with the current situation, and with the reality young families are facing. I am not living with my parents, that is an assumption you made by the conversation. I have many reasons for living in this area, all of which make it hard to move without causing harm to my immediate family and my extended family.

So does almost everyone else living in the area. There is a reason why Fillet Mignon is more expensive than ground chuck: supply and demand. I'd have a hard time believing your living an hour away would cause actual harm to your extended family; heck, it's hard to believe all your extended family live within 1hr drive away from each other. An hour drive is the distance from San Francisco where an apartment cost over a million, to Tracy, where a couple years ago half a million could buy a dozen acres.

hrhjuliet says

Housing prices have been historically about the same. There have been small ups and downs, but all within about twice the median income. It has been that way for generations.

That has not been the case ever since the beginning of the fiat money regime. Here are some hard numbers:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html

Median home value not adjusted for inflation:

2000: 119,600; 1990: 79,100; 1980: 47,200; 1970: 17,000

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php
Median household income not adjusted for inflation:

2000: 41,262; 1990: 28,506; 1980: 16,542; 1970: 7,651

So the ratios are:

2000: 2.89; 1990: 2.77; 1980: 2.85; 1970: 2.22

As you can see, the ratio has jumped from somewhere around 2 to somewhere around 3 since the 1970's.

hrhjuliet says

The numbers for the last decade have seen the average home has been falling somewhere around ten times the average income.

It's never been close to 10x Average income for the country as a whole. It is currently standing at less than 4x Median income, which is lower than Average income.

The ratio goes up when interest rates go down. The fiat money artificially low interest rate causes the asset prices to be bid up.

hrhjuliet says

As my dad would say, "no one is minding the store"

The real reason is actually that there are too many minders. All the minders have to be paid, at the expense of normal productive workers.

Let's not fight boys, I think you two have more beliefs in common than you both believe. The truth is with both your arguments. We have a government that makes decisions based on short term numbers to keep the two parties reelected. Common sense and the future stability of our republic are never a consideration, and this sick behavior is displayed by both political parties in power. The Republicans and Democrats are really so similar that it's frightening. The Republicans bailout and give welfare to corporations and the 1%, and the Democrats bailout and give welfare to the poor and addicted. How about not bailing anyone out? Both parties are thoroughly corrupted, and when anyone like Ron Paul runs for office the two parties band together and run him down. They fight on camera, but the two parties are clearly bedroom buddies. There are few good Democrats and a few good Republicans, but the majority in both parties need to be overthrown. I also think the media needs a lot more voices. There is no such thing as the liberal media or the conservative media, only the corporate 1% sponsored media (Fox being the worst) that feeds the public garbage and keeps the populace in ignorance while they blindly support a political party like it's a sports team. Never vote by party, but by person and policy.

My brother is blind and I am his conservator. He needs to stay where he is at. He is independent, to a degree, because he knows his way around by memory. It would be traumatizing to move him at 56 years old and never having lived anywhere else. He would become a complete dependent if I moved him. Not to mention my mom dying of early frontal dementia. Yes, my family all lives within thirty minutes max. You assume a lot and your numbers are fuzzy at best. The reality is simple; when homes are back to twice the median income we will have healthy market. I will feel like this country is on the mend when I see jobs return to the States, people buying less useless crap, parents able to make the choice to have a parent stay home with their children, less bailouts of every kind, homes twice the median income and people out volunteering more. Those are the signs of a healthy future.

Reality says

The ratio goes up when interest rates go down. The fiat money artificially low interest rate causes the asset prices to be bid up.

This I agree with.

I also 100% agree!

E-man says

Sad.

Indeed.

I think you both have so many intelligent and thought provoking threads and comments. Why must you two fight? It's boring.

Want first time buyers? Lower the cost of the house. Yes, it's that simple.

How about fighting with facts instead of name calling?

Call it Crazy says

While overall debt rises.....

Obviously. Until the deficit is zero, the debt will rise.

Salt Lake City - police enter the home of an elderly woman and scare the shit outta her. The address on the search warrant was for the house next door, but they surveyed and filmed her home (never noticing that the house number was different than that of the dude named on the search warrant). this cost them $75k, a small price considering it came out of the dept budget and not the stupid cops' pockets:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57494843-78/lake-police-salt-landvatter.html.csp

The above link has the wrong music, not that the popular music added didn't work, but here is the original: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU5wuUdtMZs

Call it Crazy says

Another little small detail, you need a job and income to pay for it and be able to qualify for a mortgage!!

You also need job security too. If you can't count on your job being there in 10 yr then you can't reasonably buy a house.

That sort of job security is vanishing throughout the nation and most new jobs treat workers like crap and have no benefits or retirement options. Oh and they pay like crap as well.

No one sane is going to buy a house in that situation. And the younger generations have largely wised up to that fact.

Call it Crazy says

Here's an article that should appeal to Dan....

Are you implying that the cops should have shot the homeowner first? I thought so. Yeah, call it crazy.

ZZYZZX, that's another example of retarded republicans living in their fantasy world bubble.

Not that you have any respect for facts or truth, but...

18)
FACT: The budget was balanced when Clinton left office in 2001 (in fact, he left Dubbya with a $300,000,000,000 surplus).

Eight years later, Bush left Obama with a $1,413,000,000,000 deficit and a 9.8% deficit/GDP ratio. Most of which was due to Bush’s deficit-spending on the Iraq War, Medicare Part D and the two tax cuts that largely went to the wealthy.

2010 — $1,294,000,000,000 8.7% deficit/GDP
2011 — $1,300,000,000,000 8.4% deficit/GDP
2012 — $1,087,000,000,000 6.8% deficit/GDP
2013 — $680,000,000,000 4.1% deficit/GDP
2014 — $560,000,000,000 3.3% deficit/GDP

http://spydersden.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/anti-obama-propaganda-debunked/

mmmarvel says

Nonsense!!!! The way this system works is called LIFE. The system doesn't owe you ANYTHING. I got my teeth kicked in, more than once. And I did what I had to do to pick myself up off the ground and face life and take it on again.

So because you got the crap kicked out of you everyone else should too?

Just because you were able to get out of the hole that'd been dug for you by economic circumstances that were out of your hands doesn't mean everyone else will be able to either you know.

There are plenty of people who work there ass off in this economy/country and go nowhere their whole lives.

There are more of them every day too. That is why the increasing wealth inequality issue is such a big one: most all the money being made is going to the rich while everyone else gets poorer or churns water for all of their efforts.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112397/one-percent-gobbles-economic-recovery

No good can come of defending the broken economic system we're currently living with.

tts says

No good can come of defending the broken economic system we're currently living with.

True, a true patriot would be fighting this digression away from our democratic republic in every moral way available.

Call it Crazy says

Here's an article that should appeal to Dan....

Only an asshole with no grasp of reality or my writings would suggest that I take any pleasure in the death of another human being. Nor have I ever said that all cops are crooked or deserve death. What I have written is about how our system protects criminal cops when they harm us and how that is wrong. I've also advocated upholding the police to the same laws we must obey. I stand by everything I've every written on this subject.

As for the story you posted, and I'm only going on the article posted, I have to agree 100% with the innocence of the man who shot the cop in defense of himself and his family.

It is perfectly lawful and reasonable to assume that people breaking into your house unannounced while your family is there are a danger to your life and the lives of your family. This is why self-defense and the defense of others is a legal defense to attacking another. This is also the rational behind various stand-your-ground and home-invasion laws, as well as a rational behind the Second Amendment and all gun rights.

It is also a reason why there should be no such thing as a "no-knock raid". Such a raid not only violates the Fourth Amendment, but makes it perfectly reasonable for the cops to be mistaken for armed assailants or for a person legally cleaning his gun to be mistaken as a threat to the cops. It endangers both the lives of the cops and (more often) the lives of innocent men, women, and children. Furthermore, it violates human rights as a person may be undressed, taking a shower, taking a crap, or making love at the time of the no-knock raid. A no-knock raid is, by definition and by nature, a sudden and dangerous home invasion.

I agree completely with the jury and with the pro-gun rights community that the man had a legal right to lethally shoot the cop in defense of himself and in the defense of others. It is bad that the cop died, but it would have been worse if the home owner, his pregnant girlfriend, or his children had been killed.

Cops exist solely to protect the public. They should not be endangering the public. No-knock raids are completely unacceptable in a civil, lawful society.

While they did find him growing marijuana, all his guns were owned legally, so all they got from their armed invasion was some pot, which incidentally most Texans want to be legalized.

So, the only crime the man committed was something that should not be a crime and, in fact, is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. All anti-pot laws are violation of freedom of religion as pot, and other psychotropic drugs, are the prime cause of all the "religious" and "spiritual" experiences throughout history including ones that formed the basis for Christianity and Judaism, not to mention Native American religions.

So really, the man committed no crime. The police and the legislators who made Unconstitutional (i.e., illegal) laws committed all the crimes in this situation.

In conclusion, this situation has affirmed the following.
1. People have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves and others from cops.
2. The Second Amendment does serve an important purpose. This story is the best justification for citizens possessing any weapons available to police that has ever been made. The pro-gun rights crowd should rally in support of this man. Perhaps that's the only reason he wasn't convicted; in Texas, they value their guns more then police.
3. No-knock raids should be banned.
4. Any judge that issues a warrant like this for a man simply growing pot, should be disbarred. His stupid and Unconstitutional action cost a cop his life and endangered many other cops, innocent children, a pregnant woman, and a good man.
5. The War on Drugs should be stopped right now. All those imprisoned because of it should be released immediately. All the politicians who supported it should be imprisoned for life for all the lives they ended.

Feel free to debate me on any of these issues. But try to keep the discourse at the level of a mature adult.

Okay, fair enough. I just think you both have a lot to contribute, but I tend to leave when the match gets started, like a lot of readers. I think both of your insights are too valuable to be ignored, and when the pissing starts everyone else tunes out and then they miss out out on the quality parts of the discussion. :-)

marcus says

Not that you have any respect for facts or truth, but...

marcus says

http://spydersden.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/anti-obama-propaganda-debunked/

That's a mighty fine example of some effen retarded propaganda, non-facts and twisted truth.

Call it Crazy says

justme says

Call it Crazy says

Here's an article that should appeal to Dan....

Are you implying that the cops should have shot the homeowner first? I thought so. Yeah, call it crazy.

I know you haven't been following along.... Typical...

Dan rails on cops who shoot "innocent" citizens all the time.... In this case, the citizen shot the cop... This should provide pleasure for him... Please pay attention next time!!

A citizen shot a cop, justifiably, in self-defense. Is that supposed to be a justification for the numerous innocent people shot by police?

Yeah, yeah. Where's Sean Hannity when you need him ? Perhaps Rush could help get you through this.

People who work niche skilled labor jobs or own their own business are probably safe for now.

Everyone else...nope.

The population as a whole isn't rational so there will always be some buyers but I think its safe to say that there will be less in the future then there are now.

Its estimated about 47% of jobs are at risk of being automated away over the next 10-20 years.

http://ourfuture.org/20130926/the-robots-are-coming-now-what

Even the barristas aren't safe.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/10/briggo_coffee_robot_should_starbucks_replace_baristas_with_machines.html

Call it Crazy says

Is this related to just pot or all drugs??

All drugs. Now I'm not saying that all drugs should necessarily be legal, but the War on Drugs should be ended for all drugs because the methods that war uses are far worse than the impact of the drugs being fought.

Now one can make the argument that drug abuse should be treated as a medical issue rather than a legal one. But in any case, I would not support No-Knock raids and shoot first policies for any anti-drug law.

bob2356 says

Police departments all over are going to a policy of using a swat team for all felony arrests, even things like check kiting, fencing, credit card fraud, etc.. Good way for even more cops to get killed.

I say it should be legal to use land mines to prevent home invasions including No-Knock raids. If you want me to come to court, subpoena me. If you come into my home with any weapon, you forfeit your life and the lives of everyone abetting you.

If that's not ok with my government, I reserve my Second Amendment right to violently overthrow my government and replace it with a socially just one, even if it means killing every single politician, cop, and military personnel who sides with the despotic and Unconstitutional government. Anyone who disagrees with me disagrees with the validity of our government, which was founded on exactly such a violent revolution.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

- Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

Now one can make the argument that drug abuse should be treated as a medical issue rather than a legal one. But in any case, I would not support No-Knock raids and shoot first policies for any anti-drug law.

Well, wouldn't it be simpler if you were afraid of No-Knock raids to just not do anything illegal???

Nah, that's too simple...

Tell that to the family of Kathryn Johnston, the innocent 92-year-old woman who was shot to death by police who No-Knocked barged into her home as part of a drug bust they based on false information given to them by a drug suspect they were torturing. Funny thing about people being tortured, they'll say whatever they think their assailants want to here regardless of whether or not it is true.

This is just one of thousands of documented instances where innocent people have been murdered by the police. Doing nothing wrong is no defense from an out-of-control police force with zero legal accountability. It was no defense against the Gestapo. America is no different. The exact same lesson applies to all nations in all times: power corrupts and both transparency and accountability are critical to maintaining a free and safe society.

Call it Crazy says

tts says

You also need job security too. If you can't count on your job being there in 10 yr then you can't reasonably buy a house.

Very true, but in reality, does anyone really think they have 10 yr job security today? Corporations today chew up and spit out employees all the time.

Does that mean no one in the future, young or old will buy houses??

Prices will simply drop, and far more people will rent.

From the perspective of economic efficiency, this is a good thing: more mobility of labor.

Some countries do quite well with high rental rates. Some Swiss rent in one place for 50 years, and most Swiss rent.

Of course I'll believe this tripe without seeing financial statements & supporting documents.

"You can't put anything on the internet that isn't true."

"Where did you hear that?"

"On the internet."

Actually I think you'll see more "kids" living with parents, and in some cases vice versa.

The rent market is pretty screwed up too and will be for a long time.

A large increase of supply of rentals OR a large increase in wages would have to occur (which would spur the former) first to fix that problem.

The builders and property owners know there isn't much of a market for more rentals right now and a large increase in wages requires Congress to sign off on a big min. wage increase...or corps/businesses to suddenly decide to pay people lots more.

Call it Crazy says

Very true, but in reality, does anyone really think they have 10 yr job security today? Corporations today chew up and spit out employees all the time.

Does that mean no one in the future, young or old will buy houses??

Houses will have to be bought by someone. Jobs and marriages becoming shorter in duration would just mean more renters, with landlords supplying the statistical stability to cover the mortgage and pay for construction / maintenance cost. That will make a more mobile work force, precisely what the rapidly changing economy needs. With more people renting, there will also be political motivation to enact tax deduction on rent payment, so that people can choose between buy vs. rent on personal economic reasons instead of tax reasons.

BTW, this theme also means the bidding of the nothing-special apartments and SF houses into the stratosphere is nutty: the rental income stream is just not there to support the valuable. When the cars are self-driving, a half-hour to one-hour commute would be nothing.

tts says

The rent market is pretty screwed up too and will be for a long time.

A large increase of supply of rentals OR a large increase in wages would have to occur (which would spur the former) first to fix that problem.

I'm confused. Do you think there's current too much supply or too little?

tts says

The builders and property owners know there isn't much of a market for more rentals right now and a large increase in wages requires Congress to sign off on a big min. wage increase...or corps/businesses to suddenly decide to pay people lots more.

A big minimum wage increase would actually reduce the total amount of wages paid out, due to a segment of the work force being banned from working. The rental market would likely suffer disproportionately more because the renters at the lower income scale are more likely to be losing jobs as a result of the ban.

marcus says

Yeah, yeah. Where's Sean Hannity when you need him ? Perhaps Rush could help get you through this.

Perhaps if you got on some better psych meds you'd feel happier and get rid of the stupid icon you've used for so many years.

zzyzzx says

One, comparing money in nominal terms over the past two hundred years is utterly meaningless due to currency debasement.

Two, the vast majority of Obama's spending was paying the bill left by G.W. Bush. In fact, the vast majority of the expenses of Bush's illegal and worthless wars won't even occur for another 30 to 40 years.

Did you know that peak spending on WWI veterans occurred in the late 1960s / early 1970s? That's right, World War ONE not two. And the peak spending due to health benefits was about 50 years after the war ended. Same thing happens for all wars including Bush's wars. We're going to be paying for them for the rest of your life and beyond.

Don't know if it's 100 percent, 90 percent, 50 percent or 0 percent, since I read 0 percent of his posts.

They won't close the govt. again.