patrick.net

dublin hillz says

Well, then those who manage to maintain a 2 income household shall inherit the earth....

They'll have to pry it out of the cold, dead hands of the idle uberwealthy first.

Good luck with that.

tts says

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.

Wow, I could NOT disagree with you more. The are consequences for every decision and not chosing is a decision within and of itself. Look, you WANT to live in SFBA, okay fine, I truly hope that you've got a job that pays well into the six figures, because that's what it will take to live there comfortably. If you're not making that kind of scratch, then I would humbly suggest you go somewhere that $30K or $50K or $80K a year will be a liveable salary. Someplace in Texas, Utah, Iowa, a dozen other places. However, if you CHOOSE to live somewhere, then don't bitch when your barista job and wages don't cut it.

tts says

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

And again, why? Is it that they got involved in drugs or alcohol? Those are choices. Is it because they never learned a trade, so they are stuck on the lower rungs of labor? That's a choice. Did they not go to school or when they went found out/decided that they were more interested in/wanted to get a degree in women's studies, only to find that there are extremely few career paths for people with that degree? Again, a choice. Did they sit at home watching TV at night instead of going to night school, or taking an online course? Fine, but it's a choice.

As long as people make the 'wrong' choices, then the consequences won't be happy. I'm fine with anyone making whatever choice they want. What I'm not so fine with is bitching about where your choices land you. Want different results, then do something different.

Unless you are handicap in some way. As hrhjuliet pointed out, one is blind, one is elderly and has dementia. Those are circumstances that they can't do anything about. If you're a normal, able bodied human being, you CAN do something about whatever situation you find yourself in. And not doing anything but bitching about it IS doing something, but it won't change your situation.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Ceffer says

The last documented honest Realtor died in 1908.

He died in prison for child rape and cannibalism. The jury and judge were too exhausted by these hôrrors to go for the trifecta.

Sorry, my bad, have to go back and scour the historical records, there must be at least one honest one in there someplace.

dublin hillz says

Women entering the workforce was largely due to the awareness in the 60s movement that woman the homemaker was subservient to a man from financial power standpoint and they didn't want to live that way anymore. Additionally, I believe that men were getting tired of having all the responsibility to provide for everything. With women entering the workforce, the household income went up and predictably, the prices ahem "adjusted." Again, that's evidence for how people are basically competitors vs others in capitalism and why I am sceptical that policies such as minumum wage increases will increase standard of living. Prices will simply "adjust" again.

Without money supply increase, women entering workforce would just reduce the wages of men . . . just like Mexicans and then Chinese entering the "workforce" reduced the wages of American manufacturing labor.

Without technological improvement or changes in tax policies, women entering workforce would actually reduce household income (in terms of purchasing power) for the society as a whole: whatever women used to do in the household had previously been untaxed, whereas the women entering workforce being employed outside the household is making her also liable to taxation.

The truth is that a lot of people who earned degrees in science, education, medicine and business are out of work. A lot of people in the trades wait at the hall or by the phone. The truth is that it's not all about choice. The more feudalistic we become the more it becomes about how much your parents/relatives have or had. Did your parents help you buy a car? Then a leg up. Did your parents or relative help pay for college? Leg up. Did your parents help with your down payment on your new home? Leg up. Did they co-sign? Leg up. Do your parents watch your kids? Leg up. Do you not need to save for retirement because you know you will inherit? Leg up. The people living in poverty are not women's studies majors addicts and welfare moms - most of them live on the streets. We are talking about the disappearing middle-class and the rise of families living under the poverty line. It's a fantasy that the 1% come from a majority of self-made men. We hear the stories of those men, but the majority inherited their wealth. Even some of the self-made stories involve individuals who had their parents pay for their ivy league college, dorm and car before they started their companies. Most of those success stories also claim that the first investor in their start-up companies happen to be mom and dad. My mom's side is from a long line of people that belong to the 1%. Believe me, it's all more about luck, and who you were born to, than you think. Yes, good choices are always ideal, but they don't guarantee you anything. I like the fairytale that it is all based on your will, mind and good choices as much as anyone. I'm just in reality that that fantasy becomes less and less reality the farther we move from the ideals of our original Republic and the closer we move towards feudalism.

It's ironic that you overlook the blatant actual subterfuge related to the Sandy Hook story. If you must insist on seeing a conspiracy, at least consider who stands to benefit from the advocacy that followed. The parents are not lobbying for gun control, in fact many of them are gun owners; they are instead lobbying for more medical spending, particularly in the area of mental health, where more spending on daily pills causes more problems than it solves. The baseline risk of death from a school shooting, let alone one caused by a mentally ill person, is vanishingly rare - a fraction of the risk of being killed by lightning. For every child who dies that way, literally hundreds are killed by car accidents. Yet, the myth goes, if you care about children, you must support more spending to put more kids on pills.

I don't know what it is about conspiracy theorists that causes them to project elaborate detailed hoaxes, with actors and props. Real tragedies happen often enough that there is no need to stage fake ones. The "conspiracy" occurs in plain sight, as TPTB take advantage of tragedies, seeing every crisis as an opportunity. GW Bush took office wanting to "take out" Saddam Hussein. All he had to do was create a context, then wait for opportunity to knock. 9/11 created the opportunity - no need to stage the terror attack, simply misdirect people's outrage. Hussein had nothing to do with it, but Americans were easily misled to believe he did. It's bizarre to watch people project imaginary conspiracy theories that distract them from the actual deceptions happening in plain sight.

Call it Crazy says

dublin hillz says

but in general the need to rely on reverse mortgage is a sign that someone either bought above their means or lived above their means.

Isn't that the American way??? Just put it on credit??

Some people got overconfident and assumed that it's enough to have their entire net worth be in a form of home equity. While mortgage payments are designed to be a form of forced savings, it was never supposed to imply that one did not need to "save" in form of savings/liquid investments.

dublin hillz says

hrhjuliet says

I believe at least one parent should be home. That's ideal, and deep down we all

know that's what is best.

It is more expensive to give up a job to save money on childcare. Much better for both people to work and outsource childrearing in the daytime to a daycare center. Besides, the previous setup of man the provider and woman the homemaker negatively affected both parties with undue expectations and responsibilities.

But, if you insist on the 1950s lifestyle, perhaps it would be advisable to move to a part of the country where people are more likely to live that way. That way, you won't have to compete against 2 income DINKS or as many 2 income households in general. You will not find this in SFBA where even single income households may disproportionately cross the 6 figure threshold.

I own my business and I never said it should be the woman to stay home. My point was that it changed the numbers and now it is practically impossible to make enough to have a parent stay home. For the majority of the middle-class before the 80s it was still an easy choice that any family could make. What I think is troubling is that it is no longer a real choice. You may think it's better for a daycare to raise your children, but I don't, and I should be able to choose to raise my own children or have my husband home. Time with our children is what brings joy to our lives, and studies show that children thrive under their own parent's care. I know it's not PC to say it, but I do believe children are better off and safer with their own parent. Also, if one income earner from every household left the work force, just think of all the jobs that would open up. I know it's not PC or trendy, but I believe that one parent staying home could really change things in a positive way. I know that when my husband was home my children were happier and more secure.

hrhjuliet says

The truth is that it's not all about choice. The more feudalistic we become the
more it becomes about how much your parents/relatives have or had

These advantages have always been around, it is not something that became unique recently. And it could be a lot worse - some socieities practice blatant nepotism or it's all about who you know who can do favors for you - and in those societies it is absolutely impossible to advance past one's stations in life unless you were born into wealth or know the right people.

dublin hillz says

hrhjuliet says

The truth is that it's not all about choice. The more feudalistic we become the

more it becomes about how much your parents/relatives have or had

These advantages have always been around, it is not something that became unique recently. And it could be a lot worse - some socieities practice blatant nepotism or it's all about who you know who can do favors for you - and in those societies it is absolutely impossible to advance past one's stations in life unless you were born into wealth or know the right people.

. Didn't say it was unique to our time. I was only pointing out the American myth that it is all based on your choices. Ideally it is. I don't agree with the system, or advocate for it, I am simply pointing out the current reality.

bgamall4 says

Just shows a lack of oxygen to your feeble brain, Bob. Yawning is proof you need more oxygen.

You've spent too much time reading on the internet. Go interview some parents there and get back to us.

What you're failing to recognize is that the kind of "proof" you're coming up with can be gotten for any event. Slippery slope. Can become, "Nothing is real." That's a hard thought with which to live.

You're also failing to recognize the limits of your ability to think through this situation. Keep trying though and you'll realize the world isn't as bad a place as you now make it. It's complex and often beyond human understanding, but not so bad.

bgamall4 says

I know fake acting when I see it. You don't.

My, thankfully, limited experience around people having just tragically lost a close loved one(father, sister) is that they react in varied and unpredictable ways. What you're suggesting doesn't connect with my experience at all, so I hope you're some kind of expert to suggest something so awful. The way you've written your blog suggests you haven't an inkling of the severity of what you're suggesting or saying. Keep trying but it seems like you're working with a very limited amount of information. Get more. You've not organized even the little information you have in a way that is compelling at all. There is not a logical thread in what you've written, in other words when I read one sentence after the other they are often not connected in a way that makes sense.

I want to understand your line of reasoning better.

1) If it were a hoax, that means it was planned. Furthermore, the planners would have had the benefit of selecting the "actors," the "set," the date, the time, etc.... So, why Sandy Hook and why 12/14? Is there some significance to that particular date or location?

2) Do you believe that the deaths were real or faked?

3) Do you believe that Sandy Hook was a real, working elementary school or an abandoned building?

4) I supposed under the perfect circumstances, one could find an abandoned building, assemble some actors, run a drill as if it were real, and create fake victims. But how did "they" get the entire town to go along with it? Every person living there would have to know whether it was a real school... Every kid going to that school would know if the kid from their class who supposedly died never actually existed... That means, that you'd have to get around 30,000 people to support the story. Not one kid could accidentally say, "that girl didn't go to my school." How on earth could they manage to get almost 30,000 Newtown residents to go along with the ruse?

5) Who benefitted from the hoax? Well, the families got some money, the demolition/construction companies got some money, the town got some money, and the police/security got some money.... Emphasis on some. Hundreds of thousands of dollars is hardly enough money to set someone up for life. What was the remuneration to the rest of the Newtown residents for supporting the story?

Oh and 6) Who are "they?"

hrhjuliet says

The truth is that a lot of people who earned degrees in science,

Leg up...
Leg up...
Leg up...
Leg up...

And what self defeatist excuse do you have for those who did all of those things on their own.

People who work hard and get a head, are no less of an excuse for you to give up, as those who got a... "Leg Up".

hrhjuliet says

My mom's side is from a long line of people that belong to the 1%. Believe me, it's all more about luck, and who you were born to, than you think.

Are you complaining because you are not in the 1%? Apparently social mobility worked in your case: someone else took the spot among the 1% that you could have expected to keep if the society were entirely run by nepotists (bureaucrats usually are).

In any case, it's not necessarily membership among the top 1%, but membership among the top 10%, top 25% or top 50% that a person's effort can make a big difference. To get into the 1%, obviously one has to out-compete 99 other people; that may be a multi-generational effort. Getting into the top 10% is not that hard: only takes about $82K a year or so income as an individual right now; get yourself there and stay there for a while, then you might be able to provide the base for your kid to get into the 1%.

Reality says

To get into the 1%, obviously one has to out-compete 99 other people; that may be a multi-generational effort. Getting into the top 10% is not that hard: only takes about $82K a year or so income as an individual right now; get yourself there and stay there for a while, then you might be able to provide the base for your kid to get into the 1%.

Cite your source. I think you're way off. U.S. census numbers put mean incomes(I think that's the measure for the discussion here which is a consideration of how hard it is to become part of the top percentile incomes) at about $60k. I don't see any data suggesting $20k jumps you that far. Although, the dynamic is so extreme that you start to need millions or hundreds of thousands for each percentile in the top ten percent.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

bgamall4 says

I am quite sure it is worse than I understand it. You are stupid.

Okay. I just don't see it. Good luck. I wish I could believe some of the worst recent events were hoaxes. I'd actually find that comforting. The government doesn't appear nearly that sophisticated.

FunTime says

Cite your source. I think you're way off. U.S. census numbers put mean incomes(I think that's the measure for the discussion here which is a consideration of how hard it is to become part of the top percentile incomes) at about $60k. I don't see any data suggesting $20k jumps you that far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

I think you are talking about household, whereas I was talking about individual income. HRH makes her money, not counting on her "hot husband."

bgamall4 says

Try millions of dollars.

Well, I got this from a site sympathetic to your position on the Sandy Hook matter:

"The estimated payout was $281,000 paid to each of the victims’ families, who have raised additional funds from their own websites—some of which were apparently advertised on the web in advance of the shooting. At present, all of the victims, both children and adults, have memorial funds that are currently collecting money."

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/07/top-ten-reasons-sandy-hook-was-an-elaborate-hoax/

So, not really millions.

bgamall4 says

You are a fool.

Uh, okay. Your great wit, agile mind, and fierce command of the English language will serve you well. Have you ever considered the possibility that EVERYONE else might not be wrong?

turtledove says

"The estimated payout was $281,000 paid to each of the victims’ families, who have raised additional funds from their own websites—some of which were apparently advertised on the web in advance of the shooting.

Wow. Imagine browsing the web, and seeing that your parents have created a website saying you're going to be killed tomorrow and asking strangers to donate money. Do you still have to eat your vegetables?

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Monday, February 10, 2014 __ Level is 101.2

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

hrhjuliet says

A lot of people in the trades wait at the hall or by the phone. The truth is that it's not all about choice.

I was and am in construction and proud of it. I got laid off in 2009, but rather than sit by the phone, I worked HARD at finding another job. In the end I moved 2500 miles and ended up with a job that paid more, in a less expensive area to live and have moved up in the company since then. What do you do when life turns sour?

This is my second career. At the age of 48 I got laid off from the semi-conductor industry and we were going through a recession (2001). After looking and looking for almost a year, I cashed in my 401K and went back to school. Four years later, I got laid off from the job that I found/struggled for in another recession. That is when the move came about. Had I stayed put and waited, well, that would have been a choice, I don't think I'd be too happy with the results.

hrhjuliet says

Did your parents help you buy a car? Then a leg up. Did your parents or relative help pay for college? Leg up.

Etc, etc, etc, and no, none of those 'leg ups' apply. What DID apply was my raising was in a comfortable middle class house. I had two loving parents, who didn't divorce. I started working (in the berry fields) when I was 8 (during the summer). I carried two paper routes. I washed dishes and bused tables when I was 16, driving the car that I bought with money I earned from my paper routes and mowing lawns. Moved to working as a stocker and checker when I was 18, and on and on and on.

hrhjuliet says

The people living in poverty are not women's studies majors addicts and welfare moms - most of them live on the streets.

And I didn't say they all were. There is no one cause, although it certainly seems (to me) that a disproportional segment have mental, drug or alcohol problems. There are many folks who come out of college with degrees that really don't have much of a career path. There are many who, for whatever reason, refuse to move (physically move locations). Never said I planned or wanted to be part of the 1% but I have and continue to work my rear end off.

One less Realtor in the "business". Oh no, what will we do?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/PRh-fYObmRA

Reality says

I think you are talking about household

Yeah, they're difficult to separate. Don't household studies include single-person households? I understand that they do. The 116 million households suggests they do. This "CPS" data has a note about that which clears up some of my confusion.

Still this definition of income, while it makes sense to most of us, sure leaves a lot of money off the table of comparison. For this to be the most widely cited income data, according to the Wikipedia page, is telling when considering awareness for the big gaps in income near the top percentages. I think this definition would leave out a lot of the income in the top few percentages which would make the averages low.

"The CPS measure of money income is defined as the total pre-tax cash income received by people on a regular basis, excluding certain lump-sum payments and excluding capital gains."

The sad thing here is instead of allowing correction they are encouraging foreign criminals with ill gotten monies to inflate the cost of living here further while the pan national oligarchs ship jobs overseas. not a good formula. its as if the FedGov was playing sim-city as stupidly as possible at the moment.

Mick Russom says

The sad thing here is instead of allowing correction they are encouraging foreign criminals with ill gotten monies to inflate the cost of living here further while the pan national oligarchs ship jobs overseas.

The price appreciations actually enable the landlords to put up with low rent income. That decreases the cost of living for American renters in those select few grossly over-priced markets. People really shouldn't be buying in those few grossly over-priced coastal metro markets if they care about not losing their money in the coming years. It's not going to be fun for the foreign upper-middle class that worked hard to earn their money and are now buying those homes in the $500k-$1.5mil range. The "foreign criminals with ill gotten monies" buy monstrous estates, and are not at all in the same market as Americans who care about cost of living.

FunTime says

For this to be the most widely cited income data, according to the Wikipedia page, is telling when considering awareness for the big gaps in income near the top percentages. I think this definition would leave out a lot of the income in the top few percentages which would make the averages low.

When one is gauging whether $82,500k makes the cut for top 10%, it makes no difference whether the top 0.01% makes $1mil or $1bil per year. It's the income in the bottom 90% that moves the line.

mmmarvel says

Etc, etc, etc, and no, none of those 'leg ups' apply. What DID apply was my raising was in a comfortable middle class house. I had two loving parents, who didn't divorce. I started working (in the berry fields) when I was 8 (during the summer). I carried two paper routes. I washed dishes and bused tables when I was 16, driving the car that I bought with money I earned from my paper routes and mowing lawns. Moved to working as a stocker and checker when I was 18, and on and on and on.

The interesting thing about this is that we are screwing over today's youth 2-fold:

1) Deficit-spending and accumulating mountains of debt they will have to pay off

2) Spoiling them instead of preparing them for the reality that awaits them.

This asshole has done far worse to far more, yet he's still living free and in luxury. Call me when a big fish gets fried.

Reality says

Are you complaining because you are not in the 1%? Apparently social mobility worked in your case: someone else took the spot among the 1% that you could have expected to keep if the society were entirely run by nepotists (bureaucrats usually are).

In any case, it's not necessarily membership among the top 1%, but membership among the top 10%, top 25% or top 50% that a person's effort can make a big difference. To get into the 1%, obviously one has to out-compete 99 other people; that may be a multi-generational effort. Getting into the top 10% is not that hard: only takes about $82K a year or so income as an individual right now; get yourself there and stay there for a while, then you might be able to provide the base for your kid to get into the 1%.

We already are in the top 25%. My mother had her reasons for leaving her 1% family and it's not pretty and most of you would have done the same. I can't say that people within that class are turning out great people for the most part. A sense of entitlement and that you deserve more than the next person is a sick way of thinking, and has more than one sick way to manifest itself. Maybe stop making assumptions?

Reality says

it makes no difference whether the top 0.01% makes $1mil or $1bil per year.

Unless the mean is considered, which I think is actually the number that makes sense here. Each person counts equally, so their income has an equal proportion contribution to the mean. One person with a multimillion dollar income moves the mean.
For median calculations, I agree.

FunTime says

Reality says

it makes no difference whether the top 0.01% makes $1mil or $1bil per year.

Unless the mean is considered, which I think is actually the number that makes sense here. Each person counts equally, so their income has an equal proportion contribution to the mean. One person with a multimillion dollar income moves the mean.

For median calculations, I agree.

The percentiles have nothing to do with the mean. The mean is always much higher than the median simply because the extra weight given to the top end.

hrhjuliet says

We already are in the top 25%. My mother had her reasons for leaving her 1% family and it's not pretty and most of you would have done the same. I can't say that people within that class are turning out great people for the most part. A sense of entitlement and that you deserve more than the next person is a sick way of thinking, and has more than one sick way to manifest itself. Maybe stop making assumptions?

I have been in and out of the top 1% in terms of income several times. I was even in the bottom 25% for some period in my early adult life. I don't think I changed much. People are individuals, not members of classes. Do you feel particular affinity for fellow members in the top 25%? probably not.

You really need to give your obsession a vacation.

Has he Changed the shit out of us, or insured the Fuck out of us?

You Decide!

No. He's waiting for $1000.

If gold hits 1000, your house and his crapshacks in concord will be worth 25% of what they are now. However, we all know Ol Yellen will print the fuck out of the world's ink and paper supply before that happens.

Ether way, maybe we ZH readers aren't so crazy after all.

Scared?

I agree with you, people are individuals, I was merely pointing out that people leave wealth by choice in some situations because it can create a climate of apathy - think The Great Gatsby. I also believe that raising children in a self-entitled environment often breeds self-entitlement. I also believe raising kids in a day care often makes them have attachment issues. NOT always, just often. People can rise above all kinds of horrors. I actually agree with you. My whole point was that people are good, bad and hardworking in all of the income brackets. I was trying to point out that it's harder to avoid desperation if the person is poor, and its harder to avoid greed when the person is rich. Anyone can choose to rise above any negative emotions in any walk of life, but some environments make certain deadly sins harder than others to overcome. People are individuals, and their choices to do the right thing are to be commended in all situations. At the same time, where a person ends up economically is often based on luck or heredity. Not always, just often.

Reality says

hrhjuliet says

We already are in the top 25%. My mother had her reasons for leaving her 1% family and it's not pretty and most of you would have done the same. I can't say that people within that class are turning out great people for the most part. A sense of entitlement and that you deserve more than the next person is a sick way of thinking, and has more than one sick way to manifest itself. Maybe stop making assumptions?

I have been in and out of the top 1% in terms of income several times. I was even in the bottom 25% for some period in my early adult life. I don't think I changed much. People are individuals, not members of classes. Do you feel particular affinity for fellow members in the top 25%? probably not.

I have an observation to offer. As you all may be aware, I militate about the massive deception by omission here:
"The Public Be Suckered", at
http://patrick.net/?p=1230886
Most blameworthy for this omission are conpersons-in-control, who figure to have far more than their share of the top 1%!!! I think this bell will ring LOUD, please consider ringing!
For what it's worth, I went to school until my mid-20's; I recall NEVER hearing the likes of "how to FOOL the people".