patrick.net

Here's one more Debbie Downer on the next generation.

One of the brighter young adults I'd known in some time ... you know, the type with a 140 IQ/photogenic memory, wins essay contests, and all that jazz, well recently, he's disclosed his dream in life and that's to blog about Boston sports teams.

I mean WTF?! I do that on my free time and sometimes, even on the job.

Sure, he's not in the pipeline for the entry level management consulting (MC) or investment banking (IB) careers, like others with his academic accolades, but really, that doesn't qualify in my book as an aspiration in life.

So what's with this crowd? The guys with grades want to work for MC/IB or the Facebook/Google fluff 'net crowd. And if they're not in line for the fake monied careers, they opt to become another slacker.

Homeboy says

Well, no - I never advocated an arbitrary cutoff. I am merely asking you to explain how it makes sense to use the percentage of the ENTIRE index value, when the movement up or down only occurs at the upper reaches of that value. You still haven't explained it.

My lord. I don't know how many ways to explain this.

1--the movement doesn't only occur at the upper reaches. Look at post 4 from BAO. Did it only occur at the upper reaches in 1929?

2--If you want to compare stock indices over two time periods to see if they are behaving similarly, then you should use percentages. That's the best way to normalize gains/losses. The goal is to see how the value of an investment has changed over a time period, and percentages tell that story.

3. You obviously use the entire index value because you are comparing to a set starting point. You want to see the change from that index starting point value.

Honestly--I can't believe you are calling me retarded when you can't even grasp this most simple of concepts.

It's high comedy

He may not be as silly in his decision as you think. If his talent is in content generation ("wins essay contests"), he may well be able to sell his popular blog in bits (via ad stream) or in whole for more money than punching in time every day at FB/Google.

IMHO, today's MC/IB jobs are just like the engineering jobs a generation or two ago: past rapid growth is no guarantee of future growth, contrary to many schools implying the promise while churning out thousands of candidates to bid down labor price in the field.

New Renter says

Ok, let's make it even. Each car into a concrete wall. Would you prefer your loved ones be in the rabbit, jetta or your airbagless E32?

E32 by far, it's a tank. Airbags aren't a cure all. Being properly belted in is the best defense, airbags are a supplement that may or may not help or can actually hurt.. Airbags were implemented primarily because ralph nader's handmaiden joan claybrook at the NHTSA wanted to show she could order car makers around and congress saw it as a way to look like they were doing something about auto safety while avoiding mandatory seat belt laws.

Here's a pretty good ariticle on the cost benefit of airbags, although somewhat out of date. http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/ts/text/ch12.htm. From the article:

"The total number of driver and right-front passenger fatalities in cars and light trucks remained relatively unchanged from 1994 through 2002 even as the percent of drivers with airbags increased from 13% to 60% and the percent of passengers with airbags increased from 3% to 50%."

Where are all the lives saved by airbags? Going from almost no airbags to half of the people having them didn't make any difference that anyone can measure.

New Renter says

By 2014 standards it IS a deathtrap.

No Airbags

No ABS

No ESC

No Side impact beams

No "advanced high-strength steel"

You really don't need any of these. I survived the 80's just fine without them. No cellphone either. I should have the option of not buying all this overpriced crap in a new car.

New Renter says

Ok, let's make it even. Each car into a concrete wall. Would you prefer your loved ones be in the rabbit, jetta or your airbagless E32?

I've managed to drive since 1980 without bashing into a concrete wall being an issue. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of drivers never happen to bash into concrete walls either.

Was E32 750 really 4400lbs? Is that with passengers? Did the extra bank of 6-cyl bring another 1000lbs? I had an E28 5 series for many years, and it was only 2850lbs, about the same weight as the Z3 roadster that I leased for an employee in the late 1990's.

bob2356 says

Today's generation is being crushed by the burdens placed on them the self indulgent baby boomers (ashamed to say my generation). Pretty amazing the baby boomers that went to college for free or a couple hundred dollars a semester, the ones that drove real estate and rents to astronomical levels to heloc their toys, the ones who drove tax burdens through the roof to pay for big balls macho military, the ones who sent all the decent jobs offshore to jack their stock portfolios are complaining about the work ethic of the people stuck with the bills.

You're talking about less than 10% of the boomer population that were ever in a position to allow other people to be in the position to make those decision.

Let's be honest here, here unto now, those boomers were higher level executives, who through out the 80's and 90's allowed "Consultants" to recomend they cut all of the experienced people, and replace them young dumb and full of shit jackasses fresh out of college because they were fresh and had the pulse of the young market. Which 90% of all consumer products try to target, just short of Depends under garments, and erection enhancement pills.

These companies have been ran by 20 -35 year olds making almost all of the company decisions. You need to be blaming those that are now between 40 to 55, not those older than 55.

It was my generation that screwed the pooch, if anything I blame the baby boomers for being stupid enough to allow a generation that was duped by Nilly Vinilly to run anything.

The truth about this chart; http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-truth-1929-stock-market-162739080.html

zzyzzx says

New Renter says

By 2014 standards it IS a deathtrap.

No Airbags

No ABS

No ESC

No Side impact beams

No "advanced high-strength steel"

You really don't need any of these. I survived the 80's just fine without them. No cellphone either. I should have the option of not buying all this overpriced crap in a new car.

Well if that's your wish perhaps you can get one of these on the gray market:

zzyzzx says

New Renter says

Ok, let's make it even. Each car into a concrete wall. Would you prefer your loved ones be in the rabbit, jetta or your airbagless E32?

I've managed to drive since 1980 without bashing into a concrete wall being an issue. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of drivers never happen to bash into concrete walls either.

Yeah, but you don't hear much from those who DID bash into concrete walls.

Analyst Destroys The Stock Market Crash Chart That Wall Streeters Are Passing Around

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-wilkinson-debunks-chart-2013-11#ixzz2tbNurtbRhttp://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-wilkinson-debunks-chart-2013-11

bob2356 says

Where are all the lives saved by airbags? Going from almost no airbags to half of the people having them didn't make any difference that anyone can measure.

From the NHTSA:

Safety belts and air bags have made our roads substantially safer over the years. NHTSA estimates that safety belts have saved 147,246 lives in the period 1975-2001, and air bags saved 8,369 lives between 1987 and 2001. Figure 1 displays the savings in the period 1991-2001, during which about 109,000 lives were saved by belts and 8,000 by air bags

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv18/CD/Files/18ESV-000500.pdf

Between 1991 and 2001 there were still plenty of airbag-free vehicles on the road and of those airbag carrying cars I'd bet most have first generation airbags.

It's so easy to take shots at parents when you have no experience at parenting. Every single person is an expert.

What is true about raising kids right is that it takes sacrifice: gut-bus tingly high levels of sacrifice. You don't get to do what you want when you want. Your needs, whether they be food, sleep, rest, or sometimes even taking a damn dump when you have to, your needs come second. It's not easy, but being a parent is the toughest job I've ever loved.

Quigley says

It's so easy to take shots at parents when you have no experience at parenting. Every single person is an expert.

What is true about raising kids right is that it takes sacrifice: gut-bus tingly high levels of sacrifice. You don't get to do what you want when you want. Your needs, whether they be food, sleep, rest, or sometimes even taking a damn dump when you have to, your needs come second. It's not easy, but being a parent is the toughest job I've ever loved.

And that's when they're relatively quiet.

New Renter says

Well if that's your wish perhaps you can get one of these on the gray market:

I only buy cars whose final assembly point is in the USA and made by a US based manufacturer. I refuse to send any more money overseas than I absolutely have to.

zzyzzx says

I only buy cars whose final assembly point is in the USA and made by a US based manufacturer. I refuse to send any more money overseas than I absolutely have to.

Well then I guess you'll have to put up with a safe, quality built vehicle.

Sucks to be you :P

Rin says

Here's one more Debbie Downer on the next generation.

One of the brighter young adults I'd known in some time ... you know, the type with a 140 IQ/photogenic memory, wins essay contests, and all that jazz, well recently, he's disclosed his dream in life and that's to blog about Boston sports teams.

I mean WTF?! I do that on my free time and sometimes, even on the job.

Sure, he's not in the pipeline for the entry level management consulting (MC) or investment banking (IB) careers, like others with his academic accolades, but really, that doesn't qualify in my book as an aspiration in life.

So what's with this crowd? The guys with grades want to work for MC/IB or the Facebook/Google fluff 'net crowd. And if they're not in line for the fake monied careers, they opt to become another slacker.

Much of the over 30 crowd in the late 60s felt the same way about these kids:

Most of them got their shit together eventually.

Reality says

Was E32 750 really 4400lbs? Is that with passengers? Did the extra bank of 6-cyl bring another 1000lbs? I had an E28 5 series for many years, and it was only 2850lbs, about the same weight as the Z3 roadster that I leased for an employee in the late 1990's.

Don't know never ran mine (iL with the extra 5 inches) over the scale, I've seen numbers from 1850 to 1990 kg so best bet low 4000 somewhere. Lots of duals with the 5.0. Maf, computers, intakes, batteries, ac, etc.. The 850 weighed right around 4000 and it was much smaller.

100% of those 65 to 150 years of age are rotting in nursing homes.

Except me of course.

Their children returned the favored back to their "parents" when they kicked them out after turning 18.

New Renter says

From the NHTSA:

Air bags are the NHTSA's baby, lots of paper pushers jobs depend on "proving" air bags saving lives. Gee I wonder what the NHTSA would say?

Over half the cars in 2002 had airbags yet the number of people killed PER YEAR was about the same as 1994 when almost no cars had airbags. What don't you understand about the math involved in this? I put up the wrong ilnk before www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/155.pdf

I've seen these sorts of reports before. Last time I looked we don't live in China, Hong Kong, France, or Japan. We live in the US and as such the price of housing is seriously unaffordable when compared to the local median incomes. That's all that matters and has zilch to do with what's happening in Mumbai...

This country was founded by people fleeing EVERYWHERE ELSE. To come to the US to stake your claim, and enjoy freedom and actual affordable housing. Its worth less than shit to compare US housing prices, to housing prices for the rest of the world, if one is hoping to demonstrate affodability

Your statist addled mind is trapped in the death - or - oogoo paradox

tatupu70 says

My lord. I don't know how many ways to explain this.

Just one would do. I'm still waiting for you to even explain it once.

tatupu70 says

1--the movement doesn't only occur at the upper reaches. Look at post 4 from BAO. Did it only occur at the upper reaches in 1929?

My god are you ever thick. That's EXACTLY my point. Movement occurred over MUCH MORE of the range of the index in 1929 than it does NOW. NOW, it only moves at the upper reaches. Jesus Christ - how many fucking times do I have to say this??????????????????

This is what's so goddam annoying about you, Tat. YOU DON'T LISTEN! You only argue against strawmen.

tatupu70 says

2--If you want to compare stock indices over two time periods to see if they are behaving similarly, then you should use percentages. That's the best way to normalize gains/losses. The goal is to see how the value of an investment has changed over a time period, and percentages tell that story.

For the fifth time, that is what you SAY. I am saying I don't see the evidence for that being true. You do understand that simply SAYING something doesn't render it automatically true, don't you?

Perhaps it is true, but you have yet to demonstrate to me that it is.

tatupu70 says

3. You obviously use the entire index value because you are comparing to a set starting point. You want to see the change from that index starting point value.

The "starting point" would be zero, if you are using a percentage of the entire index value. My point is that zero is not in play. In the early 20th Century, the index fell down below 50. That has NEVER happened again. Why are you measuring movement on a scale from some fictional zero starting point that is for all practical purposes non-existent?

Look, if you think I'm wrong, just explain why. Don't explain why some strawman you made up is wrong, explain why *I* am wrong on THIS PARTICULAR POINT. I am perfectly willing to listen to your explanation; I just haven't heard one yet.

This is not "simple" at all. It may seem so to a simple mind like yours, but that is only because you haven't thought things through.

Many of those foreign cities are in their own speculative bubble, and in many 3rd world cases it's their virgin real estate bubble aided by low carry cost (no property tax), so yeah going a little crazy over there is par for the course.

By the way, just so we're clear, I don't believe in the "scary chart". I do think the stock market is due for a correction event, but not necessarily as dramatic as the 1929 crash. Some of you seem to be trying to argue against a correction happening by minimizing the movement with this "percentage" metric. All I'm asking is that you explain how this is a valid tactic.

Reality says

He may not be as silly in his decision as you think. If his talent is in content generation ("wins essay contests"), he may well be able to sell his popular blog in bits (via ad stream) or in whole for more money than punching in time every day at FB/Google.

If there weren't already, 3-5+ blogs per Boston team, I'd agree with you.
Most of the folks, who hang out in the Boston sports internet lounges are like PatNet, they have a real job out there, and then, this fantasy land of speculating about trade rumors, player injuries, whether or not Paul Pierce or Tom Brady are as good as Carmelo Anthony or Peyton Manning, are all pastimes.

New Renter says

Most of them got their shit together eventually.

From what I'd heard from the *Summer of Love* gang is that many, already had entry level tracks ready for them, between '64 and '69, by virtue of having a college degree. This "color of parachute" phenomena started after Nixon/Ford's stagflation, when all of the sudden, there were too many BA holders for starting jobs at let's say Prudential Insurance or Polaroid. Thus, getting *it together* was simply a matter of cutting one's hair and applying for a job, as in a bank loan officer, if one doesn't have any special talent or experience.

In addition, the cultural gap between the WWII gen and the Hippies were Glenn Miller (or Big Band) vs Rock 'n Roll. That's a rather large shift in general cultural tastes. How many kids would want to live in a parent's household, listening to that ancient stuff all day?

In contrast, today's kids, who're not gung-ho about competing for internship/CO-OPs, are more likely to become Boomerbang kids, while at the same time, they listen to Kurt Cobain with their parents. There's not much incentive to move out of the old basement.

My eyes are all the way open.

Sorry that you are such a victim of your own actions. I rather enjoy this country, you choose to be miserable

Tim Aurora says

You absolutely have no idea what seriously unaffordable means. Try living in Tokoyo or Mumbai or Shanghai

or NY, SF, or LA.

Tim Aurora says

You absolutely have no idea what seriously unaffordable means. Try living in Tokoyo or Mumbai or Shanghai

They find what they can afford...
People in the US have different expectations.

"Do not complain all the time."

You should have listened to edvard before he bought a house in spring 2012. He was constantly whining and bitching about real estate in the Bay Area, and how he was going to save money and moving out of here, blah blah blah. Before he bought a house here, he talked up Austin, TX and some other cities. Now, he's trashing Austin every time someone brought it up as the next Silicon Valley, etc.

Had he missed the bottom of the housing market, he would have whined and bitched even more. This guy hasn't lived oversea so he doesn't appreciate how cheap real estate in the Bay Area compared to other 1st world countries. This is not bad at all so bear with him.

"..US is one of the most affordable places in the world."

Well of course if buyers are willing to allow sellers to make a larger profit, commissioned salespeople to make larger commissions & mortgage holders to make more interest on larger loan amounts.

Great business model for buyers.

Homeboy says

My god are you ever thick. That's EXACTLY my point. Movement occurred over MUCH MORE of the range of the index in 1929 than it does NOW. NOW, it only moves at the upper reaches. Jesus Christ - how many fucking times do I have to say this??????????????????

This is what's so goddam annoying about you, Tat. YOU DON'T LISTEN! You only argue against strawmen.

My lord. I've listened and patiently explained everything to you. And, as usual, you fly off the handle.

OK--here goes. You are 100% incorrect that there is less movement today than in the past. Volatility is increasing, not decreasing.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/580701-are-stock-markets-becoming-more-volatile

One only has to look at the Nasdaq in 2000 to prove it. It decreased from 4572 to 1172 in a few years. Is that only moving at the "upper reaches"?

http://finance.yahoo.com/charts?s=%5EIXIC#symbol=^ixic;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;

Homeboy says

For the fifth time, that is what you SAY. I am saying I don't see the evidence for that being true. You do understand that simply SAYING something doesn't render it automatically true, don't you?

Perhaps it is true, but you have yet to demonstrate to me that it is.

What exactly are you looking for? I've showed that percentages allow you to know exactly how your investment performed. If your investment went up 3%, you are 3% richer. If it went down 3%, you are 3% poorer. Percentages allow you to compare apples to apples
Homeboy says

The "starting point" would be zero, if you are using a percentage of the entire index value

The index was never at zero--it started at 62.76. So, zero would never be a starting point.

Homeboy says

Look, if you think I'm wrong, just explain why. Don't explain why some strawman you made up is wrong, explain why *I* am wrong on THIS PARTICULAR POINT. I am perfectly willing to listen to your explanation; I just haven't heard one yet.

This is not "simple" at all. It may seem so to a simple mind like yours, but that is only because you haven't thought things through.

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say. One the OP, the starting point is July 2012. If you want to look at the whole life of the index the starting point is May 26, 1896. Whatever starting point you pick, you measure the % gain (or loss) vs. that point. That is how you normalize the gains from different time periods or from different stocks, or different indices.

And if you want to see how much more valuable an index has become--percentages tell that story. If the stock or index is up 3%, owners have gained 3%.

No offense--but it is simple.

E-man says

This guy hasn't lived oversea so he doesn't appreciate how cheap real estate in the Bay Area compared to other 1st world countries. This is not bad at all so bear with him

I've lived overseas a lot. Which 1st world countries are you talking about that makes BA real estate look cheap?

Tim Aurora says

You do not have to live in SF. Move out to Atlanta, Charlotte or Austin. Nice warm weather, good winters and a mighty big yard.

Warm but humid. Great BBQ though.

tts says

That is why those charts showing productivity increasing while wages stagnate are so important. Proof positive that working harder and "taking responsibility" are anything but economic cure alls:

That is a national average BTW. There is nowhere to move to in the US that allows you to avoid the reality that chart shows.

Exactly the problem. I know it's long, but worth the time: http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/ethos/ I like that it offers a solution.

Tim Aurora says

You do not have to live in SF. Move out to Atlanta, Charlotte or Austin. Nice warm weather, good winters and a mighty big yard.

E-man says

You should have listened to edvard before he bought a house in spring 2012. He was constantly whining and bitching about real estate in the Bay Area, and how he was going to save money and moving out of here, blah blah blah. Before he bought a house here, he talked up Austin, TX and some other cities. Now, he's trashing Austin every time someone brought it up as the next Silicon Valley, etc.

Let me help correct some of your assertions. Yes, I'm not going to deny that back in the day I bitched a lot about Bay Area real estate. But I'm going to give you some more details so next time you might not feel compelled to mis-paraphrase.

First of all, the housing market sucked back then. I mean really sucked. Any house at all was around 600k+ in my area or more. If you threw in interest rates at that time, there was zilch affordability. Back then it made absolutely no sense to buy and it was ridiculous given the rather decent income I make. So for starters, the market was TOTALLY different than today's even though we're now back in a new bubble that seems to be tracking the same as the previous.

Yes- Austin, Raleigh, and a few others were on that list as possible relocation cities. I spent about a year making some aggressive efforts to land a job in Austin. I even visited it a few times. Yes- Austin is nice. The food is great. The people ere awesome. Overall I liked it. But the job situation was not ideal and the pay was not fantastic. I also found that real estate wasn't exactly cheap if you added in their high property taxes. So it made less sense when I went through that experience. I don't "Trash" Austin. I simply explain my experiences having actually gone there and seen what the deal is.

At about that same time interest rates fell dramatically, we had a lot of savings, and at one point the rates dropped so low that the cost of a mortgage on a decent house actually had parity with our rent. Then it made sense to buy and thus we did.

It would say that in hind site it was maybe one of the best financial decisions we made. But that outcome wasn't planned nor do I count on the home's appreciation for my financial well-being. I'm also not saying that moving elsewhere someday isn't out of the question either because while I like the Bay Area, certain aspects of its hurried lifestyle is a pain in the ass.

But to conclude, yes- I like many people bitched about BA real estate but it was because the housing market was totally insane and when it makes no mathematical sense it can be outright frustrating.

Tim Aurora says

So, you had a choice and I bet many others like you do too. But the reason the property prices and rents are so high in San Fransisco is exactly for that reason. ( and of course the weather is nice too). It has high paying jobs which no other place in the world has.

So either live with it or move out. It is not that people do not have an option

I've been here long enough to say that there isn't a defined reason why the Bay Area is as expensive as it is. Its a number of factors. The takeaway for me after having gone through the dot-com crash, the housing bubble and crash, the recession and the new housing bubble we're in is that its a crap shoot. Its all about a very narrow window of opportunity before things start to suck again. Had we not bought when we did, we would probably have vacated because who knows how long this bubble will last?

curious2 says

but mainly the issue was about domestic politics incluuding specifically the intentions of the Democratic party as shown by their actions which speak louder than words.

I think you made a good point earlier about how the health care law passed on party lines, so the anger should really be focused on the Dems that refused to support some of the better options rather than on the Republicans.

I just didn't understand why you chose to pick a fight with the definition of 1st world or difference between universal health care and single payer.

For a while I was proud to call curious2 my very own personal troll, he would follow me around saying stupid shit about me because of this one time when I had little tolerance for his stupidity.

He's sure to chime in as a response to this about what a fool I am for using the ignore feature to not see 99% of his posts, but occasionally read one that references me from the front page.

PErhaps he's becoming your very own troll now.

I would think of it as flattering, that he's so interested in you.

marcus says

For a while I was proud to call curious2 my very own personal troll, he would follow me around saying stupid shit about me because of this one time when I had little tolerance for his stupidity.

Wait, curious george is my personal troll I thought. How many people does he follow around? Very creepy.