patrick.net

tatupu70 says

bob2356 says

tatupu70 says

Wages have been going up.

“Real average hourly earnings rose 0.5 percent, seasonally adjusted, from August 2009 to August 2010.”

From http://www.njfac.org/Wage%20report.htm

I know you guys like to state things as fact when you pull it out of your ass, but let’s try to resist the urge..

Did you read down to the bottom of your own article, the part about household income falling 1% since 2000? Also I really don’t believe .5% wage hourly (is the article referring to only hourly workers? what about salaried? this is not at all clear, could you check your own anal orifice please) increase per year represents a true impact on affordability of housing.

Like I said–the exact term you use makes a big difference. You said wages. So I posted what wages have done. If you want to talk about household income, that’s a different statistic. There is a link to the BLS report on the website which explains their methodology in detail.

No offense, but you are fucking retarded.

Anyone who says wages have risen is a fucking retard.

thomas.wong1986 says

sybrib says

And for comic relief,

thomas.wong1986 says

Silicon Valley, may lose its competitive advantage to emerging Huntsville, Alabama

Crap happens!

Comic huh? Laugh while Rome burns I suppose. I lived and worked there on and off twelve years. There is a huge amount of IT going on down there, NASA in the form of Marshall Space Flight center, for example. It's not emerging, it emerged with the space race and Apollo program. The biggest issue is getting people from elsewhere to get over "it's Alabama, like George Wallace, you know ALABAMA!". Often once relocated, they stay for life and love it. I am a wanderer so I have come and gone from there twice. May go back someday. I think it was actually more vibrant in the 90's. But, really there remains a vibrant IT world and at one point the town had the most PhDs per capita in America, all engineers for the most part.

Sanmina-SCI was once SCI and Sanmina separately. SCI was / is a hugely successful Huntsville corporation. Adtran, that's another.

Wow--seems like I hit a nerve there. If you'd like to call the Bureau of Labor Statistics retarded (or fucking retarded), be my guest. Here's their contact info:

http://www.bls.gov/bls/contact.htm

I know you prefer not to deal with actual facts and figures so they are a thorn in your side...

thunderlips11 says

theoakman says

Keiser

…is no mere entertainer, although he is entertaining. He has a host of accomplishments, not the least being an incredibly successful broker and formulating the system for the Hollywood Stock Exchange. He is a gadfly to the pompous assertions made by the usual suspects.
He called the collapse of the Carry Trade and the Icelandic “Geyser” in advance, and did a show on the BBC and Al Jeezera about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjglR2KYz5o&feature=player_embedded
What’s great is this show aired BEFORE the collapse. And several people in it are now in hiding. Notice the arrogance of the Icelandic Free Traders… “We work longer hours… are smarter… have lots of cod.”

Keiser doesn't call anything. He simply follows the predictions of guys that do make the right calls. I didn't say he was a hack. But if you are going to refer to him for predictions, he's simply ripping off the predictions of most of his guests. I usually like to go to the original source when giving someone credit.

thunderlips11 says

Looks like Monetarists around the world are desperately trying to out do each other in currency devaluation. Feel bad for the Swiss.

Monetarists don't preach currency devaluation. They believe that in the end, a nation that devalues their currency through pegging and manipulation will be ultimately force to let the currency rise when inflation kicks in and people vote with their feet. Of course, they are wrong. They never considered the case of the poor 3rd world worker who earns a nickel an hour. These people can hold out for generations before they demand their currency/wages rise. China is going on about 30 years now? According to the Monetarists, this was only supposed to last a few years at most and the Chinese and Mexican workers would be thriving in equality with the American middle class.

The big fans of currency devaluation are Keynesians. They love an engine of government spending (which is what the printing press is) and they believe the benefit is threefold. They believe it is beneficial to wipe out debt through inflation and they also believe that currency devaluation is always the path to recovery because it can allow you to export your problems away by subsidizing your export market. Of course, they are wrong as well. They never considered the case of the poor 3rd world worker who earns a nickel an hour. The Keynesian solution won't work until their actions bring the American worker's wage down to a nickel an hour as well.

These are your university professors and so called experts. They put forth untested theories based on completely false dogma and manipulated statistics. They completely lack common sense. Yet, they are here to stay and indoctrinate future university students teaching them that the solution to the 6 billion body problem involves a total of 4 variables, one of which we can assume to be fixed. How they ever managed to gain any sort of credibility is beyond my ability to comprehend.

I think it's pretty hard for us to see the whole picture. The big picture. What if what's best for the year 2150, or 2500, or 3000, isn't what's best for certain groups right now ? Not that anyone is actually looking at that.
And while I don't claim to know the answer, it seems to me that the question of whether globalism is good, or whether we should practice protectionism is actually a long term question.

That is, either a somewhat united world, under a global umbrella government is inevitable or it's not.

For some, I think the idea of Armageddon happening in the next century or two is far more appealing. It makes it easy for them to not even consider such troubling long term questions.

theoakman says

According to the Monetarists, this was only supposed to last a few years at most and the Chinese and Mexican workers would be thriving in equality with the American middle class.

Sure. Like it's possible for several billion to live and consume (long term) the way that we have. Maybe you could show us where Friedman ever said anything so silly. Not that I'm a big fan.

not calif - but she's quite conservative from what i hear.

theoakman says

Less we forget George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore dragging Ross Perot’s name through the mud while he was trying to save the jobs of America.

Ross was a heck of guy! Scared the crap of the dingbats politicans. We could use a guy like that right now.

While at HP, ran the company into the ground and skated out after looting the safe.

Makes $100 million but has an illegal maid she's so cheap and certain rules are for the little people.

If this is your type of person, by all means vote for her.

theoakman says

1988 that claimed that our trade with Japan would balance itself out by 1990

Y83.33 says he was right, just early :) trade deficit is 0.3% GDP this year compared to ~1.2% in the late 80s.

We could use a guy like that right now.

Ron Paul is a close facsimile. His son looks a little more squirrelly (less libertarian/more neocon) on the issues tho.

while he was trying to save the jobs of America

one thing that the "All-Devouring Rent" thesis explains is why offshoring labor to China is a bad deal over the long run.

In the short run, we who do not compete with Chinese labor get much cheaper products without any cost to us, thanks to China's monthly wage being our daily wage. Sucks to be the wage earner that competes with that, but oh well.

But the Theory of the All-Devouring Rent posits that this household savings -- on the order of $2000/yr/household -- just ends up in higher rents and mortgage payments as consumers redirect this surplus into our dominant monthly expense, the rent.

Makes sense to me. What was doubly nasty was that China was turning around our trade deficit and loaning us the money back via the GSE MBS. When all that collapsed they called Geithner to Beijing informing him that he WOULD move their dollars out of those MBS, tout suite. Hence the Fed now having $1.1T of MBS on its balance sheet.

If she were going against some Democratic goofball like Gavin I'd vote for her.

But she's going up against the political equivalent of Steve Jobs. One of my all-time heroes.

Vicente says

While at HP, ran the company into the ground and skated out after looting the safe.

That's actually Boxer's opponent. In that case, if Campbell had won the (R) primary I'd have a tough decision to make. I remember seeing Boxer bumper stickers in LA in 1992, 18 years is long enough.

But the Republicans can't catch a break this year, LOL.

knewbetter says

Anyone who says wages have risen is a fucking retard.

No, ONE person who deliberately ignores the fact that INCOME is down, and instead disingenuously focuses on a dubious source that claims a paltry 0.5% increase in wages (big fucking deal), just so he can pretend to score a technical debate point when he knows perfectly fucking well that people are making less money, is a fucking retard.

I mean, Jesus Christ. Are you homeowners really so desperate to believe all is well that you will stoop that low?

And no, you didn't "hit a nerve", tatapu - I'm just calling you what you are.

Maybe this can be of a help.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/28/pf/household_income_report/index.htm

in the article,

While D.C.'s income was essentially flat from 2008 to 2009, nearly every other major metro area suffered a drop in income. Of the 52 largest metro areas with more than 1 million residents, only San Antonio did not record a loss. The city's median income grew 0.5% to $47,698.

pkowen says

thomas.wong1986 says

sybrib says

And for comic relief,
thomas.wong1986 says

Silicon Valley, may lose its competitive advantage to emerging Huntsville, Alabama

Comic huh? Laugh while Rome burns I suppose.

The comedy of it, is what competitive advantage?
The author of that piece refers to our competitive advantage, but he doesn't even say what it is. I will tell you what it is: a magnet for Cool and Hip people from other parts of the USA, magnet for well-to-do Asian immigrants who seem only want to live and work in Fortress Enclaves, a magnet for illegals who want to be domestic help for corporate titans, say like, Meg Whitman.
What kind of competitive advantage is that? Maybe we should ask the management of Toyota & GM that fired thousands of Bay Areans when they closed the NUMMI plant instead of reducing operations somewhere else, or Intel which used to employ thousands of folks in manufacturing in Santa Clara County (but not any more), or IBM which did the same.

Anyone who says " I'll stand up to those unions" and "I will put Californians back to work " obviously does not have a clue about who the workers in California are. She'd have to start with her own state employees - the ones out of work - no cant do that- those are those union employees. On the other hand we have a candidate who has worked at different levels of government in California for a long time. Maybe not perfect but at least might have more of a clue how the state decisions affects the cities and hence the actual people. And not making stupid promises to stand up to those unions and put Californians back to work. I certainly hope I am not the only Californian who heard the awkwardness of her stance towards working folks. Maybe she is confusing Californian's with illegals (?) She just thought they were good non-union workers. hahahahaha

Troy says

That’s actually Boxer’s opponent.

Whoops having a senior moment, right you are

I'm annoyed that they portray Whitman as the founder of eBay. She was not. She was appointed CEO just before they went public. By most accounts she did a respectable job at the company, but I've also heard that pretty much anyone could have run things because the original idea worked so well.

During her tenure she made some obvious fuck ups, Skype being the most obvious.

She doesn't strike me as someone with genuine conviction, but rather someone who is just looking for more power, probably hoping for a presidential bid some day.

I don't think either of these people can fix California though. California's problem is not the governor -- it can't be, because California gives its governor so little power that it's effectively a figurehead position. California's problems lie in the absurd cost of living and the completely broken legislative system.

marcus says

I think it’s pretty hard for us to see the whole picture. The big picture. What if what’s best for the year 2150, or 2500, or 3000, isn’t what’s best for certain groups right now ? Not that anyone is actually looking at that.

And while I don’t claim to know the answer, it seems to me that the question of whether globalism is good, or whether we should practice protectionism is actually a long term question.
That is, either a somewhat united world, under a global umbrella government is inevitable or it’s not.
For some, I think the idea of Armageddon happening in the next century or two is far more appealing. It makes it easy for them to not even consider such troubling long term questions.
theoakman says

According to the Monetarists, this was only supposed to last a few years at most and the Chinese and Mexican workers would be thriving in equality with the American middle class.

Sure. Like it’s possible for several billion to live and consume (long term) the way that we have. Maybe you could show us where Friedman ever said anything so silly. Not that I’m a big fan.

In his series, capitalism and freedom, Friedman cited European free trade between countries of wealth disparity raising their standard of living through free trade despite the inequality in wages. Friedman failed to anticipate that the same would not happen between nations where the wealth disparity was more than an order of one magnitude. Friedman claimed even as late as 2005, that China would ultimately be forced to let the yuan rise before anything bad happened. Friedman based his assumptions on the first time Japan was forced to let the Yen rise in the 70s.

Troy says

Y83.33 says he was right, just early :) trade deficit is 0.3% GDP this year compared to ~1.2% in the late 80s.

20 years early. I should dig up the paper again. I can only access it from the university computers though. It's pretty pathetic. He wrote about how the market would force them to balance trade before the decade turned. This is the supposed "leader in international trade theory". But, regardless of the Yen's value today. Trade deficit still exists, and I'm willing to bet the Japanese go into full fledged currency debasement starting this year. In fact, I've placed quite a few bets on the Japanese destroying the Yen. If that happens, the trade deficit will persist.

Serpentor says

some people are just going to pick and choose whatever data that support their believes.

Pick and choose? I didn't pick it--you guys did. I was just pointing out that you were wrong. And I agreed with Kris who was right. Wages probably aren't the best stat to correlate to housing prices.

gameisrigged says

No, ONE person who deliberately ignores the fact that INCOME is down, and instead disingenuously focuses on a dubious source that claims a paltry 0.5% increase in wages (big fucking deal), just so he can pretend to score a technical debate point when he knows perfectly fucking well that people are making less money, is a fucking retard.

You are the asshole. Why don't you say what you mean from now on. Different stats have different meanings and I don't know which ones correlate best with housing prices. My feeling is that household income is probably best, but I've never done an analysis of them to see. I'm not trying to score any technical points. Why didn't you guys just say--yes, I shouldn't have said wages. I meant household income--or something along those lines? Instead you have to call me a retard or fucking retard when I already proved that wages are, in fact, rising.

The only way to fix the cost problem (and get cheap insurance) is to address the cost drivers straight on with the willpower to make real change.
We have a for-profit healthcare system that pays largely by each service provided. Guess what? Surgeons and hospital docs prescribe lots and lost of services (and drugs). More each year in fact. But that's not the whole reason utilization goes up each year. Can't pin it all up on them. We US citizens eat processed garbage that is tasty - but terribly unhealthy. We have insane amounts of obese folks with awful chronic conditions like diabetes which costs a fortune in ongoing treatment. Oh yeah- we're getting older as a society and living longer too. End of life healthcare is a huge portion of the healthcare buck - and it aint what it was 25 years ago. Hospitals will do costly life-saving surgeries on 80 plus year olds now that would have been unimaginable then. They're 80 for god's sake. No one asks how much time you are buying great grandpa with the triple bypass and tons of phys therapy and drugs. A year?

Fix incentives and procedure prices for providers (most healthcare inflation is in hospital and drug costs - not your GP). And address drug prices like other countries do. Force the medical community to only deliver procedures that are indicated by the medical evidence (lots of practice variation - sometimes for profit). Get serious about holding powerful food companies accountable for selling crappy processed foods - they are harming our loved ones. Talk honestly about end of life care - at least start talking. Cheap insurance is no insurance - cheap good insurance require a totally different cost basis.

Your ideas are all good and reasoning is valid.

But I don't think they can be implemented in America because lobbyists will simply block anything that interferes with drug or insurance company profits.

Profits -> lobbyists -> Congress -> laws that prevent change -> more profits -> lobbyists -> Congress -> ...

Until paid corporate lobbyists are illegal, the system will remain corrupt that way.

Whitman is a corporate drone of the worst sort. Jerry Brown is a thoughtful and caring person. There is no contest in my mind.

Why are you liberals so afraid of a successful woman?

justme says

Jerry Brown is a thoughtful and caring person.

Do you know him personally?

RayAmerica says

Why are you liberals so afraid of a successful woman?

The bigger question it why are they supporting a Fiscal Conservative (Brown)??? Very interesting.

Me? I'm going to have to side with candidate who's going to cut spending. California Republicans might talk a good game when it comes to fiscal restraint, but once they get into office, the aroma of tax-payer's cash proves too much to resist.

Reps and Dems are cut from the same cloth - they love other peoples money! At least Jerry, liberal as he may be, has proven he can refrain from lining the pockets of bureaucrats with taxpayer money. He just needs to avoid those pesty medflys!

Nomograph says

Whitman is a flaming liberal. She supports pretty much every single liberal social agenda in the book.

Agreed, especially from a "Bible Belt Standard".

tatupu70 says

Wages probably aren’t the best stat to correlate to housing prices.

Well that is OBVIOUSLY true, just ask anyone who got one of those creative loans when interest rates were low.

If you know wages aren't a good indicator of home prices, why did you even make your snarky post? Why post some insignificant figure when you know it has no bearing on house prices?

Nomograph says

Whitman is a flaming liberal. She supports pretty much every single liberal social agenda in the book.

I don't know. Would like to know more about Brown (I will read more) as I haven't lived in California that long.

I am told that both would do state employee pension reform which directly effects me. And I am also told that I can trust Brown to do it in a more thoughtful way. Does anyone think he might solve the big financial political problems that are structurally built in to California this point ? That is, the prop 13 effect, and the 2/3 requirement for tax increases ?

Also, what do you think about the marijuana vote ? And isn't that likely to help Brown, that is bringing out the youth vote ?

RayAmerica says

Why are you liberals so afraid of a successful woman?

Why did (do) republicans hate Hilary so much ?

Yeah. Minimum wage has increased. That explains the underlying main reason for the 20%+ YOY home price appreaction in California during the bubble years. Since minimum wage never goes down so home prices should never fall. :)

Any governor can't really change anything. But they do make appointments that have a long-term impact.

We're in a partisan hell now that I don't see getting any better. Too many people just want to destroy the system instead of fix it.

theoakman says

I’ve placed quite a few bets on the Japanese destroying the Yen. If that happens, the trade deficit will persist

yeah, Japan's prices are still structured at Y150 or so.

Complicating matters is the capital interchange with China and Japan's energy needs from OPEC. This makes my head hurt.

Kevin says

I’m annoyed that they portray Whitman as the founder of eBay. She was not. She was appointed CEO just before they went public. By most accounts she did a respectable job at the company, but I’ve also heard that pretty much anyone could have run things because the original idea worked so well.
During her tenure she made some obvious fuck ups, Skype being the most obvious.
She doesn’t strike me as someone with genuine conviction, but rather someone who is just looking for more power, probably hoping for a presidential bid some day.
I don’t think either of these people can fix California though. California’s problem is not the governor — it can’t be, because California gives its governor so little power that it’s effectively a figurehead position. California’s problems lie in the absurd cost of living and the completely broken legislative system.

She's definitely the first batch before anyone knew who they were and she did lead a company that went from less than 100 to as much as 15K employee under her watch. It generated tremendous shareholder value until 2008 when they pretty much topped out.

As far as strategy, there were ubid, shop at home, Amazon and Craisglist and 100's of companies during the dot com era to deal with. Even though it is a great business concept, the validation system made it all work. eBay pretty much pioneer the review system you see copied everywhere now. How to make money on Ebay was one of NYT best seller.

If you're gonna ding her for skype, you have to give her credit for Paypal which is generally regarded as one of the most successful purchase for any company ever, a 10X return on investment. They also have about a 20% stake in Craigslist with visions to buy them outright if the original Craig decides to sell.

CEO's for the most part are goals driven. For the most part, you don't turn into a 30B company from scratch without setting the right strategy and executing year after year. While Ebay has a goal and execution culture, state government and government in general are not goal driven. I'm not sure she can bring business in Sacramento because quite frankly government is just not built that way.

Having said that, Jerry Brown is going to be more of the same. He's basically taken whatever seat is available the last 30 years and was a CA governor previously. As far as I'm concerned, government pretty much has gone downhill for the last 30 years so Jerry Brown is part of the problem, not the solution anyway.

My vote is for Whitman just to shake things up to make everyone feel uncomfortable.

This "Huntsville, Alabama" thing is overrated.

The wage is so low in that place. I doubt any real good engineer will go there.

SF ace says

CEO’s for the most part are goals driven. For the most part, you don’t turn into a 30B company from scratch without setting the right strategy and executing year after year.

You definitely don't do it "from scratch" -- and Whitman didn't. eBay was on track to be very successful whoever ran the company, because it was a rock solid business.

I'm not saying she wasn't a good CEO, I'm just saying that you can't really draw much based on her history at eBay. If she had taken a company that was in a crappy state and had fixed it, or had started something from scratch, then yeah, it'd be a good indicator, but in comparison to the fucked up state that is California today, there really is no comparison.

SF ace says

As far as I’m concerned, government pretty much has gone downhill for the last 30 years so Jerry Brown is part of the problem, not the solution anyway.

So you think CA was better 30 years ago? You mean when Jerry Brown was governor?

The guy did manage to get CA to have a substantial surplus during his tenure, something his fiscally liberal predecessor (one Ronald Reagan...) couldn't manage to pull off.

Seriously, Whitman is just as much a part of the system in CA as Brown is, and probably more so considering her support for people like Boxer.

SF ace says

My vote is for Whitman just to shake things up to make everyone feel uncomfortable.

Isn't that exactly the thing people were claiming Arnold was supposed to do?

"Shaking up" the california legislature is beyond the capabilities of the governor. About the best you can hope for is someone who talks loudly directly to the people and makes them listen, since in CA the people were dumb enough to give themselves all the power.

gameisrigged says

Translation: you are a troll.

Is that how you see the world? When someone points out that you are wrong, they are a troll? That explains a lot...