patrick.net

Darrell In Phoenix says

$20k replacing $60k in wages.... yeah. Mighty "stimulative".

LOL

I was thinking the same thing. I can't wait to see the geriatrics buying up the LCD TVs, and Maserati's on their fixed income from the government. Good times coming.

Kevin says

I don't see how it's a net positive. Every dollar that comes out just came out of somebody else's taxes. If it was coming out of useless marginal dollars that might be a different story, but given how regressive these taxes are it seems unlikely.

Exactly. Any dollar paid out by the government for old timer fixed incomes came from someone else, and is taken away from other spending.

If it was housing, where Obama and Bernanke keep trying to inject magically created liquidity, then that's a different story. Not so much with geriatric SSA payments.

And as for old people's "other income", good luck with that. The people who got most screwed by Bernanke were old people. Their interest accounts are practically losing value everyday.

@Mell, @Bellingham Bill, @Kevin I would encourage you guys to put him on ignore. He just draws people in and destroys the threads. I like hearing what you have to say, but arguing with him is pointless. He is like a bot generating topical bear comments with little behind them.

BG

The Professor says

The "dollar paid out" came from the "old timer"s withholdings throughout their working life.

Having said that I do not feel entitled to social security. It should be the safety net against old age poverty, not the depended on income.

That's true, but it's not some magical form of liquidity like that other poster was trying to imply, it came out of someone's paycheck (and I agree, old timers deserve to get what they paid into).

The cure for cancer, new robots, and viable fusion technology, yes that will expand the economy. SSA checks?

Not likely.

The Professor says

The "dollar paid out" came from the "old timer"s withholdings throughout their working life.

SS is a pay as you go plan. The money isn't put into the bank and then withdrawn. Current workers pay current retirees. The "trust fund" isn't that all that big at 2.7 trillion (about 3 years payouts) and only consists of IOU's from the government's general fund.

So any money going out in SS is being taken in with fica deductions. It's a wash.

Bellingham Bill says

Debt vs. the LL's rent increase. That's the gauntlet the masses have to run this decade and next.

love my rent controlled pad!

bob2356 says

SS is a pay as you go plan. The money isn't put into the bank and then withdrawn. Current workers pay current retirees. The "trust fund" isn't that all that big at 2.7 trillion (about 3 years payouts) and only consists of IOU's from the government's general fund.

That Trust fund took 20 years to build up, though. It's now time to spend it down as originally intended (FICA pay-ins aren't going away so we need to look at how long the surplus will actually last as a supplement to FICA).

If we just raise taxes on the lower 90% to pay off the bonds the whole Greenspan Commission thing will have been something of a scam to lower taxes on the wealthy by having the boomers (and Gen X) overpay their FICA and then have the boomer children (and Gen X) pay off the bonds now.

So I fully expect this is what's going to happen.

Goran_K says

The cure for cancer, new robots, and viable fusion technology, yes that will expand the economy. SSA checks?

we don't actually need to "expand the economy" to get things back in balance.

The top 5% clear 30%+ of the national income.

There's your problem, mate.

SS checks this decade and next are ~$2T pure redistribution if the top 10% pay up on their end of the Greenspan Deal over the next 15-20 years.

Just what the doctor ordered.

Kevin says

I don't see how it's a net positive. Every dollar that comes out just came out of somebody else's taxes. If it was coming out of useless marginal dollars that might be a different story

yes, I'm thinking higher taxes on non FICA-hit income. That's the only thing that would be "fair". And thus the least likely, LOL.

Also we can just print the payouts somehow. That's also possible, sigh.

Bellingham Bill says

Goran_K says

The cure for cancer, new robots, and viable fusion technology, yes that will expand the economy. SSA checks?

we don't actually need to "expand the economy" to get things back in balance.

The top 5% clear 30%+ of the national income.

There's your problem, mate.

SS checks this decade and next are ~$2T pure redistribution if the top 10% pay up on their end of the Greenspan Deal over the next 15-20 years.

Just what the doctor ordered.

Only accurate if SS is fixed to no longer be a regressive tax (maybe we quit the current charade and just fold it into income tax). The top 10% pay significantly less as a percentage of income in SS than the regular folks.

Bellingham Bill says

That's the only thing that would be "fair". And thus the least likely, LOL.

Just remove the cap and it'd have a big impact. If you move a marginal dollar from someone who wasn't spending it (or wasn't spending it efficiently anyway), and give it to someone who must spend every dollar that they get, you'll stimulate the economy.

SS taxes at present just take dollars from people who need them (those making under $115k/year or thereabouts) and gives them to people who need them slightly more.

Bellingham Bill says

Goran_K says

The cure for cancer, new robots, and viable fusion technology, yes that will expand the economy. SSA checks?

we don't actually need to "expand the economy" to get things back in balance.

The top 5% clear 30%+ of the national income.

There's your problem, mate.

SS checks this decade and next are ~$2T pure redistribution if the top 10% pay up on their end of the Greenspan Deal over the next 15-20 years.

Just what the doctor ordered.

All of that money is just going to keep a huge geriatric boomer population (the largest percentage of old timers in U.S history) alive, and off the streets. I'm not sure how that helps your point.

Goran_K says

I'm not sure how that helps your point.

the 95%'s economy needs velocity (spending).

old people need more paid labor, which results in wage income. Every dollar of pension income -- and medicare-paid expenses -- just get passed right into the private economy.

This is going to be a TWO TRILLION PLUS flow into the private economy by 2030.

This dynamic is also why I'm not terribly bearish on Japan. They don't have much of a boomer population (compared to us) but their support burden is going to rise a lot as their working age population declines.

But this "support burden" actually translates into a much tighter job market.

Kevin says

SS taxes at present just take dollars from people who need them (those making under $115k/year or thereabouts) and gives them to people who need them slightly more.

I agree with your other point (that the top 10% needs to kick in the money that's paying down the SSTF) but this wealth-transfer aspect of SSA is sheer elegance.

Payroll taxes are a great way to sequester income for necessities so that we don't use all our disposable incomes to bid up rents and home values.

Regressive taxes come out of rents!

At any rate, the less we tax the masses the more the landlords can jack up their rents, and the more we all just bid up the cost of housing.

I *really* wish I had understood this back in 2001 as the Bush tax cuts were going down, sigh.

Bellingham Bill says

This is going to be a TWO TRILLION PLUS flow into the private economy by 2030.

This dynamic is also why I'm not terribly bearish on Japan. They don't have much of a boomer population (compared to us) but their support burden is going to rise a lot as their working age population declines.

But this "support burden" actually translates into a much tighter job market.

Yes $2T in SSA payments, but many times that lost since many of the boomer population will no longer be working, or very productive. Yes the support structure for those industries may experience some growth, but I don't see how that will stabilize the economy in the theory you have put forth.

Goran_K says

but many times that lost since many of the boomer population will no longer be working,

this is a good thing since Gen Y is just now moving into working age.

If Gen Y is 1982 to 2000 they are aged 12 to 20 right now and they will take over from their parents wrt jobs.

Goran_K says

but I don't see how that will stabilize the economy in the theory you have put forth.

I'm just saying the boomer retirement has some under-appreciated upsides.

If taxes are raised on the lower 95% to cover the rising cost of the boomer support, then, no, it won't be all that hot.

But the top 10% cleared $3.3T in AGI in 2010 and paid $610B in taxes. If we doubled taxes on corporations ($300B) and doubled taxes on the top 10% ($600B) and redirected $300B of our defense outlays into health expansion, we'd have a balanced budget and a much more symmetrical wealth distribution arrangement.

Or we can just print it, LOL. That's the most likely outcome I think. Who needs pain when you've got a printer.

We are not definitely Japan.

But, last 5 years or so, we have been Japan who did not really reckon with problems for last 2 decades. They did it with 90% domestic debt.
So in fact, Japan could do it quite well without foreign debts.
We did it Japan style (not Gangnam Style), only worse is with foreign debts.

It's time now. Are we going to finally reckon with the problem that are worsened last 5 years ?

Are we really NOT Japan ?

Darrell In Phoenix says

Housing demand is at 16 year lows.... and falling.

what a bizarre assertion to make when the baby boom echo peaked exactly 20 years ago!

Population growth overall is slowing -- the population aged 25 to 64 grew ~20% in the 1980s but only 11% in the 2000s and will "only" grow 6% in this decade, but that's still growth, LOL.

Here in my Realtor Realityâ„¢ the population of age 25-34 yos grew 14% in the 1980s, actually fell 8% in the 1990s, grew 5% in the 2000s, and is going to grow 9% this decade, 2% in the 2020s, and 8-9% (per-decade) again in the 2030-2050 period.

Listening to Schiff?

LOL

Darrell In Phoenix says

Housing Demand is at 16 year lows

Do you have a link for that?

Darrell In Phoenix says

Wait a second.

Your my pet project, why ignore you.

Link, please.

Darrell In Phoenix says

little troll

Link.

You either have a link to support your absurd assertion, or go away.

You've once again mirepresented what I've said, so I'll probably want a link for that also.

The Professor says

Ignore him or ignore him.

Oh, alrighty.

David Losh says

Darrell In Phoenix says

Housing Demand is at 16 year lows

Do you have a link for that?

Darrel doesn't do links - he just says.

Bellingham Bill says

this is a good thing since Gen Y is just now moving into working age.

If Gen Y is 1982 to 2000 they are aged 12 to 20 right now and they will take over from their parents wrt jobs.

I'm sorry but that theory doesn't make any sense. The retiring boomers are leaving behind mid-level to senior positions, Gen Y isn't going to be able to just walk into these jobs and take over. They are trying to get entry level positions, unfortunately, many of these jobs (if you keep up with hiring forecast) simply aren't there. Either more experienced mid-level types in their 30s and 40s are taking them, or the positions don't even exist anymore as many of them have been shipped over seas. It's one of the biggest worries for new grads these days, and more and more of them are simply not entering the job market and either 1) going back to school, or 2) moving back home and taking partial employment.

I do agree that the boomer retirement saga will have many upsides (as they die off, we can finally have some form of austerity instead of hegemonic cold war era entitlement), but SSA checks bolstering the economy just seems like a huge stretch to me.

Goran_K says

The retiring boomers are leaving behind mid-level to senior positions, Gen Y isn't going to be able to just walk into these jobs and take over.

of course not, but every hole at the top will leave a hole at the bottom as people move up.

Goran_K says

or the positions don't even exist anymore as many of them have been shipped over seas

sure, that's a problem, but that's orthogonal to the baby boom retiring en masse as they are starting to now. There were 4 MILLION boomers born every year during the boom years of 1952-1964.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

Goran_K says

but SSA checks bolstering the economy just seems like a huge stretch to me.

it's going to be a nice tailwind, that's all. Kinda like "helicopter money". The boomers have been allegedly saving for decades, and now they finally get to spend their money!

The more this spending is being funded from the top 5-10%, the better net stimulus it will be. Hell, we can probably even print some of it if we need to. . .

Bellingham Bill says

The more this spending is being funded from the top 5-10%, the better net stimulus it will be. Hell, we can probably even print some of it if we need to. . .

It's just not going to happen. Printing money to support a SS short fall with a little socialism thrown in for flavor? I honestly hope you're not being serious.

IDK about you all but I think we are not looking at a "crash" as much as a continued reditribution of wealth from those who work to those who own. That's what the QE's have been all about and the bailouts also. We were looking at a crash in 2007 but the governing monied class took a housing market problem and turned it into a national change of direction. I don't see how this ends well unless American workers - those "in the arena" to refer to Roosevelt - start taking the country back. I didn't watch the video because I really don't have time to sit through videos when I can read the article in a minute or two. But, some points from the discussion:
1. government lowered the flourine amounts in water last year so reproduction should increase
2. no reason to replace a retiree with someone at the same pay band. In my generation, 40-somethings, I commonly see people doing the same job as their predecessor for significantly less pay.
3. We could have a crash but what we will see is a change. E.g. my neighbors in our middle class $80K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market. Going and gone are the days of Sharper Image, Restoration Hardware, and Whole Foods. Maybe some people can afford them. Plus lots of sells/trades with neighbors including formal things ranging from neighborhood-wide yard sales to mother's club sales and such.
4. The retirees I personally know are NOT at all sitting on a cash pile. They are living on nearly the tightest budgets the ever have.

maxweber21 says

...$180K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market.

Spot the odd one out.

Bigsby says

maxweber21 says

...$180K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market.

Spot the odd one out.

Thanks!. Yep, was supposed to be $80K. typo. fixed. Thanks.

http://www.usa.com/28278-nc-income-and-careers.htm

maxweber21 says

Bigsby says

maxweber21 says

...$180K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market.

Spot the odd one out.

Thanks!. Yep, was supposed to be $80K. typo. fixed. Thanks.

http://www.usa.com/28278-nc-income-and-careers.htm

That wasn't actually what I was referring to.

Everything we think we know about the economy right now. Is only a symptom of bad economic policy from the FED. Change one, changes the other.

Bigsby says

maxweber21 says

Bigsby says

maxweber21 says

...$180K household income neighborhood regularly shop at GoodWill, DollarGeneral, Aldi, and the Farmer's Market.

Spot the odd one out.

Thanks!. Yep, was supposed to be $80K. typo. fixed. Thanks.

http://www.usa.com/28278-nc-income-and-careers.htm

That wasn't actually what I was referring to.

Oh. Not sure I know which one is odd. Which one? The Farmer's Market here is price competitive. By no means is it a clear price winner unless you are trying to buy grassfed beef or other healthy products. For those, it slaughters the price of WholeFoods or Earth Fare. Aldi has best prices for some boxed goods. Dollar General has best prices for some clothes (e.g. socks), some foods (DollarTree is even better), paper products (paper towels, toilet paper), etc. You can spend up to twice as much on your weekly food bill. (I know, if times were really tough then people would use rags instead of paper towels. Of course times are not tough for most Americans yet. They are trending that way though.)
$84K agerage HH income as of 2010: http://www.zipdatamaps.com/28278

Well, there's nothing bargain basement about the farmers' markets in the Monterey area.

maxweber21 says

The retirees I personally know are NOT at all sitting on a cash pile. They are living on nearly the tightest budgets the ever have.

This is true. 60% of boomers think they will have to work past the age of 70!!! Incredible, really.

Also, considering that the as far back as 1994, the Clinton/Greenspan combo staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives which effectively proved to be a great catalyst for the housing bubble, I'd say stupidity crosses party lines.

underwaterman says

've followed Schiff since 2009 and come to realize the guy is just an arrogant businessman. I called in 2010 into his business looking to put IRA money into gold. The person wouldn't talk to me unless I had 250k.

250K is often a standard minimum limit for hedge funds. Also 250K is really not that much considering it gets you a garage in the bay area and people have no problems bidding up their "dream home" into the millions because house prices can only go up.

mell says

if rates rise.

You mean "when rates rise". Momma only has so much free money in that purse. Even in today's shell game economics, there will be accountability. Wait for it...

bgamall4 says

Schiff brags about being in the 1 percent, yet his 1 percent cronies are ruining America.

It takes two to to tango. If you look at last election, almost 100% voted for either Obama or Romney which is basically a continuation of the cheap credit policies benefiting those who already have huge leverage. The lambs keep bringing themselves to the slaughterhouse.

bgamall4 says

House prices must decline to keep track with wages. Unless private equity wants to be in the landlord business for years and years

This is one of the things I am most interested in. How long will these major firms be willing to be "landlords" renting out shelter in low-end neighborhoods in the Sacramento burbs. I've already seen smaller firms exit the market, but maybe these major firms have more metal to keep going (aka cash).

bgamall4 says

Obama=lesser of two evils. Nothing more.

He still doesn't have a clue though. Obama is still operating under the misguided principal that home prices must rise (probably the same mentality that made him a bubble buyer in 2005).

So he may be the 'lesser' of two evils, but his underlying policy is still totally misguided, and completely wrong for fixing the housing market.

Ron Paul had the best strategy for fixing the economy in recent memory, and early polls showed that he had the best chance of beating Obama (conversely, Romney has always been shown to be a loser against Obama in any opinion poll).

It's a shame that Ron Paul was basically silenced by the media and swept aside. He was the only one who had a clue during the national debates.