patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,199,255 comments by 14,165 users - UkraineIsTotallyFucked online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 63 - 64 of 64 Search these comments
63
Patrick
2018 Jul 16, 5:39pm
Patrick
2018 Jul 16, 5:39pm
PeopleUnited says
Yes, our owners need obedient servants and so they lobby and twist the laws and the bailouts to make sure that houses remain too expensive for most.
But they are greatly helped by the self-interest of everyone who already bought. All those owners (mostly debtors) viciously oppose any effort to make houses cheap.
So it's a conspiracy of the public against itself in a way.
What bothers me is that the vast majority of people do not earn enough to pay for a home of their own. The average worker should be able to earn enough from his labor to literally own his own home (home loan paid off completely) after 15 years of work. That cannot be allowed by the elites because then there is less motivation to continue working for them. It is the corrupt banking system that makes us all slaves.
Yes, our owners need obedient servants and so they lobby and twist the laws and the bailouts to make sure that houses remain too expensive for most.
But they are greatly helped by the self-interest of everyone who already bought. All those owners (mostly debtors) viciously oppose any effort to make houses cheap.
So it's a conspiracy of the public against itself in a way.
64
Reality
2018 Jul 16, 8:05pm
US median home price mid-2017 was only around $200k. That translated to $800/mo on 30yr mortgage at then prevailing interest rate, about $1200/mo on 15-yr mortgage. That's well within the affordability of two adults making median income; in fact, within reach of one-income for adult male median.
The real question is, why do so many people want to live in where housing is expensive? The progressive income tax system makes it quite obvious that it doesn't pay to chase high income jobs in high living-cost locations unless one is willing to do long commute or rent cheaply.
My answer is: women's hypergamy. Young women want to move to high cost-of-living locations in order to find high-income men who can make it there. Men follow them there in order to get laid. If we look at the population ratio, the major expensive cities are severely imbalanced in gender ratio (far more women than men in NYC, for example), and imbalanced the other way in podunks. Turns out, this perceived inequality is nothing more than the continuation of human evolution via sexual selection. It's just like peacocks have to carry the high cost of a heavy tail in order to get laid, because peahens like to see the extravagant display of fitness (and of course, women likewise have to carry those back-breaking mellons catering to men's visual interest, not functional value).
Housing cost in high-demand area during high-demand time of course is high. Otherwise, we'd have to have run-away construction/bust cycles laying off enormous numbers of construction workers instead of price cycles (busting unwary speculators) in order to hold price steady.
The real question is, why do so many people want to live in where housing is expensive? The progressive income tax system makes it quite obvious that it doesn't pay to chase high income jobs in high living-cost locations unless one is willing to do long commute or rent cheaply.
My answer is: women's hypergamy. Young women want to move to high cost-of-living locations in order to find high-income men who can make it there. Men follow them there in order to get laid. If we look at the population ratio, the major expensive cities are severely imbalanced in gender ratio (far more women than men in NYC, for example), and imbalanced the other way in podunks. Turns out, this perceived inequality is nothing more than the continuation of human evolution via sexual selection. It's just like peacocks have to carry the high cost of a heavy tail in order to get laid, because peahens like to see the extravagant display of fitness (and of course, women likewise have to carry those back-breaking mellons catering to men's visual interest, not functional value).
Housing cost in high-demand area during high-demand time of course is high. Otherwise, we'd have to have run-away construction/bust cycles laying off enormous numbers of construction workers instead of price cycles (busting unwary speculators) in order to hold price steady.
« First « Previous Comments 63 - 64 of 64 Search these comments
Half the US population couldn't come up with $400 to face an emergency.
The incentive of capitalism are clear: workers are a cost to be eliminated. And companies have become extremely good at this game. Unfortunately, having customers is also a requirement for capitalism. And customers normally get their cash from wages. This means the system is not stable. It's gravitating more and more around the top 10% of the population. The goals that we are optimizing against are simply not good for society and humanity. The goal can't be a winner take all system. You need to invest in people.
So you see the hollowing of the economy, you see the shrinking opportunities and social mobility, the rise of economic frailties and poverty, the rise of debts to compensate the dearth of incomes. All these are not the results of social programs, or socialism. Instead they are the natural results of capitalism gone wild at a global level.
And it won't stop there:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/global-sales-of-industrial-robots-log-staggering-rise/
"New data confirms anecdotal reports of the blistering hot global automation industry."
"The biggest growth came from China, where sales rose 58 percent."
Ironically the only way capitalism could endure is precisely through more social programs, and a better safety net.
A heavy dose of socialism is the only way to entrench capitalism. Without that, capitalism as a whole is probably doomed.
Suck it up right wingers.